politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Trump bothers to read UK polls he won’t be pleased about ho

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Trump bothers to read UK polls he won’t be pleased about how negatively he’s viewed in the UK

New YouGov polling on how Brits view Trump and Putin with party splits pic.twitter.com/Z9kQGlHrD2

Read the full story here

grabcocque

Even Tories, Leavers hate Trump.

FIRST at being hated.

AlastairMeeks

Noteworthy how niche the Leave.EU soft spot for Vladimir Putin is, even among Leavers.

DavidL

FPT
Whether Trump is serious or not about withdrawing from NATO is really not the point. The point is what used to be the adult in the room against whom the others could kick off and protest whilst remaining under their protection is now having tantrums itself.

The US faces a challenge to its global supremacy from China. Russia is not a threat. In fact, post Putin, it is a potential ally as they have at least as much to worry about so far as China is concerned as the US, arguably more.

Europeans have an enormously inflated sense of their own importance based on historical power, the impact that they had in the 19th and 20th centuries and the perception of soft power that they still have. In fact they are increasingly irrelevant and it is not obvious why the US should spend any of its resources protecting them from not very serious threats.

Which is fine. Being in the centre of history is rarely comfortable. Being a backwater will mean less Europeans dead, less money spent on arms and fewer reasons for the discontent of the world to have a go at us. Personally, I think we should take Trump at his word and begin the process of dismantling NATO. But then, I don't live in the Baltic States or Poland.

philiph

grabcocque said:

Even Tories, Leavers hate Trump.

FIRST at being hated.

The survey says Favourable / Unfavourable

I think that is different from hate. I have no reason to hate him or respect him.
I do have view on his suitability to do the job, and this would determine my view of him on a favourability scale.

If the question is do I hate him, then the answer is no. I reserve hate for leaders who wreak havoc, death and destruction on millions. Mao or Hitler are the types that qualify for hatred for the actions they took inflicting such misery and large scale destruction of human life.

rkrkrk

30% favourable among Leave voters isn't a bad result for Trump.
Probably makes him more popular than David Cameron among that group?

williamglenn

AlastairMeeks said:

Noteworthy how niche the Leave.EU soft spot for Vladimir Putin is, even among Leavers.

The UK stands out as one of the countries where public opinion is most consistently hostile to Putin.

Nigelb

DavidL said:

FPT
Whether Trump is serious or not about withdrawing from NATO is really not the point. The point is what used to be the adult in the room against whom the others could kick off and protest whilst remaining under their protection is now having tantrums itself.

The US faces a challenge to its global supremacy from China. Russia is not a threat. In fact, post Putin, it is a potential ally as they have at least as much to worry about so far as China is concerned as the US, arguably more.

Europeans have an enormously inflated sense of their own importance based on historical power, the impact that they had in the 19th and 20th centuries and the perception of soft power that they still have. In fact they are increasingly irrelevant and it is not obvious why the US should spend any of its resources protecting them from not very serious threats.

Which is fine. Being in the centre of history is rarely comfortable. Being a backwater will mean less Europeans dead, less money spent on arms and fewer reasons for the discontent of the world to have a go at us. Personally, I think we should take Trump at his word and begin the process of dismantling NATO. But then, I don't live in the Baltic States or Poland.

I don't really agree with that attitude, but it is certainly true that an alliance dependent on the whim of a single individual is not one which can be relied on for security.

Should Trump serve more than one term, then a purely European defence arrangement might be necessary, whatever we want.

HYUFD

The only party whose voters view Trump favourably are UKIP voters so no surprise there.

More generally polls from the likes of PISA show voters in almost every nation surveyed view Trump unfavourably so it is not just Britain, the only exceptions are Russia and Israel. Ironically it was of course the latter two nations which tended to be the only nations to view Obama unfavourably

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/MarcusFysh/status/1017365470796812288

AlastairMeeks

williamglenn said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Noteworthy how niche the Leave.EU soft spot for Vladimir Putin is, even among Leavers.

The UK stands out as one of the countries where public opinion is most consistently hostile to Putin.

Poisoning people in the streets will do that.

SandyRentool

So Conservatives are slightly more favourable of Putin than Labourites.

That doesn't fit the narrative.

HYUFD

DavidL said:

FPT
Whether Trump is serious or not about withdrawing from NATO is really not the point. The point is what used to be the adult in the room against whom the others could kick off and protest whilst remaining under their protection is now having tantrums itself.

The US faces a challenge to its global supremacy from China. Russia is not a threat. In fact, post Putin, it is a potential ally as they have at least as much to worry about so far as China is concerned as the US, arguably more.

Europeans have an enormously inflated sense of their own importance based on historical power, the impact that they had in the 19th and 20th centuries and the perception of soft power that they still have. In fact they are increasingly irrelevant and it is not obvious why the US should spend any of its resources protecting them from not very serious threats.

Which is fine. Being in the centre of history is rarely comfortable. Being a backwater will mean less Europeans dead, less money spent on arms and fewer reasons for the discontent of the world to have a go at us. Personally, I think we should take Trump at his word and begin the process of dismantling NATO. But then, I don't live in the Baltic States or Poland.

Other than China, Russia and the USA, the only other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are European, France and the UK, so we are not completely irrelevant in foreign policy and defence terms

RobD

SandyRentool said:

So Conservatives are slightly more favourable of Putin than Labourites.

That doesn't fit the narrative.

Unfortunately the poll didn't differentiate the Corbynites.

JosiasJessop

DavidL said:

FPT
Whether Trump is serious or not about withdrawing from NATO is really not the point. The point is what used to be the adult in the room against whom the others could kick off and protest whilst remaining under their protection is now having tantrums itself.

