• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Doing what someone wants you to do
monkeybarry said:
I don't disagree with much of your analogy, however it is a little like comparing national finances to home finances - they work on different rules.

I see this as the UK saying "yeah, fair enough, you've got a valid point" and reacting to it.
As well as positioning the UK to be a leader in NATO and setting an example to Europe.
And that's the baseline from which you can stand up to Trump. Starmer can go into Thursday saying, "we want to continue our special relationship with the United States; however we won't be forced to pick between the US and Europe.
We want to still work together, irrespective of what we think about the guy in the White House; but we won't be bullied or take the moral low ground to foster it"

Putting ourselves in a position to "stand on our own two feet, and not rely on the US" (that's not possible for anyone, the US included) is standing up to Trump. Standing up to someone doesn't have to be adversarial - it can be leading by example.
Trump is relying on Europe not being willing or able to increase spending so he can dictate actions without legitimate push back.

Macron stood up to him yesterday.
Starmer is calling his bluff today. Thurs will see what our hand looks like.
Trump's hand......who the f knows....
Click to expand...
Nobody is calling Trump's bluff.

Trump said Europe needs to look after itself and they need to adequately fund defence spending. He's continuously questioned the US's role in NATO given many NATO states do not meet the agreed spending criteria and haven't done for years.

He's only just last week pointed out that Europe expects the US to defend it from Russian and Chinese aggression when there is an ocean between the US and Russia and China whereas there is no such ocean between Europe and those countries.

Uplifting our defence spending to what it should have been already isn't standing up to Trump or calling his bluff.

Trump's aim is to end the war between Russia and Ukraine and withdraw US financial backing from the conflict.

Right now he itends to do that by doing a deal with Russia and presenting that to other stakeholders as a take-it-or-leave it deal which will result in the US withdrawal of military support and possibly economic sanctions against Russia regardless.

He isn't interested in speaking to anyone other than Russia as he knows that Russia and the US are the only two countries keeping the conflict going: Ukraine's defence will collapse relatively quickly without US support and Russia is steadily advancing and has almost already effectively surrounded the key supply route for the defence of the east of Ukraine.

In that context our uplift in defence spending won't make a difference other than meeting Trump's pre-condition of continued US respect, support and protection of us (the UK) as an ally.

I really don't see how this can be seen as anything other than us doing something we didn't really have a choice over and I really don't see what bluff you think we are calling here...
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Doing what someone wants you to do

Nobody is calling Trump's bluff.

Trump said Europe needs to look after itself and they need to adequately fund defence spending. He's continuously questioned the US's role in NATO given many NATO states do not meet the agreed spending criteria and haven't done for years.

He's only just last week pointed out that Europe expects the US to defend it from Russian and Chinese aggression when there is an ocean between the US and Russia and China whereas there is no such ocean between Europe and those countries.

Uplifting our defence spending to what it should have been already isn't standing up to Trump or calling his bluff.

Trump's aim is to end the war between Russia and Ukraine and withdraw US financial backing from the conflict.

Right now he itends to do that by doing a deal with Russia and presenting that to other stakeholders as a take-it-or-leave it deal which will result in the US withdrawal of military support and possibly economic sanctions against Russia regardless.

He isn't interested in speaking to anyone other than Russia as he knows that Russia and the US are the only two countries keeping the conflict going: Ukraine's defence will collapse relatively quickly without US support and Russia is steadily advancing and has almost already effectively surrounded the key supply route for the defence of the east of Ukraine.

In that context our uplift in defence spending won't make a difference other than meeting Trump's pre-condition of continued US respect, support and protection of us (the UK) as an ally.

I really don't see how this can be seen as anything other than us doing something we didn't really have a choice over and I really don't see what bluff you think we are calling here...
Click to expand...
No-one can call Trumps bluff...it's a futile task, as there's no radar in existence to detect what he might do or say next...the biggest goalpost mover in history?

It's politically difficult because the USA are a superpower BUT Trump is one of the biggest bellends on the planet.

The biggest issue is he is seeing everything through a businessman's lense with zero experience as a geopolitical operator.

