Not that much of a bounce for Lord Burnham of N. Staffs. NHS Trust. Listened to Burnham's speech. He seems to hate Birmingham as much as the Atlee Government did.
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
Trump may well decide that a bit of Greater America can be recovered and placed in the temporary ownership of the nasty Argies. It's a battle he can win. Luckily we have Bulldog Burnham now. Well little small dog that wets itself if a car backfires Burnham.
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
We have nuclear weapons too and a bigger armed forces and economy than Argentina in realpolitik terms.
If Russia still won't give in to international pressure after invading Ukraine we certainly must not give in to any anti British international pressure to give the Falklands to Argentina against the will of their residents
Wearily I will add the real reason Starmer's star fell. I do so as one of the very few people on here who voted for Labour.
He reneged on just about every principle known to Labour.
That's why.
The pathetic toadying lurch to the Right, pandering to the lunatics at the Daily Mail/Express/Telegraph/Brexit/Reform/Trump began the moment the polls closed on 04/07/24.
I doubt very much that @TSE will listen. Seldom does. It's not that he was wrong, only that he was c. 1/10th right.
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
We have nuclear weapons too and a bigger armed forces and economy than Argentina.
If Russia still won't give in to international pressure after invading Ukraine we certainly must not give in to any anti British international pressure to give the Falklands to Argentina against the will of their residents
I agree with you, but there are warning signs there.
We can box off and ignore Argentina under certain conditions, but not all conditions.
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
We have nuclear weapons too and a bigger armed forces and economy than Argentina.
If Russia still won't give in to international pressure after invading Ukraine we certainly must not give in to any anti British international pressure to give the Falklands to Argentina against the will of their residents
I believe the the Mr Clean-right class of submarines which we have can't launch their nukes other than from underwater, and they can't submerge at the moment. Partly because they're in dock, but mostly because the RN personnel are keen not to drown. (I may have made this up, the reality is probably worse)
Strange how the Tories seem to have got a slight boost in the polls from the prospect of Burnham becoming PM.
It's the prospect Farage going down the pan that helps the Tories, surely?
Some voters who voted Conservative from 2010 to 2019, then for Starmer in 2024 have now gone Tory it seems as they think Burnham is too leftwing.
Even as Burnham squeezes Reform and the LDs and holds down the Greens
This poll does confirm that Kemi is the only leader with a positive rating of +4
The next year in poltics will be the Andy v Kemi show and the question is will Kemi's popularity show in improved conservative ratings ?
I call her "Badenoch" because I'm not one of her fans or acolytes.
I think she will now face a much tougher political opponent and a more serious challenge than she has in recent times against Starmer. This will be her challenge - it will be interesting to see if she is up to it.
Not that much of a bounce for Lord Burnham of N. Staffs. NHS Trust. Listened to Burnham's speech. He seems to hate Birmingham as much as the Atlee Government did.
Burnham isn't PM yet and the poll was before he became Labour leader today
Not that much of a bounce for Lord Burnham of N. Staffs. NHS Trust. Listened to Burnham's speech. He seems to hate Birmingham as much as the Atlee Government did.
Burnham isn't PM yet and the poll was before he became Labour leader today
If you read survation they address that issue in their remarks
In other words Burnham was already seen as the next PM
Wearily I will add the real reason Starmer's star fell. I do so as one of the very few people on here who voted for Labour.
He reneged on just about every principle known to Labour.
That's why.
The pathetic toadying lurch to the Right, pandering to the lunatics at the Daily Mail/Express/Telegraph/Brexit/Reform/Trump began the moment the polls closed on 04/07/24.
I doubt very much that @TSE will listen. Seldom does. It's not that he was wrong, only that he was c. 1/10th right.
Ciao xxx
p.s. and it looks for all the world like Burnham might be heading down the same plughole. I hope I'm wrong.
And for those of you latching onto opinion polls today ... how long have you been in this business?
Wait AT LEAST a fortnight, probably a month, and preferably until after the school holidays and Conferences, and THEN and only THEN assess whether there's been any shift in the polling, and if so, by how much.
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
We have nuclear weapons too and a bigger armed forces and economy than Argentina.
If Russia still won't give in to international pressure after invading Ukraine we certainly must not give in to any anti British international pressure to give the Falklands to Argentina against the will of their residents
I believe the the Mr Clean-right class of submarines which we have can't launch their nukes other than from underwater, and they can't submerge at the moment. Partly because they're in dock, but mostly because the RN personnel are keen not to drown. (I may have made this up, the reality is probably worse)
The US Trident missiles can be launched from the surface. Since the missile are identical, as are the launch tube systems...
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
We have nuclear weapons too and a bigger armed forces and economy than Argentina.
If Russia still won't give in to international pressure after invading Ukraine we certainly must not give in to any anti British international pressure to give the Falklands to Argentina against the will of their residents
I agree with you, but there are warning signs there.
We can box off and ignore Argentina under certain conditions, but not all conditions.
No, we must ignore them in all conditions, no matter what the cost. Giving up the Falklands to Argentina would destroy any power we had abroad forever
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
Trump may well decide that a bit of Greater America can be recovered and placed in the temporary ownership of the nasty Argies. It's a battle he can win. Luckily we have Bulldog Burnham now. Well little small dog that wets itself if a car backfires Burnham.
Nothing I've seen gives me any confidence Burnham has any secret sauce for solving our very difficult and deep-seated problems.
We are a supremely entitled society that isn't ready to face up to the world as it is now rather than as we think it should be and, worse, in the face of that, we double-down and opt to spend even more money on cash benefits instead rather than face up to the very real and difficult choices that confront us today.
If Burnham manages to shift that, then I'll be impressed. I've seen nothing to suggest it yet.
Strange how the Tories seem to have got a slight boost in the polls from the prospect of Burnham becoming PM.
It's the prospect Farage going down the pan that helps the Tories, surely?
Some voters who voted Conservative from 2010 to 2019, then for Starmer in 2024 have now gone Tory it seems as they think Burnham is too leftwing.
Even as Burnham squeezes Reform and the LDs and holds down the Greens
This poll does confirm that Kemi is the only leader with a positive rating of +4
The next year in poltics will be the Andy v Kemi show and the question is will Kemi's popularity show in improved conservative ratings ?
I call her "Badenoch" because I'm not one of her fans or acolytes.
I think she will now face a much tougher political opponent and a more serious challenge than she has in recent times against Starmer. This will be her challenge - it will be interesting to see if she is up to it.
Alternatively Kemi can make more of a pitch for centrist swing voters as Burnham is left of Starmer and such voters who stayed voting Labour under SKS dislike Farage and Polanski too
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
We have nuclear weapons too and a bigger armed forces and economy than Argentina.
If Russia still won't give in to international pressure after invading Ukraine we certainly must not give in to any anti British international pressure to give the Falklands to Argentina against the will of their residents
I believe the the Mr Clean-right class of submarines which we have can't launch their nukes other than from underwater, and they can't submerge at the moment. Partly because they're in dock, but mostly because the RN personnel are keen not to drown. (I may have made this up, the reality is probably worse)
The US Trident missiles can be launched from the surface. Since the missile are identical, as are the launch tube systems...
I feel safer already. (I did say I'd made up the facts)
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
We have nuclear weapons too and a bigger armed forces and economy than Argentina.
If Russia still won't give in to international pressure after invading Ukraine we certainly must not give in to any anti British international pressure to give the Falklands to Argentina against the will of their residents
I agree with you, but there are warning signs there.
We can box off and ignore Argentina under certain conditions, but not all conditions.
No, we must ignore them in all conditions, no matter what the cost. Giving up the Falklands to Argentina would destroy any power we had abroad forever
I'm not arguing for that, nor saying we shouldn't hold the line absolutely, and well you know it.
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
We have nuclear weapons too and a bigger armed forces and economy than Argentina.
If Russia still won't give in to international pressure after invading Ukraine we certainly must not give in to any anti British international pressure to give the Falklands to Argentina against the will of their residents
I believe the the Mr Clean-right class of submarines which we have can't launch their nukes other than from underwater, and they can't submerge at the moment. Partly because they're in dock, but mostly because the RN personnel are keen not to drown. (I may have made this up, the reality is probably worse)
No, we have a nuclear Trident submarine at all times and we can self launch them
Strange how the Tories seem to have got a slight boost in the polls from the prospect of Burnham becoming PM.
It's the prospect Farage going down the pan that helps the Tories, surely?
Some voters who voted Conservative from 2010 to 2019, then for Starmer in 2024 have now gone Tory it seems as they think Burnham is too leftwing.
Even as Burnham squeezes Reform and the LDs and holds down the Greens
This poll does confirm that Kemi is the only leader with a positive rating of +4
The next year in poltics will be the Andy v Kemi show and the question is will Kemi's popularity show in improved conservative ratings ?
I call her "Badenoch" because I'm not one of her fans or acolytes.
I think she will now face a much tougher political opponent and a more serious challenge than she has in recent times against Starmer. This will be her challenge - it will be interesting to see if she is up to it.