The US faces a challenge to its global supremacy from China. Russia is not a threat. In fact, post Putin, it is a potential ally as they have at least as much to worry about so far as China is concerned as the US, arguably more.

Europeans have an enormously inflated sense of their own importance based on historical power, the impact that they had in the 19th and 20th centuries and the perception of soft power that they still have. In fact they are increasingly irrelevant and it is not obvious why the US should spend any of its resources protecting them from not very serious threats.

Which is fine. Being in the centre of history is rarely comfortable. Being a backwater will mean less Europeans dead, less money spent on arms and fewer reasons for the discontent of the world to have a go at us. Personally, I think we should take Trump at his word and begin the process of dismantling NATO. But then, I don't live in the Baltic States or Poland.

The problem is that it would not take much for Russia's quest for power - and particularly to regain 'their' territory - to start infringing on US interests. NATO would give potential aggressors such as Russia pause for thought in territorial expansion.

It is the sort of move that is 'easy' for the US to make in order to save a few quid (and after all, they're increasing their defence spending, not cutting), but may cost a heck of a lot more in a decade's time to correct.

MikeSmithson

AlastairMeeks said:

Noteworthy how niche the Leave.EU soft spot for Vladimir Putin is, even among Leavers.

There's no gratitude from leave voters is there? You think that they should at least recognise how much they were helped by the Russian president

philiph

AlastairMeeks said:

williamglenn said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Noteworthy how niche the Leave.EU soft spot for Vladimir Putin is, even among Leavers.

The UK stands out as one of the countries where public opinion is most consistently hostile to Putin.

Poisoning people in the streets will do that.

So will continued occupation of the presidency.

I wonder if he will he 'retire' at the end of this term, change the constitution to allow him to continue or take another sabbatical as PM with a friend as President?

grabcocque

philiph said:

AlastairMeeks said:

williamglenn said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Noteworthy how niche the Leave.EU soft spot for Vladimir Putin is, even among Leavers.

The UK stands out as one of the countries where public opinion is most consistently hostile to Putin.

Poisoning people in the streets will do that.

So will continued occupation of the presidency.

I wonder if he will he 'retire' at the end of this term, change the constitution to allow him to continue or take another sabbatical as PM with a friend as President?

I think Putin has already said he will retire at the end of his current term. He's getting on a bit, wants to go and wrestle bears naked in Crimea while he still has the strength, no doubt.

Pulpstar

I've managed to find a less popular British politician than this lot.

And no it isn't Blair. Step forward, Mark Reckless xD https://yougov.co.uk/opi/browse/Mark_Reckless

FrancisUrquhart

grabcocque said:

philiph said:

AlastairMeeks said:

williamglenn said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Noteworthy how niche the Leave.EU soft spot for Vladimir Putin is, even among Leavers.

The UK stands out as one of the countries where public opinion is most consistently hostile to Putin.

Poisoning people in the streets will do that.

So will continued occupation of the presidency.

I wonder if he will he 'retire' at the end of this term, change the constitution to allow him to continue or take another sabbatical as PM with a friend as President?

I think Putin has already said he will retire at the end of his current term. He's getting on a bit, wants to go and wrestle bears naked in Crimea while he still has the strength, no doubt.

Also he is richer than god, might as well get chance to enjoy all that money he has squirrelled away.

GreenHeron

Trump is a vain, crude narcissist so it is not surprising that he is unpopular here.

However he is also president of our biggest trading partner who is known to love the UK and is keen to negotiate a trade deal, but who is notoriously thin skinned and capricious.

I wonder how many people who are willing to jeopardise a good trade deal in order to score cheap political points, are the same people who are imploring us to listen to Airbus about the perils of Brexit?

DavidL

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

FPT
Whether Trump is serious or not about withdrawing from NATO is really not the point. The point is what used to be the adult in the room against whom the others could kick off and protest whilst remaining under their protection is now having tantrums itself.

The US faces a challenge to its global supremacy from China. Russia is not a threat. In fact, post Putin, it is a potential ally as they have at least as much to worry about so far as China is concerned as the US, arguably more.

Europeans have an enormously inflated sense of their own importance based on historical power, the impact that they had in the 19th and 20th centuries and the perception of soft power that they still have. In fact they are increasingly irrelevant and it is not obvious why the US should spend any of its resources protecting them from not very serious threats.

Which is fine. Being in the centre of history is rarely comfortable. Being a backwater will mean less Europeans dead, less money spent on arms and fewer reasons for the discontent of the world to have a go at us. Personally, I think we should take Trump at his word and begin the process of dismantling NATO. But then, I don't live in the Baltic States or Poland.

I don't really agree with that attitude, but it is certainly true that an alliance dependent on the whim of a single individual is not one which can be relied on for security.

Should Trump serve more than one term, then a purely European defence arrangement might be necessary, whatever we want.

Its not an attitude, its a reality. I think people are missing how much continuity there is between the policies of Obama and Trump on this. Obama was willing to be nice about it and Trump isn't but the fact is that the once formidable war machine that the US had in Europe has already been dismantled. Some of the infrastructure is left, particularly the parts that are useful for deploying force in the ME or Afghanistan, but the last main battle tanks left in 2013 on Obama's watch. The US no longer defends Europe in any conventional sense. We still have the nuclear umbrella of course.

grabcocque

FrancisUrquhart said:

grabcocque said:

philiph said:

AlastairMeeks said:

williamglenn said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Noteworthy how niche the Leave.EU soft spot for Vladimir Putin is, even among Leavers.

The UK stands out as one of the countries where public opinion is most consistently hostile to Putin.

Poisoning people in the streets will do that.

So will continued occupation of the presidency.

I wonder if he will he 'retire' at the end of this term, change the constitution to allow him to continue or take another sabbatical as PM with a friend as President?