Most politicians want to call him a clam but naturally (as they're ARE politicians) are hedging their bets.
 
monkeybarry said:
2.6% GDP to be spent on defence (2.5% def plus 0.1% cyber. Not quite sure why they are separate) from 2027 (appx 14bn P/A)
And 3% in next parliament.

Funded by cutting development aid by 0.2% GNI.

Definitely a bit of a wartime speech Starmer has just delivered. As well as drawing lines in the sand before meeting Trump.

Starmer and Macron are standing up to Trump.
Let's see what he does
(Badonoch still Batbrick)

Strange times we live in.
Click to expand...
They will double count some of that though. Lots will be allocated to R&D and trickle off into the Science Budget etc.
 
Just on why they've separated cyber off - it's probably just a method of ensuring the MoD spend the minimum SPADS think they should on cyber if they think that's a key priority. Otherwise you run the danger that some senior air Marshall tinkles the entire funding uplift on a pet vanity project, like buying a new red arrows squadron made out of gold plated F35s each individually named after a member of his extended family....
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
No-one can call Trumps bluff...it's a futile task, as there's no radar in existence to detect what he might do or say next...the biggest goalpost mover in history?

It's politically difficult because the USA are a superpower BUT Trump is one of the biggest bellends on the planet.

The biggest issue is he is seeing everything through a businessman's lense with zero experience as a geopolitical operator.

Most politicians want to call him a clam but naturally (as they're ARE politicians) are hedging their bets.
Click to expand...
To be honest it's about time people saw things with the lens of a businessman. If it took a US President like Trump to shake Europe out of decades of complacency then all the better for it.
 
markysimmo said:
All as brick as each other
All bare faced liars
All have their noses in the trough
Click to expand...
Yep. First time I never voted in the last election. Watching this lot just carry on where the tories left off after spouting all the holier than though c**p in opposition just reconfirms i made the right choice. One of the new ministers has had to be warned by the SRA to stop calling himself a solicitor. Of course like Reeves he corrected his "innocent mistake" at the earliest opportunity. To be fair it's an easy mistake for a minister or their staff to make, you know it's easily done, logging onto edit mode to update your bio and writing the word "solicitor"....could happen to anyone....and another of them just got sent to prison for attacking a member of the public.....doesn't matter if you're red, blue, yellow or green. You have to be a special kind of narcissist to be a politician.

My absolute favourite HAS to be left-wing/liberal darling and all-round "holier-than-thou" preacher Nicola Sturgeon literally being subject to the biggest corruption investigation probably in British political history with her husband and party treasurer having already been charged with embezzling party donor's money! Couldn't make it uo!
 
Last edited:
Silly McSilly Face said:
To be honest it's about time people saw things with the lens of a businessman. If it took a US President like Trump to shake Europe out of decades of complacency then all the better for it.
Click to expand...

The sort of bullish statement which looks excellent on 'paper' until you actually drill down into it.

Perhaps we have a different idea of what governments should be. Me? I think governments should serve their people as best as possible, and that includes sometimes working with others in complex, detailed and non-binary ways to achieve things such as cooperations in trade, defense and, perhaps most importantly, intelligence. This is not even taking into account what the domestic duties of every government should be, which is to help the entire public live a civilised quality of life.

Let's be very clear on one thing. Even if one were to agree with your opinion, I think we'd have to agree that Trump is NOT the sort of 'businessman' who should be operating things given his actual record as a businessman (again, I suppose it depends on how you define 'successful businessman').

I find it bizarre that so little is being said of how the smash-down on Europe is absolutely a seed planted by Putin pre-Brexit. He saw that splitting the UK from Europe was a major step towards destabilizing the continent. He is on the cusp of seeing that seed fully mature. I am not sure how that can be 'good' for anyone frankly.
 
thfcsteff said:
The sort of bullish statement which looks excellent on 'paper' until you actually drill down into it.

Perhaps we have a different idea of what governments should be. Me? I think governments should serve their people as best as possible, and that includes sometimes working with others in complex, detailed and non-binary ways to achieve things such as cooperations in trade, defense and, perhaps most importantly, intelligence. This is not even taking into account what the domestic duties of every government should be, which is to help the entire public live a civilised quality of life.