Indeed but it is clear she is being recognised and has plus approval ratings
I do think the next year will see a return to more tradional party politics as Farage fades
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
We have nuclear weapons too and a bigger armed forces and economy than Argentina.
If Russia still won't give in to international pressure after invading Ukraine we certainly must not give in to any anti British international pressure to give the Falklands to Argentina against the will of their residents
I believe the the Mr Clean-right class of submarines which we have can't launch their nukes other than from underwater, and they can't submerge at the moment. Partly because they're in dock, but mostly because the RN personnel are keen not to drown. (I may have made this up, the reality is probably worse)
We could get an SSN down there relatively easily, but the problem is the number we usually have at sea (between nil and two) at any given time, and the 8000 miles distance.
If Argentina took an enormous gamble and managed to take out the runway, they could get forces there a lot more quickly than we could.
As Dura has pointed out, it would be a lot easier with Trump's tacit approval (though that's also a bit implausible).
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
Trump may well decide that a bit of Greater America can be recovered and placed in the temporary ownership of the nasty Argies. It's a battle he can win. Luckily we have Bulldog Burnham now. Well little small dog that wets itself if a car backfires Burnham.
Nothing I've seen gives me any confidence Burnham has any secret sauce for solving our very difficult and deep-seated problems.
We are a supremely entitled society that isn't ready to face up to the world as it is now rather than as we think it should be and, worse, in the face of that, we double-down and opt to spend even more money on cash benefits instead rather than face up to the very real and difficult choices that confront us today.
If Burnham manages to shift that, then I'll be impressed. I've seen nothing to suggest it yet.
He won't, if anything his speech today means he will double down on it. He called Kinnock his hero, made clear he won't cut welfare, basically said neoliberalism and Thatcherism were evil and the solution was even more tax and spend and public ownership of industry and more council homes (though he may have a point on the last one)
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
Trump may well decide that a bit of Greater America can be recovered and placed in the temporary ownership of the nasty Argies. It's a battle he can win. Luckily we have Bulldog Burnham now. Well little small dog that wets itself if a car backfires Burnham.
Nothing I've seen gives me any confidence Burnham has any secret sauce for solving our very difficult and deep-seated problems.
We are a supremely entitled society that isn't ready to face up to the world as it is now rather than as we think it should be and, worse, in the face of that, we double-down and opt to spend even more money on cash benefits instead rather than face up to the very real and difficult choices that confront us today.
If Burnham manages to shift that, then I'll be impressed. I've seen nothing to suggest it yet.
Burnham has the momentum that will be required to actually fix things. He may even do some good along the way. He's a plank though.
'US President Donald Trump has delivered a primetime address in which he accused China of interfering in the 2020 election and alleged "shocking vulnerabilities" in American voting systems.
Trump, who spoke from the White House on Thursday, has repeatedly made unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud and foreign meddling in the 2020 election which he lost to Joe Biden.
In the half-hour speech, delivered three months before the midterm elections, he said he had declassified hundreds of intelligence files which supported his claims that Beijing had tried to sway the election in Biden's favour.
The US intelligence community has previously concluded China did not interfere in the 2020 election.'
Despite the endless lies, the Iran debacle, the insulting of former allies, the threats to Greenland and Canada, sucking up to Putin, the tariffs fiasco and the industrial scale corruption and grifting ........ 40% of Americans approve of the job he is doing!
That tells you everything you need to know about the state America is in and why we can never ever trust the USA again.
By all means cooperate with a sane successor but insulate ourselves from the US as best we can because as sure as night follows day the US will elect another lunatic within the next decade. Trump is just a symptom of what the USA has become.
tbf we have people on here asserting that taking a few items of clothing or concert tickets and declaring them is much worse than taking 5 million pounds from an overseas billionaire and unsuccessfully trying to conceal it.
The difference is that we all know Farage is a grifter, and he’s under investigation for such.
Starmer, Rayner et al spent the last five years attacking Conservatives constantly over such grift, only to enthusiastically embrace the gifts and trips the minute they got to power themselves. It’s the hypocracy that was the problem, they sold themselves as whiter-than-white, but turned out to be no better than the rest of them.
Mrs Starmer's lingerie were unwise gifts from a political ally and Angela Rayner's run in with HMRC was worthy of a resignation but trying to equate it to (off the top of my head) the PPE scandal, Nahawi's tax issues whilst CoE ( is far more serious than Rayner) Farage's 5 million and (£13m for the party) is disingenuous.
Perhaps Mrs Starmer's clothes and Starmer's glasses could be compared to Johnson's Lulu Lytle wallpaper and Carole Bamford's Daylesford food parcels to Johnson. None of which worried you all too much.
The thing is it’s all rotten and shit. Farage’s situation is very bad as it raises questions about his suitability to office and how his decision making can be swayed by money.
Boris’s wallpaper issue was dumb as it showed such disconnect from sense and reading the room and a desire (possibly not necessarily in this case) for the finest things in life at others’ expense.
The PPP situation was some grifters (and some who genuinely were in a position to help) benefiting from an emergency and unprecedented situation - if we are being honest I don’t think any party in charge could have dealt with the situation much better and there would have been connected chancers taking advantage.
Nahawi was stupid and arrogant showing probably a belief that he was above needing to follow laws and rules for the sake of a bit more money when already well off.
Rayner was stupid as she tried to minimise her liabilities and then tried to throw blameless third parties under a bus. The fact that she was a minister, for housing no less, should, if she had a brain, have led her to measure twice and cut once on a property and tax matter.
Starmer and the gifts was, in my opinion as bad as the above regardless of the value of the gifts. It was cheap, it looked unnecessarily vain for a man earning well over his career to accept glasses, clothes etc from anyone. It was during a period where a lot of the population are struggling financially and yet a multi millionaire is giving a wealthy man free designer items. If someone is happy to take those gifts them it raises the spectre of what else they could be offered and accept.
So it shouldn’t matter which party you support, all of the above were bad and stupid behaviour and all “as bad” in different ways as they undermine public trust in politicians and build on existing cynicism.
I suspect you are guilty here of the partisanship you are accusing me of.
There is no way on God's Earth that Starmer taking election gifts to the value of a thousand or so pounds from a personal friend and colleague comes anywhere close to equating to friends and family of ministers seeing an opportunity to make million pound grifts on the back of a pandemic .
Was Starmer accepting gifts from Ali after having laughed at Johnson's wallpaper a good idea? No, particularly as it allowed the media and social media to create an equivalence with alleged industrial scale fraud.
Wearily I will add the real reason Starmer's star fell. I do so as one of the very few people on here who voted for Labour.
He reneged on just about every principle known to Labour.
That's why.
The pathetic toadying lurch to the Right, pandering to the lunatics at the Daily Mail/Express/Telegraph/Brexit/Reform/Trump began the moment the polls closed on 04/07/24.
I doubt very much that @TSE will listen. Seldom does. It's not that he was wrong, only that he was c. 1/10th right.
Ciao xxx
p.s. and it looks for all the world like Burnham might be heading down the same plughole. I hope I'm wrong.
And for those of you latching onto opinion polls today ... how long have you been in this business?
Wait AT LEAST a fortnight, probably a month, and preferably until after the school holidays and Conferences, and THEN and only THEN assess whether there's been any shift in the polling, and if so, by how much.
Come on. You know this really I'm sure.
I would suggest polling before the end of the conference season in October may well be unreliable
Gives Labour most seats again. Burnham would be able to form a minority government on that Survation poll as Labour and LDs are just ahead of Conservatives and Reform on seats even though Conservatives and Reform are 10% ahead of Labour and LDs on votes
Labour 230 Reform 177 Conservatives 114 LDs 66 SNP 30 Greens 10
Looks a bit like an outlier, but could be a poll to cut out and keep. It's the first poll not to have a Reform majority for ages, with only four exceptions: 3 Lord Ashcroft polls, all ties, and one from Trajectory partnership (who?) which looked weird at the time. The last time apart from those is from May 2025. There have been 2 point and 1 point leads recently, so this has been on the way.
In a sense the most interesting next question is this: Will Labour MPs get the message that they are in their last chance to look competent and sane and fairly united; Will Tories get the message that Reform are already on the way out, so they can stop the futile exercise of chasing their votes and looking like Reformlite?
Gives Labour most seats again. Burnham would be able to form a minority government on that Survation poll as Labour and LDs are just ahead of Conservatives and Reform on seats even though Conservatives and Reform are 10% ahead of Labour and LDs on votes
Labour 230 Reform 177 Conservatives 114 LDs 66 SNP 30 Greens 10
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
Trump may well decide that a bit of Greater America can be recovered and placed in the temporary ownership of the nasty Argies. It's a battle he can win. Luckily we have Bulldog Burnham now. Well little small dog that wets itself if a car backfires Burnham.
Nothing I've seen gives me any confidence Burnham has any secret sauce for solving our very difficult and deep-seated problems.
