I appreciate the school of 'Vance would be even worse than Trump because of his techbro allies' but I doubt it. Power comes from authority, credibility and respect, as well as from office - and Vance doesn't have the ability to dominate as Trump does, nor to forge and wield a coalition.

It is somewhat ironic that the mechanism by which peers can resign / retire from the House of Lords is a lot more modern and efficient than the process for MPs to leave the Commons.

The Palace should put out a press statement restating the King's support and appreciation for British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and other allied forces who served on the front line in Afghanistan. With a bit of luck, it might prompt Trump into withdrawing the state visit invitation too.

I dislike sporting boycotts for multiple reasons. 1. They're invariably ineffective but masquerade as 'doing something' when stronger action is required. 2. They punish the athletes rather than the host. 3. Going allows the media better access to report on the country. It's a platform.

FPTP* doing its wonderful thing again, this time in California. * Technically SNTV as it's two past the post here, with one vote per elector.

Given the media's attention to Biden's mental and physical state in 2024, their complete refusal to note Trump's clear issues on both scores - routinely confusing Greenland with Iceland in his Davos speech, or the swelling and bruising on his hands, for example - is either cowardice or complicity.

It's not just weird but an abuse waiting to happen. The method by which MPs 'resign' is based on the Good Chaps Principle, and assumes the government wouldn't abuse its power. We shouldn't assume that.

This point about time is really vital and unappreciated - its something I notice in comms (and history) continually Previously you had at least 6 hours+ to get your refined - even more if you go back further. Now it has to be instant and institutions simply don't move at that pace.

As if it wasn't obvious before, Trump will not allow anyone who speaks against him to be on his Board. Those signed up for it should ponder on that point. Presumably his deal is that they get some of the kick-backs in return for their silence and support.

There are 4 possibilities here for Labour. 1. Burnham declines to try. In which he's widely seen as chickening out and ends his national career. 2. He stands and wins. Perma-crisis in Westminster. 3. He stands and loses. Embarrassment. 4. He is blocked. Massive row, further slump in support.

Trump's rants here are typical of his attitude to everything: that his fantasy visions really should be the truth. When the US next has a financial crisis - which might be quite soon - he will do everything to cover it up and pretend it's not happening. It'll crash and burn. We should be ready.

This is wholly unacceptable and an embarrassment to the UK government and military. www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...

Americans tend to forget that there were considerably more than 13 British colonies in North America in 1776. The Canadian provinces* did not join in the rebellion, did not want to become 'American' and wished to remain loyal to the crown. A state of affairs confirmed in 1812. * Also Florida.

It's very rare these days for a major political figure to attempt to return to Westminster at a by-election - even more so for a member of the governing party to try. I'm not sure who the last such Labour example would be? Patrick Gordon Walker?

I can well believe this. Labour apparachiks tend to exist in an even bigger bubble than their opposite numbers in other parties (maybe something to do with Labour's institutionalised factions and Byzantine structures). If Burnham does want the nomination, and is blocked, the public won't like it.

Labour won Gorton & Denton by over 35% in 2024, and have held the seat (or its predecessor) since 1935. Reform finished second in 2024 but with only 14%, marginally ahead of the Greens, with Galloway's lot also in double-figures. Decent chance of a Lab hold on a low share and split opposition.

Burnham has to apply for this. He can't back out because 'Greater Manchester is my priority' after all the national comment he's been given: that would widely (and rightly) be seen as cowardly; sniping while afraid to strike. Whether he's allowed to stand, and whether he'd win are another matter.

posted without comment, but the BBC needs to get a grip

As @nickdearden.bsky.social says here, Britain is again going through a Guilty Men (and Women) period, deludedly appeasing dictators (or would-be ones), out of the hope their word means anything. The media could help by giving more air-time to Lib Dems and others who oppose the approach.

Ladies and gentlemen: the Leader of the Free World.

Can people *please* stop referring to the President of the United States as the leader of the free world? It's not an automatic position, and implies responsibilities and leadership that have been intermittent, at best, for 20 years. It was already an anachronism before it became an embarrassment.

This was never about security, so a security solution won't fix it. Trump wants Greenland for his legacy. This is not the end of the drama. He will be back, barring interventions.

And once again, British media parroting Trump's comment that he won't use force on Greenland - as if his word is to be trusted. No, Nato governments should not be reassured. He might be lying but even if he's not, he's never felt bound by his previous commitments. Stop giving him undue respect.