I think Putin has already said he will retire at the end of his current term. He's getting on a bit, wants to go and wrestle bears naked in Crimea while he still has the strength, no doubt.

Also he is richer than god, might as well get chance to enjoy all that money he has squirrelled away.

Question is what happens after Vlad retires to spend more time with his ill-gotten gains.

United Russia implodes -> civil war?

Pulpstar

Tony Blair -53
George Osborne -64
Kim Jong Un -70
Mark Reckless -70

Anorak

AlastairMeeks said:

williamglenn said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Noteworthy how niche the Leave.EU soft spot for Vladimir Putin is, even among Leavers.

The UK stands out as one of the countries where public opinion is most consistently hostile to Putin.

Poisoning people in the streets will do that.

The Dutch are also hostile due to the murder of ~200 Dutch citizens on Malaysian Flight 17. Yet another Russian action on which Corbyn prevaricated and obfuscated on who was the perpetrator.

DavidL

HYUFD said:

DavidL said:

FPT
Whether Trump is serious or not about withdrawing from NATO is really not the point. The point is what used to be the adult in the room against whom the others could kick off and protest whilst remaining under their protection is now having tantrums itself.

The US faces a challenge to its global supremacy from China. Russia is not a threat. In fact, post Putin, it is a potential ally as they have at least as much to worry about so far as China is concerned as the US, arguably more.

Europeans have an enormously inflated sense of their own importance based on historical power, the impact that they had in the 19th and 20th centuries and the perception of soft power that they still have. In fact they are increasingly irrelevant and it is not obvious why the US should spend any of its resources protecting them from not very serious threats.

Which is fine. Being in the centre of history is rarely comfortable. Being a backwater will mean less Europeans dead, less money spent on arms and fewer reasons for the discontent of the world to have a go at us. Personally, I think we should take Trump at his word and begin the process of dismantling NATO. But then, I don't live in the Baltic States or Poland.

Other than China, Russia and the USA, the only other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are European, France and the UK, so we are not completely irrelevant in foreign policy and defence terms

How relevant has the Security Council proved itself to be in recent times? But yes, there are some legacy issues from the old regime.

Pulpstar

Rupert Murdoch -78

2,299th Public Figure of 2311 tracked

philiph

grabcocque said:

philiph said:

AlastairMeeks said:

williamglenn said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Noteworthy how niche the Leave.EU soft spot for Vladimir Putin is, even among Leavers.

The UK stands out as one of the countries where public opinion is most consistently hostile to Putin.

Poisoning people in the streets will do that.

So will continued occupation of the presidency.

I wonder if he will he 'retire' at the end of this term, change the constitution to allow him to continue or take another sabbatical as PM with a friend as President?

I think Putin has already said he will retire at the end of his current term. He's getting on a bit, wants to go and wrestle bears naked in Crimea while he still has the strength, no doubt.

Oi you! He is young, vital, youthful and vibrant. Also he isn't much older than me.

FrancisUrquhart

grabcocque said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

grabcocque said:

philiph said:

AlastairMeeks said:

williamglenn said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Noteworthy how niche the Leave.EU soft spot for Vladimir Putin is, even among Leavers.

The UK stands out as one of the countries where public opinion is most consistently hostile to Putin.

Poisoning people in the streets will do that.

So will continued occupation of the presidency.

I wonder if he will he 'retire' at the end of this term, change the constitution to allow him to continue or take another sabbatical as PM with a friend as President?

I think Putin has already said he will retire at the end of his current term. He's getting on a bit, wants to go and wrestle bears naked in Crimea while he still has the strength, no doubt.

Also he is richer than god, might as well get chance to enjoy all that money he has squirrelled away.

Question is what happens after Vlad retires to spend more time with his ill-gotten gains.

United Russia implodes -> civil war?

Am guessing Putin will join john cleese on st Nevis.

rkrkrk

Men more likely to support Putin than any of the political groupings.

Pulpstar

Queen Elizabeth II +56

Theuniondivvie

A great bunch of lads (& lasses).

https://twitter.com/shiner1888/status/1017125639621668864

Excellent juxtaposition of voice over & images.

DavidL

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

FPT
Whether Trump is serious or not about withdrawing from NATO is really not the point. The point is what used to be the adult in the room against whom the others could kick off and protest whilst remaining under their protection is now having tantrums itself.

The US faces a challenge to its global supremacy from China. Russia is not a threat. In fact, post Putin, it is a potential ally as they have at least as much to worry about so far as China is concerned as the US, arguably more.

Europeans have an enormously inflated sense of their own importance based on historical power, the impact that they had in the 19th and 20th centuries and the perception of soft power that they still have. In fact they are increasingly irrelevant and it is not obvious why the US should spend any of its resources protecting them from not very serious threats.

Which is fine. Being in the centre of history is rarely comfortable. Being a backwater will mean less Europeans dead, less money spent on arms and fewer reasons for the discontent of the world to have a go at us. Personally, I think we should take Trump at his word and begin the process of dismantling NATO. But then, I don't live in the Baltic States or Poland.

The problem is that it would not take much for Russia's quest for power - and particularly to regain 'their' territory - to start infringing on US interests. NATO would give potential aggressors such as Russia pause for thought in territorial expansion.

It is the sort of move that is 'easy' for the US to make in order to save a few quid (and after all, they're increasing their defence spending, not cutting), but may cost a heck of a lot more in a decade's time to correct.

How much "interest" does the US have in the Baltic States? How much do we? Are we really willing to have UK personnel killed in battles to protect them? To risk a nuclear war? It's something we will need to give a lot more thought to if NATO is found to be past it's sell by date.

DavidL

Pulpstar said:

Tony Blair -53
George Osborne -64
Kim Jong Un -70
Mark Reckless -70

Bizarre. Did they only poll contributors to PB? How many of the general public have even heard of Mark Reckless? 1%?