We are a supremely entitled society that isn't ready to face up to the world as it is now rather than as we think it should be and, worse, in the face of that, we double-down and opt to spend even more money on cash benefits instead rather than face up to the very real and difficult choices that confront us today.
If Burnham manages to shift that, then I'll be impressed. I've seen nothing to suggest it yet.
He won't, if anything his speech today means he will double down on it. He called Kinnock his hero, made clear he won't cut welfare, basically said neoliberalism and Thatcherism were evil and the solution was even more tax and spend and public ownership of industry and more council homes (though he may have a point on the last one)
The problem is Badenoch has no answers either at this time.
She witters on about stamp duty and makes vague comments about cutting welfare but she's as committed to the Triple Lock as the rest of them and she 's not specific on what cuts she would make to welfare and whose benefits would be reduced or removed.
To her credit, her City policy has drawn some favourable comment but to be fair, saying the City likes the Conservatives is akin to admitting bears perform toiletary functions in wooded areas.
Strange how the Tories seem to have got a slight boost in the polls from the prospect of Burnham becoming PM.
It's the prospect Farage going down the pan that helps the Tories, surely?
Some voters who voted Conservative from 2010 to 2019, then for Starmer in 2024 have now gone Tory it seems as they think Burnham is too leftwing.
Even as Burnham squeezes Reform and the LDs and holds down the Greens
This poll does confirm that Kemi is the only leader with a positive rating of +4
The next year in poltics will be the Andy v Kemi show and the question is will Kemi's popularity show in improved conservative ratings ?
I call her "Badenoch" because I'm not one of her fans or acolytes.
I think she will now face a much tougher political opponent and a more serious challenge than she has in recent times against Starmer. This will be her challenge - it will be interesting to see if she is up to it.
Alternatively Kemi can make more of a pitch for centrist swing voters as Burnham is left of Starmer and such voters who stayed voting Labour under SKS dislike Farage and Polanski too
To pitch for centrist swing voters she needs to remember to be centrist.
As for Burnham, Allister Heath and Allison Pearson are already limbering up with some unhinged headlines. At least that will be fun.
Anyway the Open is on, and of course we have the nervous wait to find out if we are third or fourth !!!!! and even more nervous wait to acclaim Spain as World Champions and then to see Starmer resign at the Palace and the KON crowned on Monday
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
We have nuclear weapons too and a bigger armed forces and economy than Argentina.
If Russia still won't give in to international pressure after invading Ukraine we certainly must not give in to any anti British international pressure to give the Falklands to Argentina against the will of their residents
I believe the the Mr Clean-right class of submarines which we have can't launch their nukes other than from underwater, and they can't submerge at the moment. Partly because they're in dock, but mostly because the RN personnel are keen not to drown. (I may have made this up, the reality is probably worse)
We could get an SSN down there relatively easily, but the problem is the number we usually have at sea (between nil and two) at any given time, and the 8000 miles distance.
If Argentina took an enormous gamble and managed to take out the runway, they could get forces there a lot more quickly than we could.
As Dura has pointed out, it would be a lot easier with Trump's tacit approval (though that's also a bit implausible).
Trident isn't a realistic deterrent in this case.
Trump doesn't really do tacit. Maybe he could talked into it by Milei the way he was talked into Operation Persian Uncertainty by Netanyahu. It's ironic that the MAGA Nation thought they were voting for splendid isolationism but instead they got a big sandy Zionist cock dictating their foreign policy.
Falklands 2 is one of those things people really don't want to happen so they start with the assumption that it can't and derive the analysis backwards from that.
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
We have nuclear weapons too and a bigger armed forces and economy than Argentina.
If Russia still won't give in to international pressure after invading Ukraine we certainly must not give in to any anti British international pressure to give the Falklands to Argentina against the will of their residents
I believe the the Mr Clean-right class of submarines which we have can't launch their nukes other than from underwater, and they can't submerge at the moment. Partly because they're in dock, but mostly because the RN personnel are keen not to drown. (I may have made this up, the reality is probably worse)
We could get an SSN down there relatively easily, but the problem is the number we usually have at sea (between nil and two) at any given time, and the 8000 miles distance.
If Argentina took an enormous gamble and managed to take out the runway, they could get forces there a lot more quickly than we could.
As Dura has pointed out, it would be a lot easier with Trump's tacit approval (though that's also a bit implausible).
Trident isn't a realistic deterrent in this case.
Trump doesn't really do tacit. Maybe he could talked into it by Milei the way he was talked into Operation Persian Uncertainty by Netanyahu. It's ironic that the MAGA Nation thought they were voting for splendid isolationism but instead they got a big sandy Zionist cock dictating their foreign policy.
Falklands 2 is one of those things people really don't want to happen so they start with the assumption that it can't and derive the analysis backwards from that.
Do you share my thoughts that its exactly the sort of thing that Trump might wade into?
Wearily I will add the real reason Starmer's star fell. I do so as one of the very few people on here who voted for Labour.
He reneged on just about every principle known to Labour.
That's why.
The pathetic toadying lurch to the Right, pandering to the lunatics at the Daily Mail/Express/Telegraph/Brexit/Reform/Trump began the moment the polls closed on 04/07/24.
I doubt very much that @TSE will listen. Seldom does. It's not that he was wrong, only that he was c. 1/10th right.
Ciao xxx
p.s. and it looks for all the world like Burnham might be heading down the same plughole. I hope I'm wrong.
And for those of you latching onto opinion polls today ... how long have you been in this business?
Wait AT LEAST a fortnight, probably a month, and preferably until after the school holidays and Conferences, and THEN and only THEN assess whether there's been any shift in the polling, and if so, by how much.
Come on. You know this really I'm sure.
I would suggest polling before the end of the conference season in October may well be unreliable
Origin Story have a special on Starmer's fall - a view from the left like Heathener's. I think they're possibly a bit too generous to Starmer on some points and ignore the exploitation of racial tensions in the summer of '24 They could also benefit from the insight of the late PB leading authority @Leon on how Starmer was made a hate figure
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
Trump may well decide that a bit of Greater America can be recovered and placed in the temporary ownership of the nasty Argies. It's a battle he can win. Luckily we have Bulldog Burnham now. Well little small dog that wets itself if a car backfires Burnham.
Nothing I've seen gives me any confidence Burnham has any secret sauce for solving our very difficult and deep-seated problems.
We are a supremely entitled society that isn't ready to face up to the world as it is now rather than as we think it should be and, worse, in the face of that, we double-down and opt to spend even more money on cash benefits instead rather than face up to the very real and difficult choices that confront us today.
If Burnham manages to shift that, then I'll be impressed. I've seen nothing to suggest it yet.
I agree that we don't know how he will govern; and so far his job has been to get in the Labour nominations, avoid a contest and climb the greasy pole. Job done.
However he has done two things which are indicative: He has said that he sticks to the pre existing fiscal discipline and its rules, relying no doubt on MPs and members having no idea what this means for our socialist nirvana.
And he has said that MPs can use the House of Commons as a kindergarten for their creative play and individuality without the fear of the gulag. But he has also said that 'the direction of government (ie my) policy is non-negotiable', and that he has a plan. He is binding them in before telling them what it is. They can go their own way on tea-cosy design, but on everything else they vote with Burnham.
Gives Labour most seats again. Burnham would be able to form a minority government on that Survation poll as Labour and LDs are just ahead of Conservatives and Reform on seats even though Conservatives and Reform are 10% ahead of Labour and LDs on votes
Labour 230 Reform 177 Conservatives 114 LDs 66 SNP 30 Greens 10
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
Trump may well decide that a bit of Greater America can be recovered and placed in the temporary ownership of the nasty Argies. It's a battle he can win. Luckily we have Bulldog Burnham now. Well little small dog that wets itself if a car backfires Burnham.
Nothing I've seen gives me any confidence Burnham has any secret sauce for solving our very difficult and deep-seated problems.
We are a supremely entitled society that isn't ready to face up to the world as it is now rather than as we think it should be and, worse, in the face of that, we double-down and opt to spend even more money on cash benefits instead rather than face up to the very real and difficult choices that confront us today.
If Burnham manages to shift that, then I'll be impressed. I've seen nothing to suggest it yet.
He won't, if anything his speech today means he will double down on it. He called Kinnock his hero, made clear he won't cut welfare, basically said neoliberalism and Thatcherism were evil and the solution was even more tax and spend and public ownership of industry and more council homes (though he may have a point on the last one)
The problem is Badenoch has no answers either at this time.
She witters on about stamp duty and makes vague comments about cutting welfare but she's as committed to the Triple Lock as the rest of them and she 's not specific on what cuts she would make to welfare and whose benefits would be reduced or removed.
To her credit, her City policy has drawn some favourable comment but to be fair, saying the City likes the Conservatives is akin to admitting bears perform toiletary functions in wooded areas.
Strange how the Tories seem to have got a slight boost in the polls from the prospect of Burnham becoming PM.
It's the prospect Farage going down the pan that helps the Tories, surely?