This morning, media were speculating 'which Donald Trump would turn up at Davos' - ie the ranting, angry aggressive one or the slightly better behaved one. As if it matters. They're Both The Same Person. It doesn't matter if he's nice today if he could be nasty tomorrow, on his on whim.

It's clearly very difficult for a lot of people to get their heads round the Greenland issue. Replace 'Greenland' with 'the Sudetenland' and replace 'Trump' with 'Hitler' and it gives you an idea. (Except that NATO members have a duty to defend Greenland, and there are no Americans there.)

Posts like this from Zia Yusuf are enormous hostages to fortune. My guess is that he either doesn't know what 'welfare' covers in this context, or thinks others won't be bothered to find out. But political opponents will very happily spread the message of what it covers, with targeted examples.

Trumpian behaviour by Farage. Rules are for little people.

The BBC this morning talking about Greenland as 'part of the EU' because it's a territory of Denmark. Just rank poor, lazy journalism. 1. Dependent territories of member states aren't automatically part of the Union. 2. Greenland left in 1985 so the example was known to those following EU issues.

Notable how Newsom is looking at other countries and (quite rightly) saying "why don't you f*cking do something" while those countries are looking at Democrats and asking the same question. I do think that once real resistance starts somewhere, it will be picked up across the board.

Really can't stand the self-abasement of takes posing as the reasonable middle by conceding it'd be a sensible policy to purchase / annex Greenland so long as it wasn't by force, as if any of the nonsense reasons are compelling. Stop it. There is no reasonable version, that would still be idiotic.

Thankfully, international governments and central banks are fully capable at the moment of handling a debt crisis in a major G7 country. Also, it's great that no other, even bigger, country is playing fast and loose with borrowing and spending.

Stephen is entirely right here - we need to badly wake up and realise the scale of the challenge and threat here. The political leaderships of all parties have failed to do so; seeing only the micro. Equally if we all woke up at once there would be panic

Hunter makes a good point. The BBC (and UK news media generally) are so fixated on personality politics that they cannot even comprehend the nature of what is happening with Trump. The foundations of their thinking are so anchored in false certainties that they only have trivialities left.

Honestly, if this is so, good. It should - finally - end the mass delusion in European governments that the US under Trump has European backs. It hasn't had. Presumably this would also mean the US withdrawing from Nato.

Any Tory who claims the Conservatives no longer represent their values, and defects to Reform, is a liar. They were members under Sunak, and usually May, Cameron or even before. The idea that Reform is for them, Badenoch is not, but Sunak etc were, is laughable. www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...

We should be concerned about how normalized this sort of behaviour has become, not just in the White House and America more generally but also in global discourse. These are threats and claims to other countries. They need calling out and opposing as would have been routine pre-2024.

Nice of the Greens to remind us that they're not a serious party. The world will not leave us alone just because we try and pull our duvet over our heads. And if Britain did cut itself off on defence from the US (which it should), that makes other allies and capability all the *more* important.

Also, assume that anything written to Donald Trump *will* be read out in public.

Cat wandered in front of the camera during the #aurora long exposure

Farage - the traitor - is explicitly giving the US veto power over UK defence and foreign policy.

Deals with the US aren't worth anything beyond the current news cycle. Playing nice with the US isn't worth anything beyond the current news cycle. So the only options are to hide and hope, or to project strength. The latter is the only credible strategy for any self-respecting nation.

'We should unilaterally disarm' is a hell of a response to the present situation.

👇 Agree with this. There’s a somewhat pernicious “we haven’t presented the British public with this trade-off in plain language but we are going to act as if we have and they have Decided To Be Irresolute”.

Given the situation with Greenland, the LOL outcome would be for it to vote to join Canada.

Good. Hopefully this will lead the way for all major European powers.

There's a huge difference between Davey and Polanski. Obviously, granstanding achieves very little apart from a domestic sugar rush. But the notion that we have to work with the US - even when it is threatening us and our allies, imposing illegal taxes and breaking deals - is the height of naivety.

Also not the sort of letter committed to paper by a leader who has a staff around him capable of challenging even his most outrageous and damaging (to himself and the US, never mind others) statements. Yet rather than invoke the 25th Amendment, the US cabinet parrots Trump's dangerous absurdities.

Never forget: never let anyone else forget either.

As of yesterday, the Tories now have a majority of 45 over the Lib Dems for the status of the principal Opposition.

As anticipated, mostly (3) with a sprinkling of (2). This will have the effect of irritating the White House without giving them pause for thought. Trump sees niceness to him as his own validation to do whatever he wants and as weakness. Words without actions will be no comfort to Europe either.