Pulpstar

DavidL said:

Pulpstar said:

Tony Blair -53
George Osborne -64
Kim Jong Un -70
Mark Reckless -70

Bizarre. Did they only poll contributors to PB? How many of the general public have even heard of Mark Reckless? 1%?

Volume
94th percentile
12383

139th Public Figure of 2421 tracked. I'm trying to find who is first and last in this list. The Queen is the most popular bod found so far and Murdoch the least liked.

HYUFD

Pulpstar said:

Tony Blair -53
George Osborne -64
Kim Jong Un -70
Mark Reckless -70

Osborne less popular than Trump with British voters, paging TSE!

DavidL

FrancisUrquhart said:

grabcocque said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

grabcocque said:

philiph said:

AlastairMeeks said:

williamglenn said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Noteworthy how niche the Leave.EU soft spot for Vladimir Putin is, even among Leavers.

The UK stands out as one of the countries where public opinion is most consistently hostile to Putin.

Poisoning people in the streets will do that.

So will continued occupation of the presidency.

I wonder if he will he 'retire' at the end of this term, change the constitution to allow him to continue or take another sabbatical as PM with a friend as President?

I think Putin has already said he will retire at the end of his current term. He's getting on a bit, wants to go and wrestle bears naked in Crimea while he still has the strength, no doubt.

Also he is richer than god, might as well get chance to enjoy all that money he has squirrelled away.

Question is what happens after Vlad retires to spend more time with his ill-gotten gains.

United Russia implodes -> civil war?

Am guessing Putin will join john cleese on st Nevis.

Not sure even Putin deserves that.

OblitusSumMe

DavidL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

FPT
Whether Trump is serious or not about withdrawing from NATO is really not the point. The point is what used to be the adult in the room against whom the others could kick off and protest whilst remaining under their protection is now having tantrums itself.

The US faces a challenge to its global supremacy from China. Russia is not a threat. In fact, post Putin, it is a potential ally as they have at least as much to worry about so far as China is concerned as the US, arguably more.

Europeans have an enormously inflated sense of their own importance based on historical power, the impact that they had in the 19th and 20th centuries and the perception of soft power that they still have. In fact they are increasingly irrelevant and it is not obvious why the US should spend any of its resources protecting them from not very serious threats.

Which is fine. Being in the centre of history is rarely comfortable. Being a backwater will mean less Europeans dead, less money spent on arms and fewer reasons for the discontent of the world to have a go at us. Personally, I think we should take Trump at his word and begin the process of dismantling NATO. But then, I don't live in the Baltic States or Poland.

The problem is that it would not take much for Russia's quest for power - and particularly to regain 'their' territory - to start infringing on US interests. NATO would give potential aggressors such as Russia pause for thought in territorial expansion.

It is the sort of move that is 'easy' for the US to make in order to save a few quid (and after all, they're increasing their defence spending, not cutting), but may cost a heck of a lot more in a decade's time to correct.

How much "interest" does the US have in the Baltic States? How much do we? Are we really willing to have UK personnel killed in battles to protect them? To risk a nuclear war? It's something we will need to give a lot more thought to if NATO is found to be past it's sell by date.

Really?! They are independent, democratic states. If we can't stand together to defend them then we may as well just invite the Chinese in to start running the country (they'd probably do a better job than the Russians).

If anything I would say that Russia is more aggressive and expansionist now than during many periods of the Cold War. We didn't make a stand on Crimea, Eastern Ukraine or Syria, which makes it all the more likely that we will have to do so in the Baltic States.

Ishmael_Z

DavidL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

FPT
Whether Trump is serious or not about withdrawing from NATO is really not the point. The point is what used to be the adult in the room against whom the others could kick off and protest whilst remaining under their protection is now having tantrums itself.

The US faces a challenge to its global supremacy from China. Russia is not a threat. In fact, post Putin, it is a potential ally as they have at least as much to worry about so far as China is concerned as the US, arguably more.

Europeans have an enormously inflated sense of their own importance based on historical power, the impact that they had in the 19th and 20th centuries and the perception of soft power that they still have. In fact they are increasingly irrelevant and it is not obvious why the US should spend any of its resources protecting them from not very serious threats.

Which is fine. Being in the centre of history is rarely comfortable. Being a backwater will mean less Europeans dead, less money spent on arms and fewer reasons for the discontent of the world to have a go at us. Personally, I think we should take Trump at his word and begin the process of dismantling NATO. But then, I don't live in the Baltic States or Poland.

The problem is that it would not take much for Russia's quest for power - and particularly to regain 'their' territory - to start infringing on US interests. NATO would give potential aggressors such as Russia pause for thought in territorial expansion.

It is the sort of move that is 'easy' for the US to make in order to save a few quid (and after all, they're increasing their defence spending, not cutting), but may cost a heck of a lot more in a decade's time to correct.

How much "interest" does the US have in the Baltic States? How much do we? Are we really willing to have UK personnel killed in battles to protect them? To risk a nuclear war? It's something we will need to give a lot more thought to if NATO is found to be past it's sell by date.

Well, quite. And if it all kicks off in a couple of years time I would rather not be in a political union with plucky little Latvia and leave its defence to countries who are. So there's an upside to brexit for you.

JSpring

Tonight's Question Time panel consists of Barry Gardiner, Claire Perry, Charles Moore, Gina Miller and Piers Morgan.

A contender for the most unlikable Question Time panel of all-time, surely.

grabcocque

To be that unpopular without having actually murdered anyone or be a paedo is quite the achievement.

AlastairMeeks

GreenHeron said:

Trump is a vain, crude narcissist so it is not surprising that he is unpopular here.