Some voters who voted Conservative from 2010 to 2019, then for Starmer in 2024 have now gone Tory it seems as they think Burnham is too leftwing.
Even as Burnham squeezes Reform and the LDs and holds down the Greens
This poll does confirm that Kemi is the only leader with a positive rating of +4
The next year in poltics will be the Andy v Kemi show and the question is will Kemi's popularity show in improved conservative ratings ?
Yes that is the question. Good question. It will be interesting to see what happens next. But we have say, even with Nigel Farage weighed down by filthy rubles and disappearing around the u bend of popular support, a Conservative bounce is lagging. Kemi is struggling to relate to voters and gain their trust the sub headings and details of leadership polling is telling us.
So how would the Conservatives be polling right now, without Badenoch’s abrasive, divisive style, and her outlandish policies getting in the way? Quite a bit more competitive IMO.
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
We have nuclear weapons too and a bigger armed forces and economy than Argentina.
If Russia still won't give in to international pressure after invading Ukraine we certainly must not give in to any anti British international pressure to give the Falklands to Argentina against the will of their residents
I believe the the Mr Clean-right class of submarines which we have can't launch their nukes other than from underwater, and they can't submerge at the moment. Partly because they're in dock, but mostly because the RN personnel are keen not to drown. (I may have made this up, the reality is probably worse)
We could get an SSN down there relatively easily, but the problem is the number we usually have at sea (between nil and two) at any given time, and the 8000 miles distance.
If Argentina took an enormous gamble and managed to take out the runway, they could get forces there a lot more quickly than we could.
As Dura has pointed out, it would be a lot easier with Trump's tacit approval (though that's also a bit implausible).
Trident isn't a realistic deterrent in this case.
Trump doesn't really do tacit. Maybe he could talked into it by Milei the way he was talked into Operation Persian Uncertainty by Netanyahu. It's ironic that the MAGA Nation thought they were voting for splendid isolationism but instead they got a big sandy Zionist cock dictating their foreign policy.
Falklands 2 is one of those things people really don't want to happen so they start with the assumption that it can't and derive the analysis backwards from that.
Do you share my thoughts that its exactly the sort of thing that Trump might wade into?
Yes. The moment of peak jeopardy for the Bennies will come if some c-nt tells Trump there's oil in the FI.
If the US help with intelligence and logistics then it's feasible for Argentina.
Strange how the Tories seem to have got a slight boost in the polls from the prospect of Burnham becoming PM.
It's the prospect Farage going down the pan that helps the Tories, surely?
Some voters who voted Conservative from 2010 to 2019, then for Starmer in 2024 have now gone Tory it seems as they think Burnham is too leftwing.
Even as Burnham squeezes Reform and the LDs and holds down the Greens
This poll does confirm that Kemi is the only leader with a positive rating of +4
The next year in poltics will be the Andy v Kemi show and the question is will Kemi's popularity show in improved conservative ratings ?
I call her "Badenoch" because I'm not one of her fans or acolytes.
I think she will now face a much tougher political opponent and a more serious challenge than she has in recent times against Starmer. This will be her challenge - it will be interesting to see if she is up to it.
Alternatively Kemi can make more of a pitch for centrist swing voters as Burnham is left of Starmer and such voters who stayed voting Labour under SKS dislike Farage and Polanski too
To pitch for centrist swing voters she needs to remember to be centrist.
As for Burnham, Allister Heath and Allison Pearson are already limbering up with some unhinged headlines. At least that will be fun.
If Labour move left under Burnham then she doesn't so much as none of the main party leaders would be centrist.
Swing voters who voted Conservative from 2010 to 2019 but switched to Starmer in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing should be key Tory target voters
Wearily I will add the real reason Starmer's star fell. I do so as one of the very few people on here who voted for Labour.
He reneged on just about every principle known to Labour.
That's why.
The pathetic toadying lurch to the Right, pandering to the lunatics at the Daily Mail/Express/Telegraph/Brexit/Reform/Trump began the moment the polls closed on 04/07/24.
I doubt very much that @TSE will listen. Seldom does. It's not that he was wrong, only that he was c. 1/10th right.
Ciao xxx
p.s. and it looks for all the world like Burnham might be heading down the same plughole. I hope I'm wrong.
And for those of you latching onto opinion polls today ... how long have you been in this business?
Wait AT LEAST a fortnight, probably a month, and preferably until after the school holidays and Conferences, and THEN and only THEN assess whether there's been any shift in the polling, and if so, by how much.
Come on. You know this really I'm sure.
I would suggest polling before the end of the conference season in October may well be unreliable
Origin Story have a special on Starmer's fall - a view from the left like Heathener's. I think they're possibly a bit too generous to Starmer on some points and ignore the exploitation of racial tensions in the summer of '24 They could also benefit from the insight of the late PB leading authority @Leon on how Starmer was made a hate figure
Note: it's a revisit to Starmer as Origin Story did a making of Starmer in '24. In the recent one they claim that they identified bad blood between Starmer and Burnham in the earlier episode.
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
Trump may well decide that a bit of Greater America can be recovered and placed in the temporary ownership of the nasty Argies. It's a battle he can win. Luckily we have Bulldog Burnham now. Well little small dog that wets itself if a car backfires Burnham.
Nothing I've seen gives me any confidence Burnham has any secret sauce for solving our very difficult and deep-seated problems.
We are a supremely entitled society that isn't ready to face up to the world as it is now rather than as we think it should be and, worse, in the face of that, we double-down and opt to spend even more money on cash benefits instead rather than face up to the very real and difficult choices that confront us today.
If Burnham manages to shift that, then I'll be impressed. I've seen nothing to suggest it yet.
I agree that we don't know how he will govern; and so far his job has been to get in the Labour nominations, avoid a contest and climb the greasy pole. Job done.
However he has done two things which are indicative: He has said that he sticks to the pre existing fiscal discipline and its rules, relying no doubt on MPs and members having no idea what this means for our socialist nirvana.
And he has said that MPs can use the House of Commons as a kindergarten for their creative play and individuality without the fear of the gulag. But he has also said that 'the direction of government (ie my) policy is non-negotiable', and that he has a plan. He is binding them in before telling them what it is. They can go their own way on tea-cosy design, but on everything else they vote with Burnham.
So Burnsiahism is Authoritarian Anarchist Centralising Decentralisation?
Strange how the Tories seem to have got a slight boost in the polls from the prospect of Burnham becoming PM.
It's the prospect Farage going down the pan that helps the Tories, surely?
Some voters who voted Conservative from 2010 to 2019, then for Starmer in 2024 have now gone Tory it seems as they think Burnham is too leftwing.
Even as Burnham squeezes Reform and the LDs and holds down the Greens
This poll does confirm that Kemi is the only leader with a positive rating of +4
The next year in poltics will be the Andy v Kemi show and the question is will Kemi's popularity show in improved conservative ratings ?
I call her "Badenoch" because I'm not one of her fans or acolytes.
I think she will now face a much tougher political opponent and a more serious challenge than she has in recent times against Starmer. This will be her challenge - it will be interesting to see if she is up to it.
Alternatively Kemi can make more of a pitch for centrist swing voters as Burnham is left of Starmer and such voters who stayed voting Labour under SKS dislike Farage and Polanski too
To pitch for centrist swing voters she needs to remember to be centrist.
As for Burnham, Allister Heath and Allison Pearson are already limbering up with some unhinged headlines. At least that will be fun.
If Labour move left under Burnham then she doesn't so much as none of the main party leaders would be centrist.
Swing voters who voted Conservative from 2010 to 2019 but switched to Starmer in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing should be key Tory target voters
The rhetoric of hope will shift leftwards, but the actuality will be fiscally cautious centrism aided by luck and a reputation for being a winner. Burnham is such a winner that the Manchester mayor election is already being discounted as a Labour certainty. It is aty least possible that Labour MPs who want to keep their seats will see they have one chance only of doing so, and that is to support the winner through thick and thin.
It won't be dull. But for a boring precedent, just recall the manifesto on which Starmer got the leadership - straight socialism - and compare with the reality.
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
We have nuclear weapons too and a bigger armed forces and economy than Argentina.
If Russia still won't give in to international pressure after invading Ukraine we certainly must not give in to any anti British international pressure to give the Falklands to Argentina against the will of their residents
I believe the the Mr Clean-right class of submarines which we have can't launch their nukes other than from underwater, and they can't submerge at the moment. Partly because they're in dock, but mostly because the RN personnel are keen not to drown. (I may have made this up, the reality is probably worse)
We could get an SSN down there relatively easily, but the problem is the number we usually have at sea (between nil and two) at any given time, and the 8000 miles distance.
If Argentina took an enormous gamble and managed to take out the runway, they could get forces there a lot more quickly than we could.
As Dura has pointed out, it would be a lot easier with Trump's tacit approval (though that's also a bit implausible).
Trident isn't a realistic deterrent in this case.