Let's be very clear on one thing. Even if one were to agree with your opinion, I think we'd have to agree that Trump is NOT the sort of 'businessman' who should be operating things given his actual record as a businessman (again, I suppose it depends on how you define 'successful businessman').

I find it bizarre that so little is being said of how the smash-down on Europe is absolutely a seed planted by Putin pre-Brexit. He saw that splitting the UK from Europe was a major step towards destabilizing the continent. He is on the cusp of seeing that seed fully mature. I am not sure how that can be 'good' for anyone frankly.
Click to expand...

No I wholly disagree. Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014 and Europe and the European Union in particular did nothing. It has finally come to a head now because the USA has switched sides and left Europe and the U.K. wholly underprepared and exposed.

Where our politics are aired does not define what our politics are.
 
johnola said:
No I wholly disagree. Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014 and Europe and the European Union in particular did nothing. It has finally come to a head now because the USA has switched sides and left Europe and the U.K. wholly underprepared and exposed.

Where our politics are aired does not define what our politics are.
Click to expand...

What are you wholly disagreeing with? I am unclear.

My point re: Putin is that he has long seen the potential to divide allies for a long time, and has absolutely gone about ensuring that we are exactly where we are today; a continent divided, and now a continent whose huge post-war ally has decided to up sticks and park with others. He saw the 'response' to Donbas, and absolutely knew the conditions could be 'encouraged'.
Brexit was a huge, huge part of all this. Seperating the UK from Central Europe. Making sure that the fissures become chasms. Ensuring too that a populist got into the US hot-seat to plant seeds there. Ensuring further that populism took root in some European countries as a fallout from Brexit.

The inactivity of Europe and the European Union was already calculated by Putin IMO, as there were already far-right agents in both places threatening domestic politics enough to cause tossers like Cameron to believe that referendums (rather than actual WORK in Brussels) was the way to head them off.

Trump and Putin did their dance from 2016 to 2020, when the seeds for right now were sewn. And yes, we are now where we are.

If you are disagreeing re: having businessman running our governments rather than politicians, then OK, obviously we'd simply agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
What was Reeves heinious error again? she tated that she had been in a job for a couple of months more than she reaally had on Linkin? Seriously, that is a big issue? Meanwhile... Boris... was... oh nothing to see here. give me abreak. And I say this as no fan of Reeves or Starmer.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Yep. First time I never voted in the last election. Watching this lot just carry on where the tories left off after spouting all the holier than though c**p in opposition just reconfirms i made the right choice. One of the new ministers has had to be warned by the SRA to stop calling himself a solicitor. Of course like Reeves he corrected his "innocent mistake" at the earliest opportunity. To be fair it's an easy mistake for a minister or their staff to make, you know it's easily done, logging onto edit mode to update your bio and writing the word "solicitor"....could happen to anyone....and another of them just got sent to prison for attacking a member of the public.....doesn't matter if you're red, blue, yellow or green. You have to be a special kind of narcissist to be a politician.

My absolute favourite HAS to be left-wing/liberal darling and all-round "holier-than-thou" preacher Nicola Sturgeon literally being subject to the biggest corruption investigation probably in British political history with her husband and party treasurer having already been charged with embezzling party donor's money! Couldn't make it uo!
Click to expand...


Ah the blessed St Nicola,
The savior of Scotland,
The curer of covid,
The feminist to her finger tips
The bringer of a better, cleaner kind of politics
The most open and transparent of leaders.

Much like musk I told people until I was blue in face that she was a fake and conning the world, but oh no, that's because I'm a (insert insult in here), funny how they've all shut now.

The real crime isn't what she is being accused of, the real crime is the cover up by the SG, it's civil service and most damning of all the press.
Should this ever be properly brought in to the public domain the brick will hit the fan big time, there is a huge amount of corruption that has yet to be exposed.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
What was Reeves heinious error again? she tated that she had been in a job for a couple of months more than she reaally had on Linkin? Seriously, that is a big issue? Meanwhile... Boris... was... oh nothing to see here. give me abreak. And I say this as no fan of Reeves or Starmer.
Click to expand...

I really don't see what the big deal is here, ministers are appointed to posts with a lot less experience than reeves.
It's not helpful that her CV is maybe not totally accurate, but this is being blown out of all proportion.
 
thfcsteff said:
What are you wholly disagreeing with? I am unclear.