However he is also president of our biggest trading partner who is known to love the UK and is keen to negotiate a trade deal, but who is notoriously thin skinned and capricious.

I wonder how many people who are willing to jeopardise a good trade deal in order to score cheap political points, are the same people who are imploring us to listen to Airbus about the perils of Brexit?

If you think Donald Trump is going to offer Britain a good trade deal I have a bridge to sell you. The man is dismantling the current trading architecture to tenable the USA to impose one-sided arrangements. Britain will not be exempt.

Pulpstar

Not all Tory ex politicians are disliked, Portillo is on +4.

DavidL

OblitusSumMe said:

DavidL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

FPT
Whether Trump is serious or not about withdrawing from NATO is really not the point. The point is what used to be the adult in the room against whom the others could kick off and protest whilst remaining under their protection is now having tantrums itself.

The US faces a challenge to its global supremacy from China. Russia is not a threat. In fact, post Putin, it is a potential ally as they have at least as much to worry about so far as China is concerned as the US, arguably more.

Europeans have an enormously inflated sense of their own importance based on historical power, the impact that they had in the 19th and 20th centuries and the perception of soft power that they still have. In fact they are increasingly irrelevant and it is not obvious why the US should spend any of its resources protecting them from not very serious threats.

Which is fine. Being in the centre of history is rarely comfortable. Being a backwater will mean less Europeans dead, less money spent on arms and fewer reasons for the discontent of the world to have a go at us. Personally, I think we should take Trump at his word and begin the process of dismantling NATO. But then, I don't live in the Baltic States or Poland.

The problem is that it would not take much for Russia's quest for power - and particularly to regain 'their' territory - to start infringing on US interests. NATO would give potential aggressors such as Russia pause for thought in territorial expansion.

It is the sort of move that is 'easy' for the US to make in order to save a few quid (and after all, they're increasing their defence spending, not cutting), but may cost a heck of a lot more in a decade's time to correct.

How much "interest" does the US have in the Baltic States? How much do we? Are we really willing to have UK personnel killed in battles to protect them? To risk a nuclear war? It's something we will need to give a lot more thought to if NATO is found to be past it's sell by date.

Really?! They are independent, democratic states. If we can't stand together to defend them then we may as well just invite the Chinese in to start running the country (they'd probably do a better job than the Russians).

If anything I would say that Russia is more aggressive and expansionist now than during many periods of the Cold War. We didn't make a stand on Crimea, Eastern Ukraine or Syria, which makes it all the more likely that we will have to do so in the Baltic States.

So how many British soldiers is Estonia worth?

I agree that with the withdrawal of the American shield this is a real possibility and that a UK PM may well to have to answer that question. I am not sure I know the answer.

Tissue_Price

MikeSmithson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Noteworthy how niche the Leave.EU soft spot for Vladimir Putin is, even among Leavers.

There's no gratitude from leave voters is there? You think that they should at least recognise how much they were helped by the Russian president

And how much would you say that was, Mike? After all, I understand it's your "job to cut through the political spin to see what the data really says."

grabcocque

Is Piers Morgan in the YouGov shame list?

https://yougov.co.uk/opi/browse/Piers_Morgan

Oh yes.

Beverley_C

AlastairMeeks said:

GreenHeron said:

Trump is a vain, crude narcissist so it is not surprising that he is unpopular here.

However he is also president of our biggest trading partner who is known to love the UK and is keen to negotiate a trade deal, but who is notoriously thin skinned and capricious.

I wonder how many people who are willing to jeopardise a good trade deal in order to score cheap political points, are the same people who are imploring us to listen to Airbus about the perils of Brexit?

If you think Donald Trump is going to offer Britain a good trade deal I have a bridge to sell you. The man is dismantling the current trading architecture to tenable the USA to impose one-sided arrangements. Britain will not be exempt.

I disagree Alistair. Trump will offer us an excellent trade deal.

(Excellent for him, not for us)

FrancisUrquhart

Kim Jong may must be wishing she never invited him...

https://order-order.com/2018/07/12/trump-mays-brexit-deal-not-people-voted/

HYUFD

Pulpstar said:

Not all Tory ex politicians are disliked, Portillo is on +4.

Most popular Tory politician is I think Ruth Davidson and most popular Labour politician is Angela Rayner

FrancisUrquhart

JSpring said:

Tonight's Question Time panel consists of Barry Gardiner, Claire Perry, Charles Moore, Gina Miller and Piers Morgan.

A contender for the most unlikable Question Time panel of all-time, surely.

He just need to take QT out back and shoot it.

Pulpstar

JSpring said:

Tonight's Question Time panel consists of Barry Gardiner, Claire Perry, Charles Moore, Gina Miller and Piers Morgan.

A contender for the most unlikable Question Time panel of all-time, surely.

Their Yougov ratings (And volume. Low volume = non entity)

Piers Morgan -42; Volume 38076

Barry Gardiner +10; Volume 1922
Charles Moore -10; Volume 2536
Claire Perry -44; Volume 2614
GIna Miller Not tracked.

Pulpstar

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Not all Tory ex politicians are disliked, Portillo is on +4.

Most popular Tory politician is I think Ruth Davidson and most popular Labour politician is Stella Creasy

Frank Field with +22 is the highest I've found.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1017377652045467649

HYUFD

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Not all Tory ex politicians are disliked, Portillo is on +4.

Most popular Tory politician is I think Ruth Davidson and most popular Labour politician is Stella Creasy

Frank Field with +22 is the highest I've found.

OK, he just pips Rayner, Creasy and Burnham then who all have net positives in the late teens or early twenties

HYUFD

Pulpstar said:

Not all Tory ex politicians are disliked, Portillo is on +4.