Trump doesn't really do tacit. Maybe he could talked into it by Milei the way he was talked into Operation Persian Uncertainty by Netanyahu. It's ironic that the MAGA Nation thought they were voting for splendid isolationism but instead they got a big sandy Zionist cock dictating their foreign policy.
Falklands 2 is one of those things people really don't want to happen so they start with the assumption that it can't and derive the analysis backwards from that.
Yes, he couldn't keep it to himself for long.
If I were SecDef, I'd publicly announce the establishment of a base for sea drone trials down there. Relatively cheap, and if we actually did it, a pretty decent deterrent. That would kill any mad invasion plans, I think
The airfield is quite well defended with Sky Sabre.
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
We have nuclear weapons too and a bigger armed forces and economy than Argentina.
If Russia still won't give in to international pressure after invading Ukraine we certainly must not give in to any anti British international pressure to give the Falklands to Argentina against the will of their residents
I believe the the Mr Clean-right class of submarines which we have can't launch their nukes other than from underwater, and they can't submerge at the moment. Partly because they're in dock, but mostly because the RN personnel are keen not to drown. (I may have made this up, the reality is probably worse)
We could get an SSN down there relatively easily, but the problem is the number we usually have at sea (between nil and two) at any given time, and the 8000 miles distance.
If Argentina took an enormous gamble and managed to take out the runway, they could get forces there a lot more quickly than we could.
As Dura has pointed out, it would be a lot easier with Trump's tacit approval (though that's also a bit implausible).
Trident isn't a realistic deterrent in this case.
Trump doesn't really do tacit. Maybe he could talked into it by Milei the way he was talked into Operation Persian Uncertainty by Netanyahu. It's ironic that the MAGA Nation thought they were voting for splendid isolationism but instead they got a big sandy Zionist cock dictating their foreign policy.
Falklands 2 is one of those things people really don't want to happen so they start with the assumption that it can't and derive the analysis backwards from that.
Do you share my thoughts that its exactly the sort of thing that Trump might wade into?
Yes. The moment of peak jeopardy for the Bennies will come if some c-nt tells Trump there's oil in the FI.
If the US help with intelligence and logistics then it's feasible for Argentina.
Trump would not be quietly supporting Argentina - he would have the US flag front and center because he would be after his own personal 10%
Deindustrialisation was a key policy of the early Thatcher Government. I believe they would have accepted that, and to be fair for 35 years importing low labour costs from China worked like a dream. It kept prices and inflation low.
Feels very old Labour. Is he going to re-open the coal mines?
No acknowledgement that the world has moved on a lot since the 1980s and other western countries have deindustrialised too. How is he going to get jobs back from China (do people even want to do those jobs?)
The devolution thing is quite interesting, although if they are going to do this everywhere then that may mean giving a lot more powers to Reform councils.
We’ll see how long the “for all of us” line can last, when he starts facing tough choices.
Industrialisation left the building a few years after Elvis. And like Elvis it is not coming back again. It may be a populist model reminiscent of Trump, but even Trump hasn't achieved anything like the reindustrislisation he says he has.
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
Trump may well decide that a bit of Greater America can be recovered and placed in the temporary ownership of the nasty Argies. It's a battle he can win. Luckily we have Bulldog Burnham now. Well little small dog that wets itself if a car backfires Burnham.
Nothing I've seen gives me any confidence Burnham has any secret sauce for solving our very difficult and deep-seated problems.
We are a supremely entitled society that isn't ready to face up to the world as it is now rather than as we think it should be and, worse, in the face of that, we double-down and opt to spend even more money on cash benefits instead rather than face up to the very real and difficult choices that confront us today.
If Burnham manages to shift that, then I'll be impressed. I've seen nothing to suggest it yet.
I agree that we don't know how he will govern; and so far his job has been to get in the Labour nominations, avoid a contest and climb the greasy pole. Job done.
However he has done two things which are indicative: He has said that he sticks to the pre existing fiscal discipline and its rules, relying no doubt on MPs and members having no idea what this means for our socialist nirvana.
And he has said that MPs can use the House of Commons as a kindergarten for their creative play and individuality without the fear of the gulag. But he has also said that 'the direction of government (ie my) policy is non-negotiable', and that he has a plan. He is binding them in before telling them what it is. They can go their own way on tea-cosy design, but on everything else they vote with Burnham.
So Burnsiahism is Authoritarian Anarchist Centralising Decentralisation?
In a word, yes. Plus fiscally tight promising of future spending at an unspecified point. We shall find out soon. At the moment I can't find anything he has said -not a single thing - which for certain costs real serious money before the next election.
There are serious limits on what socialist populism can do when you start out already having run out of other people's money
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
We have nuclear weapons too and a bigger armed forces and economy than Argentina.
If Russia still won't give in to international pressure after invading Ukraine we certainly must not give in to any anti British international pressure to give the Falklands to Argentina against the will of their residents
I believe the the Mr Clean-right class of submarines which we have can't launch their nukes other than from underwater, and they can't submerge at the moment. Partly because they're in dock, but mostly because the RN personnel are keen not to drown. (I may have made this up, the reality is probably worse)
We could get an SSN down there relatively easily, but the problem is the number we usually have at sea (between nil and two) at any given time, and the 8000 miles distance.
If Argentina took an enormous gamble and managed to take out the runway, they could get forces there a lot more quickly than we could.
As Dura has pointed out, it would be a lot easier with Trump's tacit approval (though that's also a bit implausible).
Trident isn't a realistic deterrent in this case.
Trump doesn't really do tacit. Maybe he could talked into it by Milei the way he was talked into Operation Persian Uncertainty by Netanyahu. It's ironic that the MAGA Nation thought they were voting for splendid isolationism but instead they got a big sandy Zionist cock dictating their foreign policy.
Falklands 2 is one of those things people really don't want to happen so they start with the assumption that it can't and derive the analysis backwards from that.
Do you share my thoughts that its exactly the sort of thing that Trump might wade into?
Yes. The moment of peak jeopardy for the Bennies will come if some c-nt tells Trump there's oil in the FI.
If the US help with intelligence and logistics then it's feasible for Argentina.
Trump would not be quietly supporting Argentina - he would have the US flag front and center because he would be after his own personal 10%
He's quietly supporting Argentina. And its not even quiet.
Strange how the Tories seem to have got a slight boost in the polls from the prospect of Burnham becoming PM.
It's the prospect Farage going down the pan that helps the Tories, surely?
Some voters who voted Conservative from 2010 to 2019, then for Starmer in 2024 have now gone Tory it seems as they think Burnham is too leftwing.
Even as Burnham squeezes Reform and the LDs and holds down the Greens
This poll does confirm that Kemi is the only leader with a positive rating of +4
The next year in poltics will be the Andy v Kemi show and the question is will Kemi's popularity show in improved conservative ratings ?
I call her "Badenoch" because I'm not one of her fans or acolytes.
I think she will now face a much tougher political opponent and a more serious challenge than she has in recent times against Starmer. This will be her challenge - it will be interesting to see if she is up to it.
Alternatively Kemi can make more of a pitch for centrist swing voters as Burnham is left of Starmer and such voters who stayed voting Labour under SKS dislike Farage and Polanski too
To pitch for centrist swing voters she needs to remember to be centrist.
As for Burnham, Allister Heath and Allison Pearson are already limbering up with some unhinged headlines. At least that will be fun.
If Labour move left under Burnham then she doesn't so much as none of the main party leaders would be centrist.
Swing voters who voted Conservative from 2010 to 2019 but switched to Starmer in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing should be key Tory target voters
The rhetoric of hope will shift leftwards, but the actuality will be fiscally cautious centrism aided by luck and a reputation for being a winner. Burnham is such a winner that the Manchester mayor election is already being discounted as a Labour certainty. It is aty least possible that Labour MPs who want to keep their seats will see they have one chance only of doing so, and that is to support the winner through thick and thin.
It won't be dull. But for a boring precedent, just recall the manifesto on which Starmer got the leadership - straight socialism - and compare with the reality.
Starmer didn't become PM straight away in 2020 and the Labour manifesto in 2024 was basically rehashed New Labour. Burnham's platform today is rehashed Kinnock Labour with a dash of diluted Corbynism
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
Trump may well decide that a bit of Greater America can be recovered and placed in the temporary ownership of the nasty Argies. It's a battle he can win. Luckily we have Bulldog Burnham now. Well little small dog that wets itself if a car backfires Burnham.
Nothing I've seen gives me any confidence Burnham has any secret sauce for solving our very difficult and deep-seated problems.
We are a supremely entitled society that isn't ready to face up to the world as it is now rather than as we think it should be and, worse, in the face of that, we double-down and opt to spend even more money on cash benefits instead rather than face up to the very real and difficult choices that confront us today.
If Burnham manages to shift that, then I'll be impressed. I've seen nothing to suggest it yet.
I agree that we don't know how he will govern; and so far his job has been to get in the Labour nominations, avoid a contest and climb the greasy pole. Job done.
However he has done two things which are indicative: He has said that he sticks to the pre existing fiscal discipline and its rules, relying no doubt on MPs and members having no idea what this means for our socialist nirvana.