My point re: Putin is that he has long seen the potential to divide allies for a long time, and has absolutely gone about ensuring that we are exactly where we are today; a continent divided, and now a continent whose huge post-war ally has decided to up sticks and park with others. He saw the 'response' to Donbas, and absolutely knew the conditions could be 'encouraged'.
Brexit was a huge, huge part of all this. Seperating the UK from Central Europe. Making sure that the fissures become chasms. Ensuring too that a populist got into the US hot-seat to plant seeds there. Ensuring further that populism took root in some European countries as a fallout from Brexit.

The inactivity of Europe and the European Union was already calculated by Putin IMO, as there were already far-right agents in both places threatening domestic politics enough to cause tossers like Cameron to believe that referendums (rather than actual WORK in Brussels) was the way to head them off.

Trump and Putin did their dance from 2016 to 2020, when the seeds for right now were sewn. And yes, we are now where we are.

If you are disagreeing re: having businessman running our governments rather than politicians, then OK, obviously we'd simply agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

I disagree because any external indirect and hidden Russian interference was massively outweighed by Obama and European leaders telling referendum voters very clearly they would be screwed if they voted against continued EU participation. It was always about self determination.

The problem now is that war is coming to the west and in my opinion very soon and there still doesn’t seem to be any appetite for a pan European force - there is no reason for Putin to wait.

Putin doesn’t care less if Ukraine join the EU it already has Hungary and Slovakia to do it’s spoiling work there.

What he will not accept is Ukraine joining nato. That was the strength of the west - and there is absolute no way the UK has done anything other than back that particular organisation up.
 
glasgowspur said:
Ah the blessed St Nicola,
The savior of Scotland,
The curer of covid,
The feminist to her finger tips
The bringer of a better, cleaner kind of politics
The most open and transparent of leaders.

Much like musk I told people until I was blue in face that she was a fake and conning the world, but oh no, that's because I'm a (insert insult in here), funny how they've all shut now.

The real crime isn't what she is being accused of, the real crime is the cover up by the SG, it's civil service and most damning of all the press.
Should this ever be properly brought in to the public domain the brick will hit the fan big time, there is a huge amount of corruption that has yet to be exposed.
Click to expand...
To be fair you can really judge the actual seriousness of a politicians conduct by how much sh** the press throw at it. Very constrained/muted coverage of e.g. Sturgeon and Tulip Siddique and for example the Covid enquiry will be hearing evidence related to the Michelle Mone linked PPE company in private as there are actual criminal investigations occurring into actual potential corruption and the press need to be really careful with how they cover it so as to not get in the sh** themselves. Contrast that to party gate and other "scandals" that get loads of coverage and its actually due to the fact that underneath it all, if you brush away the dirt, there isn't actually much to see there.....so the press can create a fuss and sell papers and click bait without too much of an issue.
 
johnola said:
I disagree because any external indirect and hidden Russian interference was massively outweighed by Obama and European leaders telling referendum voters very clearly they would be screwed if they voted against continued EU participation. It was always about self determination.

The problem now is that war is coming to the west and in my opinion very soon and there still doesn’t seem to be any appetite for a pan European force - there is no reason for Putin to wait.

Putin doesn’t care less if Ukraine join the EU it already has Hungary and Slovakia to do it’s spoiling work there.

What he will not accept is Ukraine joining nato. That was the strength of the west - and there is absolute no way the UK has done anything other than back that particular organisation up.
Click to expand...

I suppose our only disagreement is in how we got to where we are. I do think it is worth noting that Orban got back in 2010...I think Putin knew the route he was taking. Interesting discussion...
 
thfcsteff said:
I suppose our only disagreement is in how we got to where we are. I do think it is worth noting that Orban got back in 2010...I think Putin knew the route he was taking. Interesting discussion...
Click to expand...


Absolutely Steff. All the superpowers interfere but Putin has immense power and reach with his control in Russia- and many of our politicians are corruptable or compromised by their own behaviour.

We know full well some on the Brexit side were got at but also many conservatives who stayed on the elites side were too.

We are on shifting sands now, anything seems possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back