Just ahead of Chuka Umunna who is on +2 and just behind Ruth Davidson on +5

OblitusSumMe

DavidL said:

OblitusSumMe said:

DavidL said:

How much "interest" does the US have in the Baltic States? How much do we? Are we really willing to have UK personnel killed in battles to protect them? To risk a nuclear war? It's something we will need to give a lot more thought to if NATO is found to be past it's sell by date.

Really?! They are independent, democratic states. If we can't stand together to defend them then we may as well just invite the Chinese in to start running the country (they'd probably do a better job than the Russians).

If anything I would say that Russia is more aggressive and expansionist now than during many periods of the Cold War. We didn't make a stand on Crimea, Eastern Ukraine or Syria, which makes it all the more likely that we will have to do so in the Baltic States.

So how many British soldiers is Estonia worth?

I agree that with the withdrawal of the American shield this is a real possibility and that a UK PM may well to have to answer that question. I am not sure I know the answer.

If we aren't prepared to fight in Estonia we will end up having to decide whether to fight in Poland, or Finland, or Sweden. It will cost us more dead later, or, at best, we really do end up as a vassal state of a totalitarian regime.

Anorak

DavidL said:

OblitusSumMe said:

DavidL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

FPT
*snip*

*snip*

How much "interest" does the US have in the Baltic States? How much do we? Are we really willing to have UK personnel killed in battles to protect them? To risk a nuclear war? It's something we will need to give a lot more thought to if NATO is found to be past it's sell by date.

Really?! They are independent, democratic states. If we can't stand together to defend them then we may as well just invite the Chinese in to start running the country (they'd probably do a better job than the Russians).

If anything I would say that Russia is more aggressive and expansionist now than during many periods of the Cold War. We didn't make a stand on Crimea, Eastern Ukraine or Syria, which makes it all the more likely that we will have to do so in the Baltic States.

So how many British soldiers is Estonia worth?

I agree that with the withdrawal of the American shield this is a real possibility and that a UK PM may well to have to answer that question. I am not sure I know the answer.

It's not about Estonia, it's about stopping Russian expansionism. You think the Baltic states would be the end of it? If unopposed it would embolden Putin to push further. Ukraine? Moldova? A chunk of Finland? Appeasement never ends well.

EDIT: I see OSM beat me to the punch.

Pulpstar

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/724982/The_future_relationship_between_the_United_Kingdom_and_the_European_Union_WEB_VERSION.pdf

Richard_Nabavi

It does seem very odd to have a debate on a White Paper which runs to 104 pages, with MPs given only five minutes to read it.

david_herdson

Pulpstar said:

Not all Tory ex politicians are disliked, Portillo is on +4.

Portillo is not a politician any more (and hasn't been for well over a decade - apart from a brief comeback, which virtually no-one remembers, not for 20 years). These days, he's primarily a travel journalist.

david_herdson

DavidL said:

FPT
Whether Trump is serious or not about withdrawing from NATO is really not the point. The point is what used to be the adult in the room against whom the others could kick off and protest whilst remaining under their protection is now having tantrums itself.

The US faces a challenge to its global supremacy from China. Russia is not a threat. In fact, post Putin, it is a potential ally as they have at least as much to worry about so far as China is concerned as the US, arguably more.

Europeans have an enormously inflated sense of their own importance based on historical power, the impact that they had in the 19th and 20th centuries and the perception of soft power that they still have. In fact they are increasingly irrelevant and it is not obvious why the US should spend any of its resources protecting them from not very serious threats.

The logic of which pushes Europe towards a strategic alliance with China.

JosiasJessop

DavidL said:

So how many British soldiers is Estonia worth?

I agree that with the withdrawal of the American shield this is a real possibility and that a UK PM may well to have to answer that question. I am not sure I know the answer.

Other people have given you good answers, but I'll add another one: on at least two occasions Putin's Russia has directly attacked us with chemical weapons (Litvinenko and Sailsbury), and might well have interfered (successfully or not) in our democratic process.

If you think that the dismantling of NATO would stop them from performing similar, or worse, acts, then you are being incredibly naive.

Putin is a bully. If there is one thing he understands it is power, and a Europe without NATO is a heck of a lot less powerful.

DecrepitJohnL

Richard_Nabavi said:

It does seem very odd to have a debate on a White Paper which runs to 104 pages, with MPs given only five minutes to read it.

The budget response? Was it Matrix Churchill when Robin Cook alone was allowed early sight?

You sometimes do have to wonder what the government is playing at.

CD13

Good to see Frank Field so high. You can be authentic and sensible.

RobD

Richard_Nabavi said:

It does seem very odd to have a debate on a White Paper which runs to 104 pages, with MPs given only five minutes to read it.

What were the government thinking?

brendan16

Richard_Nabavi said:

It does seem very odd to have a debate on a White Paper which runs to 104 pages, with MPs given only five minutes to read it.

Perhaps they only just finished writing it? There is an Exec summary which is only 7 pages - much of the rest is aspirational ranging over multiple topics rather than going into huge detail

Recidivist

Ishmael_Z said:

DavidL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

FPT
Whether Trump is serious or not about withdrawing from NATO is really not the point. The point is what used to be the adult in the room against whom the others could kick off and protest whilst remaining under their protection is now having tantrums itself.

The US faces a challenge to its global supremacy from China. Russia is not a threat. In fact, post Putin, it is a potential ally as they have at least as much to worry about so far as China is concerned as the US, arguably more.

Europeans have an enormously inflated sense of their own importance based on historical power, the impact that they had in the 19th and 20th centuries and the perception of soft power that they still have. In fact they are increasingly irrelevant and it is not obvious why the US should spend any of its resources protecting them from not very serious threats.