And he has said that MPs can use the House of Commons as a kindergarten for their creative play and individuality without the fear of the gulag. But he has also said that 'the direction of government (ie my) policy is non-negotiable', and that he has a plan. He is binding them in before telling them what it is. They can go their own way on tea-cosy design, but on everything else they vote with Burnham.
So Burnsiahism is Authoritarian Anarchist Centralising Decentralisation?
In a word, yes. Plus fiscally tight promising of future spending at an unspecified point. We shall find out soon. At the moment I can't find anything he has said -not a single thing - which for certain costs real serious money before the next election.
The big problem with devolving real power, at the moment, is that it would mean handing power of big piles of cash to Reform. Not sure that will go down well in the Labour Party. For a start.
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
We have nuclear weapons too and a bigger armed forces and economy than Argentina.
If Russia still won't give in to international pressure after invading Ukraine we certainly must not give in to any anti British international pressure to give the Falklands to Argentina against the will of their residents
I believe the the Mr Clean-right class of submarines which we have can't launch their nukes other than from underwater, and they can't submerge at the moment. Partly because they're in dock, but mostly because the RN personnel are keen not to drown. (I may have made this up, the reality is probably worse)
We could get an SSN down there relatively easily, but the problem is the number we usually have at sea (between nil and two) at any given time, and the 8000 miles distance.
If Argentina took an enormous gamble and managed to take out the runway, they could get forces there a lot more quickly than we could.
As Dura has pointed out, it would be a lot easier with Trump's tacit approval (though that's also a bit implausible).
Trident isn't a realistic deterrent in this case.
Trump doesn't really do tacit. Maybe he could talked into it by Milei the way he was talked into Operation Persian Uncertainty by Netanyahu. It's ironic that the MAGA Nation thought they were voting for splendid isolationism but instead they got a big sandy Zionist cock dictating their foreign policy.
Falklands 2 is one of those things people really don't want to happen so they start with the assumption that it can't and derive the analysis backwards from that.
Do you share my thoughts that its exactly the sort of thing that Trump might wade into?
Yes. The moment of peak jeopardy for the Bennies will come if some c-nt tells Trump there's oil in the FI.
If the US help with intelligence and logistics then it's feasible for Argentina.
The US has enough on its plate with Iran and Trump doesn't do bodybags and nor does Milei and any non British ship near the Falklands in such a scenario would have to be sunk and any non British personnel on the Falklands would have to be shot
Strange how the Tories seem to have got a slight boost in the polls from the prospect of Burnham becoming PM.
It's the prospect Farage going down the pan that helps the Tories, surely?
Some voters who voted Conservative from 2010 to 2019, then for Starmer in 2024 have now gone Tory it seems as they think Burnham is too leftwing.
Even as Burnham squeezes Reform and the LDs and holds down the Greens
This poll does confirm that Kemi is the only leader with a positive rating of +4
The next year in poltics will be the Andy v Kemi show and the question is will Kemi's popularity show in improved conservative ratings ?
I call her "Badenoch" because I'm not one of her fans or acolytes.
I think she will now face a much tougher political opponent and a more serious challenge than she has in recent times against Starmer. This will be her challenge - it will be interesting to see if she is up to it.
Alternatively Kemi can make more of a pitch for centrist swing voters as Burnham is left of Starmer and such voters who stayed voting Labour under SKS dislike Farage and Polanski too
To pitch for centrist swing voters she needs to remember to be centrist.
As for Burnham, Allister Heath and Allison Pearson are already limbering up with some unhinged headlines. At least that will be fun.
If Labour move left under Burnham then she doesn't so much as none of the main party leaders would be centrist.
Swing voters who voted Conservative from 2010 to 2019 but switched to Starmer in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing should be key Tory target voters
The rhetoric of hope will shift leftwards, but the actuality will be fiscally cautious centrism aided by luck and a reputation for being a winner. Burnham is such a winner that the Manchester mayor election is already being discounted as a Labour certainty. It is aty least possible that Labour MPs who want to keep their seats will see they have one chance only of doing so, and that is to support the winner through thick and thin.
It won't be dull. But for a boring precedent, just recall the manifesto on which Starmer got the leadership - straight socialism - and compare with the reality.
Starmer didn't become PM straight away in 2020 and the Labour manifesto in 2024 was basically rehashed New Labour. Burnham's platform today is rehashed Kinnock Labour with a dash of diluted Corbynism
Old jokes revisited:
A Blairite, a Brownite and a Corbynite walk into a bar.
The barman says "Will you be having the usual, Prime Minister?"
Strange how the Tories seem to have got a slight boost in the polls from the prospect of Burnham becoming PM.
It's the prospect Farage going down the pan that helps the Tories, surely?
Some voters who voted Conservative from 2010 to 2019, then for Starmer in 2024 have now gone Tory it seems as they think Burnham is too leftwing.
Even as Burnham squeezes Reform and the LDs and holds down the Greens
This poll does confirm that Kemi is the only leader with a positive rating of +4
The next year in poltics will be the Andy v Kemi show and the question is will Kemi's popularity show in improved conservative ratings ?
Yes that is the question. Good question. It will be interesting to see what happens next. But we have say, even with Nigel Farage weighed down by filthy rubles and disappearing around the u bend of popular support, a Conservative bounce is lagging. Kemi is struggling to relate to voters and gain their trust the sub headings and details of leadership polling is telling us.
So how would the Conservatives be polling right now, without Badenoch’s abrasive, divisive style, and her outlandish policies getting in the way? Quite a bit more competitive IMO.
Re your last paragraph her style seems to cutting through, and outlandish policies to you are not to others
Kemi will succeed by addressing the economy, helping the young, stopping the boats, even if we have to leave the ECHR which by the way the EU have their own questions on this as they look at a Rwanda style policy, and committing to fully fund defence
That is bad news for the Forest and Stroud, possibly Gloucester itself, as the county council will be dominated by rich Fukkers from Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds who will be totally unscrupulous about redirecting all the money to where it will benefit their voters rather than where it's actually needed.
The whole plan for the country is a f##king shambles. Pointless and costly reorganisations which will do nothing to improve local democracy or performance. Indeed I expect services to be far worse and cost far more as a result.
I’d be fascinated by the thought processes behind these re-organisations.
Sadly I do suspect a lot of gerrymandering.
And of course the changes will ensure that rural areas are dominated by the adjacent urban areas so making things like new building developments easier.
They will do almost nothing to save costs. There will be a few very senior managerial jobs that will go but because of the TUPE rules they cannot use the reorganisation as an excuse for layoffs, nor can they change pay and conditions. And given that they will still need to use existing district and county council offices because they still need to do all the jobs that are currently being done and need the office spce for that, there will be little or no real-estate savings.
This is all being driven entirely by political considerations and is a centralising rather than decentralising move. A real retrograde step.
Given we desperately need developments and that you (rightly) welcome migration which means we need even more developments, then why are you saying it will make new developments easier as if it is a bad thing?
Because what it actually means is people living in one area deciding that all those developments should be in another area - preferably some distance away from them. The urban areas have large swathes of brownfield sites which should be redeveloped. But that is more expensive both for the developers and the local authorities. So now they will have nice large areas of green field they can build on instead. It is simply supercharged NIMBYism.
Where are these mythical large swathes of brownfield sites that have not been redeveloped in the past quarter of a century where our population has grown by about 20%?
Any brownfield sites that can be developed should be and largely are, but we need green too. And will do as long as our population rises and until we clear the backlog of missing developments we need.
1.5 million homes. Half of it with some form of planning permission in place. But developers don't like building on brownfield sites because of the additional costs.
Allegedly, claimed by a group the CPRE with a very vested-interest and based on a series of flawed assumptions.
Yes if every single brownfield site were capable of being transformed to housing, at high density, and nothing else then those houses could be built.
However that is never going to happen and can't happen. Some land is unsuitable due to contamination or other reasons. And some will inevitably get used for other purposes, such as industry or retail or anything else. Indeed, build homes and other services are needed so its never all going to go to housing.
So yes, brownfield can be a part of the mix - and is, but green is needed too.
Find some counter evidence and you might be worth listening to on this. But vague claims which are not backed up by any actual evidence, whilst occasionally a PB standard, does not win arguments.
Our analysis clearly highlights the planning systems as very significant drivers of negative overall outcomes in the housing market. Across GB as a whole, and England in particular, the planning systems are not delivering sufficient planning permissions to deliver new housing up to government targets and other assessments of need.
... We have also seen evidence that problems in planning systems may be having a disproportionate impact on SME housebuilders ...
.. We have found that barriers to entry and expansion are likely to be restricting the role of SMEs in the market. Of these barriers, the most significant is negotiating the planning system, the burdens of which fall most heavily on smaller builders, followed by access to land ...
The CMA does not argue that the solution is simply 'build on brownfield'; it identifies a systemic shortage of permissions and land supply. The fact that planning constraints exist applies regardless of whether the land is brownfield or greenfield.
Around 54% of new homes are already being built on brownfield land. So brownfield is not being ignored, it is already the majority of new housing.
The disagreement is not whether brownfield should be used. It should. The question is whether theoretical brownfield capacity means greenfield development is unnecessary. The evidence does not support that conclusion. Brownfield sites have competing uses, viability constraints and are not always located where housing demand is highest. Therefore brownfield is part of the solution, but not the entire solution.
So no actual evidence to counter the argument that there are brownfield sites capable of supporting 1.5 million additional homes then? Just some completely different argument about your old idiocy about the the planning system.
Did you miss the CMA saying there is a shortage of land there?
Yes the CMA acknowledged planning as the biggest problem, which it is, but it also said access to land was one too which I quoted.
And yes, brownfield is capable of supporting those homes if every hectare of that brownfield is used for homes and nothing else, as I acknowledged all along. However we need industry and retail and a plethora of other uses for brownfield too. Potentially housing does not equate to will be housing as there are competing demands for land.
Do you think we can do without industry? Or anything else?
It never ceases to amaze me how people living in sparsely populated rural areas consider that people in cities have absolutely no need for green space and that as more and more people are crammed into existing urban settlements all the existing brownfield land should be used for housing as opposed to creating green space for recreational use and to boost urban wildlife. What a selfish bunch.
Green space in urban areas is the most valuable in the country and we should be looking to add to it. Existing "brownfield sites" are often quite ecologically rich simply by virtue of nature having reclaimed them.
New housing should be developed primarily as planned settlement on the misnamed "green belt", which apart from the brownfield parts which can rightly be recategorised as "grey belt" also includes vaste swathes of ecologically denuded land put over to high intensity agri business with monolithic crops and high use of insecticides etc. Such as huge fields of hedgerow-less oil seed rape for example, very common around here. Green deserts if you prefer.
Almost no brownfield is converted to green space. It would be great if it were. Much of it is left for decades without being either developed or converted.
And it never ceases to amaze me that poeple living in urban areas think that there is nothing more to the countryside than famers fields. We can afford to lose farmers fields which is why I have long advocated on here for building new towns in East Anglia and Lincolnshire. What we have lost has been the high nature value marginal land. This is why since WW2 we have lost 97% of our water meadows and hay meadows, 50% of our ancient woodland, 80% of our lowland heath and 85% of our freshwater wetlands. This is why England is considered to be critically nature depleted and ranks 189th out of 240 countries for biodiversity and last amongst the G7 countries. We have seen an 80% decline in priority species since the 1970s.
Its been lost to agriculture, not to housing.
The planning system and green belt were in place the entire time that it was lost. Neither worked to save what should have been protected.
The small amounts we have left are only there because of the planning system. You would see the whole lot destroyed.
The planning system (in the wider sense) destroyed them.
Well into the 80s and 90s farmers were being paid to remove hedgerows.
Ever since WWII, the agricultural support policy in Western Europe has been about converting as much countryside as possible into high yield farming.
We got what we paid for.
That was nothing to do with the planning system. It was primarily the CAP.
Which was part of “the planning system” in the wider sense.
Thats like blaming the NHS or Defence for the CAP. It is just plain dumb.
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
We have nuclear weapons too and a bigger armed forces and economy than Argentina.
If Russia still won't give in to international pressure after invading Ukraine we certainly must not give in to any anti British international pressure to give the Falklands to Argentina against the will of their residents
I agree with you, but there are warning signs there.
We can box off and ignore Argentina under certain conditions, but not all conditions.
No, we must ignore them in all conditions, no matter what the cost. Giving up the Falklands to Argentina would destroy any power we had abroad forever
There's oil down there so there will need to be some sort of accommodation with Argentina before it can be exploited, and because American oil companies will be involved, the US Government will also be insisting on an agreement. As with the EU, Spain and Gibraltar, pretending it is still the 19th or even 20th Century is not a viable option.
Strange how the Tories seem to have got a slight boost in the polls from the prospect of Burnham becoming PM.
It's the prospect Farage going down the pan that helps the Tories, surely?
Some voters who voted Conservative from 2010 to 2019, then for Starmer in 2024 have now gone Tory it seems as they think Burnham is too leftwing.
Even as Burnham squeezes Reform and the LDs and holds down the Greens
This poll does confirm that Kemi is the only leader with a positive rating of +4
The next year in poltics will be the Andy v Kemi show and the question is will Kemi's popularity show in improved conservative ratings ?
Yes that is the question. Good question. It will be interesting to see what happens next. But we have say, even with Nigel Farage weighed down by filthy rubles and disappearing around the u bend of popular support, a Conservative bounce is lagging. Kemi is struggling to relate to voters and gain their trust the sub headings and details of leadership polling is telling us.
So how would the Conservatives be polling right now, without Badenoch’s abrasive, divisive style, and her outlandish policies getting in the way? Quite a bit more competitive IMO.
Re your last paragraph her style seems to cutting through, and outlandish policies to you are not to others
Kemi will succeed by addressing the economy, helping the young, stopping the boats, even if we have to leave the ECHR which by the way the EU have their own questions on this as they look at a Rwanda style policy, and committing to fully fund defence
One possibility is that Kemi is cutting through. The other is that she has fallen into the LibDem groove; nobody really dislikes the leader of the Inbetweeners, because mostly nobody cares.
Imagine Starmer or any PM selling market sensitive data to city traders .
The corruption in the WH is breathtaking . Can you imagine the outrage by the GOP if Biden or Obama did this .
Trump has debased the Presidency and it seems the corruption still isn’t enough to put people off as close to 40% of the American public approve of his presidency .
One wonders what he has to do to actually break through the forcefield of idiocy that surrounds his supporters .
Lol
Nancy Pelosi's husband had an incredible gift for anticipating legislation and become very rich as a result
There’s grifting and there’s grifting . There’s simply no equivalence here given the scale of corruption in the current WH .
False equivalence is currently a favourite weapon of the right.
Farage was given £5million by an overseas crypto guy. So what, Starmer was given a new suit. They are both as bad as each other.
Strange how the Tories seem to have got a slight boost in the polls from the prospect of Burnham becoming PM.
It's the prospect Farage going down the pan that helps the Tories, surely?
Some voters who voted Conservative from 2010 to 2019, then for Starmer in 2024 have now gone Tory it seems as they think Burnham is too leftwing.
Even as Burnham squeezes Reform and the LDs and holds down the Greens
This poll does confirm that Kemi is the only leader with a positive rating of +4
The next year in poltics will be the Andy v Kemi show and the question is will Kemi's popularity show in improved conservative ratings ?
Yes that is the question. Good question. It will be interesting to see what happens next. But we have say, even with Nigel Farage weighed down by filthy rubles and disappearing around the u bend of popular support, a Conservative bounce is lagging. Kemi is struggling to relate to voters and gain their trust the sub headings and details of leadership polling is telling us.
So how would the Conservatives be polling right now, without Badenoch’s abrasive, divisive style, and her outlandish policies getting in the way? Quite a bit more competitive IMO.
Re your last paragraph her style seems to cutting through, and outlandish policies to you are not to others
Kemi will succeed by addressing the economy, helping the young, stopping the boats, even if we have to leave the ECHR which by the way the EU have their own questions on this as they look at a Rwanda style policy, and committing to fully fund defence
I know you are an unqualified admirer.
I'm more sceptical - how will she "address the economy"? What does "helping the young" mean in practical terms? What about "the old" who and let's be blunt about this, are the Conservative core vote?
As for "stopping the boats", I've heard nothing about numbers of "arrivals" in the past couple of weeks when I'd have thought they would be coming by the thousand each day - perhaps the policy of Starmer and before him Sunak is working or the issue has shifted in salience from those trying to get here to those already here?
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
We have nuclear weapons too and a bigger armed forces and economy than Argentina.
If Russia still won't give in to international pressure after invading Ukraine we certainly must not give in to any anti British international pressure to give the Falklands to Argentina against the will of their residents
I agree with you, but there are warning signs there.
We can box off and ignore Argentina under certain conditions, but not all conditions.
No, we must ignore them in all conditions, no matter what the cost. Giving up the Falklands to Argentina would destroy any power we had abroad forever
There's oil down there so there will need to be some sort of accommodation with Argentina before it can be exploited, and because American oil companies will be involved, the US Government will also be insisting on an agreement. As with the EU, Spain and Gibraltar, pretending it is still the 19th or even 20th Century is not a viable option.
My reading of the tealeaves: the UK is increasingly exposed on the Falklands.
The UN won't budge on its decolonisation list, even though it was originally uninhabited and the inhabitants are the natives, and it's geopolitical security rests on both a strong defence and the US backing the British claim, both of which are now in some jeopardy.
Yes, Argentina is in no position right now to militarily take the islands but we don't have much more down there and couldn't really do much if they did, although we could maybe deploy a sub and a carrier we don't have the logistical tail anymore to retake it.
But they might not even need to do that if the sands shift too much beneath Britain's feet.