Which is fine. Being in the centre of history is rarely comfortable. Being a backwater will mean less Europeans dead, less money spent on arms and fewer reasons for the discontent of the world to have a go at us. Personally, I think we should take Trump at his word and begin the process of dismantling NATO. But then, I don't live in the Baltic States or Poland.

The problem is that it would not take much for Russia's quest for power - and particularly to regain 'their' territory - to start infringing on US interests. NATO would give potential aggressors such as Russia pause for thought in territorial expansion.

It is the sort of move that is 'easy' for the US to make in order to save a few quid (and after all, they're increasing their defence spending, not cutting), but may cost a heck of a lot more in a decade's time to correct.

How much "interest" does the US have in the Baltic States? How much do we? Are we really willing to have UK personnel killed in battles to protect them? To risk a nuclear war? It's something we will need to give a lot more thought to if NATO is found to be past it's sell by date.

Well, quite. And if it all kicks off in a couple of years time I would rather not be in a political union with plucky little Latvia and leave its defence to countries who are. So there's an upside to brexit for you.

Excellent point. I wonder why it is so rarely made.

GideonWise

Same tactics as for the cabinet meeting. May gave them 5 minutes to read it, then claimed to have consensus.
Nah.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1017382871466733569

TheScreamingEagles

Richard_Nabavi said:

It does seem very odd to have a debate on a White Paper which runs to 104 pages, with MPs given only five minutes to read it.

I think poor Dominic Raab was handed a hospital pass by the incompetence of David Davis.

tlg86

brendan16 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It does seem very odd to have a debate on a White Paper which runs to 104 pages, with MPs given only five minutes to read it.

Perhaps they only just finished writing it? There is an Exec summary which is only 7 pages - much of the rest is aspirational ranging over multiple topics rather than going into huge detail

Journalists had it at 9 am apparently.

TheScreamingEagles

RobD said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It does seem very odd to have a debate on a White Paper which runs to 104 pages, with MPs given only five minutes to read it.

What were the government thinking?

Listened to Leavers who said Brexit would be easy and done in an afternoon ?

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It does seem very odd to have a debate on a White Paper which runs to 104 pages, with MPs given only five minutes to read it.

What were the government thinking?

Listened to Leavers who said Brexit would be easy and done in an afternoon ?

Titters.

Am hopeful that May sounded out the EU on this one. Perhaps naively so.

GideonWise

Free movement of skilled labour? That sounds oxymoronic.

david_herdson

OblitusSumMe said:

DavidL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

FPT
he US faces a challenge to its global supremacy from China. Russia is not a threat. In fact, post Putin, it is a potential ally as they have at least as much to worry about so far as China is concerned as the US, arguably more.

Europeans have an enormously inflated sense of their own importance based on historical power, the impact that they had in the 19th and 20th centuries and the perception of soft power that they still have. In fact they are increasingly irrelevant and it is not obvious why the US should spend any of its resources protecting them from not very serious threats.

Which is fine. Being in the centre of history is rarely comfortable. Being a backwater will mean less Europeans dead, less money spent on arms and fewer reasons for the discontent of the world to have a go at us. Personally, I think we should take Trump at his word and begin the process of dismantling NATO. But then, I don't live in the Baltic States or Poland.

The problem is that it would not take much for Russia's quest for power - and particularly to regain 'their' territory - to start infringing on US interests. NATO would give potential aggressors such as Russia pause for thought in territorial expansion.

It is the sort of move that is 'easy' for the US to make in order to save a few quid (and after all, they're increasing their defence spending, not cutting), but may cost a heck of a lot more in a decade's time to correct.

How much "interest" does the US have in the Baltic States? How much do we? Are we really willing to have UK personnel killed in battles to protect them? To risk a nuclear war? It's something we will need to give a lot more thought to if NATO is found to be past it's sell by date.

Really?! They are independent, democratic states. If we can't stand together to defend them then we may as well just invite the Chinese in to start running the country (they'd probably do a better job than the Russians).

If anything I would say that Russia is more aggressive and expansionist now than during many periods of the Cold War. We didn't make a stand on Crimea, Eastern Ukraine or Syria, which makes it all the more likely that we will have to do so in the Baltic States.

The question then is where do you draw the line (literally).

Leave aside that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia wanted to be in the EU, Nato and Eurozone - for good reason - and were accepted.

If we accept that they're really in Moscow's sphere of influence, then where else do we accept it - and to what consequences? Ukraine? The Caucasus states? Poland? Bulgaria? East Germany? As Stalin observed at Potsdam on being congratulated on the Red Army having reached Berlin, "Tsar Alexander got to Paris".

Anorak

100% off all topics:
They've replaced the dragons on the Kew Gardens Pagoda, and they 3D printed them to reduce their weight. The pagoda was also used for testing the smoke dropped to cover the D-Day landings. So there you go.
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2018/07/12/the-dragons-have-returned-to-kews-great-pagoda/

DecrepitJohnL

brendan16 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It does seem very odd to have a debate on a White Paper which runs to 104 pages, with MPs given only five minutes to read it.

Perhaps they only just finished writing it? There is an Exec summary which is only 7 pages - much of the rest is aspirational ranging over multiple topics rather than going into huge detail

The new slogan appears to be principled and practical Brexit which appears five times if I've counted right. This usurps smooth and orderly which is there only twice. The white paper is then divided into Principled and Practical sections, so it is more than just a slogan -- barely.

FrancisUrquhart

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1017382871466733569

Wonder if we are going to see the resignations starting again.

AlastairMeeks

DecrepitJohnL said:

brendan16 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It does seem very odd to have a debate on a White Paper which runs to 104 pages, with MPs given only five minutes to read it.