No. The UK has a permanent veto on the UN Security Council for starters. Second the UK still has a bigger navy and army than Argentina
That's all underpinned by realpolitik, our geopolitical strength and the reliability of our alliances.
It's not a law of nature.
We have nuclear weapons too and a bigger armed forces and economy than Argentina.
If Russia still won't give in to international pressure after invading Ukraine we certainly must not give in to any anti British international pressure to give the Falklands to Argentina against the will of their residents
I agree with you, but there are warning signs there.
We can box off and ignore Argentina under certain conditions, but not all conditions.
No, we must ignore them in all conditions, no matter what the cost. Giving up the Falklands to Argentina would destroy any power we had abroad forever
There's oil down there so there will need to be some sort of accommodation with Argentina before it can be exploited, and because American oil companies will be involved, the US Government will also be insisting on an agreement. As with the EU, Spain and Gibraltar, pretending it is still the 19th or even 20th Century is not a viable option.
That can still keep the Islands British though
The argument that the Falklanda should be Argentine seems to me exactly the same as the one that Greenland should be American i.e. regardless of the wishes of the native population, that country is closer. If this is the argument the UN supports then it has outlived its usefulness.
Comments
Not that much of a bounce for Lord Burnham of N. Staffs. NHS Trust. Listened to Burnham's speech. He seems to hate Birmingham as much as the Atlee Government did.
The next year in poltics will be the Andy v Kemi show and the question is will Kemi's popularity show in improved conservative ratings ?
If Russia still won't give in to international pressure after invading Ukraine we certainly must not give in to any anti British international pressure to give the Falklands to Argentina against the will of their residents
Wearily I will add the real reason Starmer's star fell. I do so as one of the very few people on here who voted for Labour.
He reneged on just about every principle known to Labour.
That's why.
The pathetic toadying lurch to the Right, pandering to the lunatics at the Daily Mail/Express/Telegraph/Brexit/Reform/Trump began the moment the polls closed on 04/07/24.
I doubt very much that @TSE will listen. Seldom does. It's not that he was wrong, only that he was c. 1/10th right.
Ciao xxx
😄
Reform 24 (-3)
Labour 24 (+5)
Conservatives 21 (+1)
LD 11% (-1)
GRN 11% (=)
F/w 10-14 July 2026. Changes vs 17/06/2026
https://x.com/i/status/2078108530133860816
Notable/surprising that little of the 5% increase in Labour support has come at the expense of the LDs or Greens.
We can box off and ignore Argentina under certain conditions, but not all conditions.
I think she will now face a much tougher political opponent and a more serious challenge than she has in recent times against Starmer. This will be her challenge - it will be interesting to see if she is up to it.
To be honest Rigby gave Starmer a soft ball final interview yesterday
In other words Burnham was already seen as the next PM
And for those of you latching onto opinion polls today ... how long have you been in this business?
Wait AT LEAST a fortnight, probably a month, and preferably until after the school holidays and Conferences, and THEN and only THEN assess whether there's been any shift in the polling, and if so, by how much.
Come on. You know this really I'm sure.
We are a supremely entitled society that isn't ready to face up to the world as it is now rather than as we think it should be and, worse, in the face of that, we double-down and opt to spend even more money on cash benefits instead rather than face up to the very real and difficult choices that confront us today.
If Burnham manages to shift that, then I'll be impressed. I've seen nothing to suggest it yet.
Tories polling 3% below their worst result in 2 centuries still.
I do think the next year will see a return to more tradional party politics as Farage fades
If Argentina took an enormous gamble and managed to take out the runway, they could get forces there a lot more quickly than we could.
As Dura has pointed out, it would be a lot easier with Trump's tacit approval (though that's also a bit implausible).
Trident isn't a realistic deterrent in this case.
There is no way on God's Earth that Starmer taking election gifts to the value of a thousand or so pounds from a personal friend and colleague comes anywhere close to equating to friends and family of ministers seeing an opportunity to make million pound grifts on the back of a pandemic .
Was Starmer accepting gifts from Ali after having laughed at Johnson's wallpaper a good idea? No, particularly as it allowed the media and social media to create an equivalence with alleged industrial scale fraud.
Hope you are well @Heathener
Would imagine Conservatives a bit conflicted. Not winning this, but gaining two council seats in Norfolk, one from Labour, other Reform.
Labour 230
Reform 177
Conservatives 114
LDs 66
SNP 30
Greens 10
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=21&LAB=24&LIB=11&Reform=24&Green=11&UKIP=&TVCON=100&TVLAB=100&TVLIB=100&TVReform=100&TVGreen=100&TVUKIP=&TVNAT=100&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024base
Survation.
@Survation
·
1h
Replying to
@Survation
Kemi Badenoch is the most liked party leader, with 36% liking her, vs 32% who do not.
Keir Starmer ends his premiership with 22% liking him, down slightly from 25% last month. 55% do not like him, with a final NET score of -33
NET (like minus dislike):
Kemi Badenoch +4 (36% like / 32% dislike)
Ed Davey -3 (25% like / 28% dislike)
Nigel Farage -18 (31% like / 49% dislike)
Zack Polanski -21 (21% like / 42% dislike)
Keir Starmer -33 (22% like / 55% dislike)
F/w 10-14 July 2026.
In a sense the most interesting next question is this: Will Labour MPs get the message that they are in their last chance to look competent and sane and fairly united; Will Tories get the message that Reform are already on the way out, so they can stop the futile exercise of chasing their votes and looking like Reformlite?
He gets all the goodwill of all of his empty promises and the negatives playing for Farage.
The main worry would turn out to be Kemi and the party of responsible government. (Admittedly reworked)
She witters on about stamp duty and makes vague comments about cutting welfare but she's as committed to the Triple Lock as the rest of them and she 's not specific on what cuts she would make to welfare and whose benefits would be reduced or removed.
To her credit, her City policy has drawn some favourable comment but to be fair, saying the City likes the Conservatives is akin to admitting bears perform toiletary functions in wooded areas.
As for Burnham, Allister Heath and Allison Pearson are already limbering up with some unhinged headlines. At least that will be fun.
Falklands 2 is one of those things people really don't want to happen so they start with the assumption that it can't and derive the analysis backwards from that.
(Especially with Burnham)
I think they're possibly a bit too generous to Starmer on some points and ignore the exploitation of racial tensions in the summer of '24
They could also benefit from the insight of the late PB leading authority @Leon on how Starmer was made a hate figure
However he has done two things which are indicative: He has said that he sticks to the pre existing fiscal discipline and its rules, relying no doubt on MPs and members having no idea what this means for our socialist nirvana.
And he has said that MPs can use the House of Commons as a kindergarten for their creative play and individuality without the fear of the gulag. But he has also said that 'the direction of government (ie my) policy is non-negotiable', and that he has a plan. He is binding them in before telling them what it is. They can go their own way on tea-cosy design, but on everything else they vote with Burnham.
So how would the Conservatives be polling right now, without Badenoch’s abrasive, divisive style, and her outlandish policies getting in the way? Quite a bit more competitive IMO.
If the US help with intelligence and logistics then it's feasible for Argentina.
Swing voters who voted Conservative from 2010 to 2019 but switched to Starmer in 2024 but think Burnham too leftwing should be key Tory target voters
That +5 could have entirely come from people not previously expressing a preference.
It won't be dull. But for a boring precedent, just recall the manifesto on which Starmer got the leadership - straight socialism - and compare with the reality.
If I were SecDef, I'd publicly announce the establishment of a base for sea drone trials down there.
Relatively cheap, and if we actually did it, a pretty decent deterrent. That would kill any mad invasion plans, I think
The airfield is quite well defended with Sky Sabre.
And it would be difficult to sneak in enough tourists for an effective covert action given the very limited port facilities
https://cruisealert.com/content/port-guide/port-stanley-falkland-islands
“Everything is official, and there we will be able to defend our German values,” Krieger wrote on Instagram.
https://x.com/InsiderEng/status/2077996920833024449
There are serious limits on what socialist populism can do when you start out already having run out of other people's money
NEW THREAD
A Blairite, a Brownite and a Corbynite walk into a bar.
The barman says "Will you be having the usual, Prime Minister?"
Kemi will succeed by addressing the economy, helping the young, stopping the boats, even if we have to leave the ECHR which by the way the EU have their own questions on this as they look at a Rwanda style policy, and committing to fully fund defence
Farage was given £5million by an overseas crypto guy. So what, Starmer was given a new suit. They are both as bad as each other.
First time it had ever happened live on television I believe.
I remember that and Foinavon's National the year before.
I'm more sceptical - how will she "address the economy"? What does "helping the young" mean in practical terms? What about "the old" who and let's be blunt about this, are the Conservative core vote?
As for "stopping the boats", I've heard nothing about numbers of "arrivals" in the past couple of weeks when I'd have thought they would be coming by the thousand each day - perhaps the policy of Starmer and before him Sunak is working or the issue has shifted in salience from those trying to get here to those already here?