Perhaps they only just finished writing it? There is an Exec summary which is only 7 pages - much of the rest is aspirational ranging over multiple topics rather than going into huge detail

The new slogan appears to be principled and practical Brexit which appears five times if I've counted right. This usurps smooth and orderly which is there only twice. The white paper is then divided into Principled and Practical sections, so it is more than just a slogan -- barely.

As always, what is asserted is the thing that is most questionable.

RobD

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1017382871466733569

Wonder if we are going to see the resignations starting again.

Now we’re waiting for their counter-proposal

TheScreamingEagles

England are not picking this spinner.

3 wickets in his first eleven balls.

Pulpstar

Is vassalage like vaseline ?

Richard_Nabavi

Pulpstar said:

Is vassalage like vaseline ?

Yes, but more expensive.

Pulpstar

Here's a handy photo of Le Goulet:

https://twitter.com/ProRoyalFamily/status/998963164770422784

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/benjonescricket/status/1017385620719665154

Harris_Tweed

Pulpstar said:

Is vassalage like vaseline ?

I suspect JRM believes them both to be involved in similar physical interactions with the EU.

Pulpstar

I'm surprised Mogg has managed to read, digest and respond to the paper in 5 minutes to be perfectly honest. He must be a quick reader.

William_H

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1017382871466733569

I like a good historical reference, but it seems silly to pick this one which only applied to John's continental possessions (so not England) rather than the 1213 submission by John to the Pope.

DecrepitJohnL

World Cup news. Apparently there are some football matches at the weekend if we are not too busy counting strawberry punnets.

As predicted, Luka Modric is now into 9/4 for Golden Ball (best player). If you are not already on, then even that price might represent some value in a two-horse race with Mbappe at 10/11. I believe voting is partway through the final but you should check that if you want to play late, in case one of them scores a hat-trick in the first ten minutes. The case for each player is that Mbappe is the best young player in the world, especially against Argentina. Luka Modric has single-handedly taken what is basically a Sunday league side from a country with a smaller population than Scotland into the World Cup final. As ever dyor because tbh I've not looked at anyone else.

Golden boot (and some bookies bet on top scorer instead where dead-heat rules will be different) looks to be Harry Kane's which is why the best price out there is 1/16 with some bookies as short as 1/25. Lukaku is two goals behind. It might be worth a second look depending how the third-place playoff starts as this has been a high-scoring match in the past.

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/rosschawkins/status/1017388103886090240

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/JakubKrupa/status/1017387954040442880

JosiasJessop

Pulpstar said:

I'm surprised Mogg has managed to read, digest and respond to the paper in 5 minutes to be perfectly honest. He must be a quick reader.

Or it was leaked. Or he's just decided what's in it before reading it.

GIN1138

Richard_Nabavi said:

It does seem very odd to have a debate on a White Paper which runs to 104 pages, with MPs given only five minutes to read it.

Anyone would think the government views their own MP's as the enemy?

TheScreamingEagles

William_H said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1017382871466733569

I like a good historical reference, but it seems silly to pick this one which only applied to John's continental possessions (so not England) rather than the 1213 submission by John to the Pope.

I'm not sure a Papist like Rees-Mogg will see that as a bad thing.

After all he takes his whip from Rome.

RobD

Pulpstar said:

Here's a handy photo of Le Goulet:

https://twitter.com/ProRoyalFamily/status/998963164770422784

I'm still fuming of Troyes, and now this second betrayal?

TheScreamingEagles

Hooray.

https://twitter.com/carlgardner/status/1017389934595006466

AlastairMeeks

Pulpstar said:

Here's a handy photo of Le Goulet:

https://twitter.com/ProRoyalFamily/status/998963164770422784

It looks like the Money Supermarket Builders vs Strutters.

Harris_Tweed

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1017382871466733569

Wonder if we are going to see the resignations starting again.

I've been wondering the same. Because:

- there was that quote the other night that they had "another, and another" lining up to go if Chequers wasn't withdrawn. I think they probably meant more than a couple of unheard of vice-chairs, unless they were doing the old DD "all mouth and trousers" routine.
- I can see why they took a 48 hour break while the football was dominating, and to use that to see if they could force any rollback in the full white paper.
- ... but I suspect the answer is that they haven't.
- I think Fox and Gove have been remarkably absent from the airwaves this week since the resignations. Notwithstanding Gove's loyalty on Sunday TV, the absence of a repeat this week probably suggests they're keeping their powder dry to see how the white paper flies.

The only thing which may slow it all down is the fear reported by Guido that a move against May comes too soon to topple her, so they decide to keep the boat afloat till the autumn.

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hooray.

https://twitter.com/carlgardner/status/1017389934595006466

Even Putin and Erdogan believe in this court.

DecrepitJohnL

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hooray.

https://twitter.com/carlgardner/status/1017389934595006466

It is almost as if the ECHR is not the EU.

AlastairMeeks

Harris_Tweed said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1017382871466733569

Wonder if we are going to see the resignations starting again.

I've been wondering the same. Because:

- there was that quote the other night that they had "another, and another" lining up to go if Chequers wasn't withdrawn. I think they probably meant more than a couple of unheard of vice-chairs, unless they were doing the old DD "all mouth and trousers" routine.
- I can see why they took a 48 hour break while the football was dominating, and to use that to see if they could force any rollback in the full white paper.
- ... but I suspect the answer is that they haven't.
- I think Fox and Gove have been remarkably absent from the airwaves this week since the resignations. Notwithstanding Gove's loyalty on Sunday TV, the absence of a repeat this week probably suggests they're keeping their powder dry to see how the white paper flies.

The only thing which may slow it all down is the fear reported by Guido that a move against May comes too soon to topple her, so they decide to keep the boat afloat till the autumn.

All they've done is advertise their weakness and lack of positive workable suggestions. They could not have marginalised themselves more effectively if they'd tried.

It's Brexit in microcosm.