Nobody Cares about Britain

[Khamon]

and the signatures will not be on it until details are ironed out and accepted on both sides. Trump will have nothing to do with any of that boring old work. He'll simply claim victory for a handshake now and for a slightly refitted post-tariff trade agreement after the functionaries (if they're not all fired) actually seal the deal.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I was wondering what the defence was ...

Sycamore Gap trial told friends blame each other over felling tree

Accused men ‘revelled’ in attack, prosecution tells Newcastle crown court

www.thetimes.com

Evernote Link

Link to Guardian article

 

[CronoCloud Creeggan]

Link to Guardian article

Wait they damaged Hadrian's Wall too? Lock them in the Tower and throw away the key.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

No, they didn't. The announcements are just political theater. Given Trump's completely erratic behavior, it's not an agreement until the signatures are on it. Anyone want to place bets on whether this actually happens?

This is not a Trump deal. This is an agreement between the UK and India. I would bet a fair bit that Trump will insist on signing it anyway.

and the signatures will not be on it until details are ironed out and accepted on both sides. Trump will have nothing to do with any of that boring old work.

I should hope not.

So far it's more a Memorandum of Understanding than an enforceable trade agreement.

 

[Soen Eber]

Well I can only hope it's better than the "You are really a dumb, sad little sod" reaction the U.K. got when they first started shopping around for a favorable trade agreement just after Brexit.

But not by much.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Well I can only hope it's better than the "You are really a dumb, sad little sod" reaction the U.K. got when they first started shopping around for a favorable trade agreement just after Brexit.

But not by much.

It's an improvement on the position after April 2 of this year, but it leaves things worse than they were before April 2`. The important deal comes later this month, when we try to reset some of the post-Brexit arrangements with the EU to both sides' advantage, but it's a small piece of good news for particular sectors (e.g. Jaguar Land Rover and other car manufacturers who export to the US).

The good news is that Peter Mandelson, our new Ambassador to the US, known as "the Prince of Darkness" when he was Tony Blair's spin-doctor and fixer, gets on well with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and is clearly well able to charm Donald Trump, so the expectation is that this "deal" (as opposed to Trade Agreement) will lead to further concessions, later, like walking back the crazy idea of 100% tariffs on movies made outside the US.

 

[Beebo Brink]

UK-US trade deal 'isn't worth the paper it's written on', Nobel Prize-winning economist tells Sky News | Politics News | Sky News

...leading economist Joseph Stiglitz has told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips he "wouldn't view [the deal] as a great achievement".

"Any agreement with Trump isn't worth the paper it's written on," he said, pointing out the president signed deals with Canada and Mexico during his first term - only to slap them with hiked tariffs within days of returning to the White House this year.

"I would view it as playing into Trump's strategy," he said.

"His strategy is divide and conquer, go after the weakest countries, and sort of put the stronger countries in the back."

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

UK-US trade deal 'isn't worth the paper it's written on', Nobel Prize-winning economist tells Sky News | Politics News | Sky News

Yeah, Trump has done a lot of bad shit, but his tendency to tear up international agreements is one of the most damaging things he's done. WHY would anyone trust us anymore?

 

[Soen Eber]

What was it that German defense minister Moltke called treaties and agreements like this again, way back in 1914? ... "A scrap of paper?", "Ink on a page?" Something like that.

That certainly went well, didn't it?

That last might have been something J. Michael Straczynski wrote in homage to that act

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

Sir Keir Starmer has promised to overhaul a "broken" immigration system, with plans to tighten English tests for all visa applicants and their adult dependants among the reforms being considered.
Migrants will also have to wait 10 years to apply to settle in the UK, instead of automatically gaining settled status after five years, under the plans.
Labour's long-awaited migration rules, to be published soon, will "create a system that is controlled, selective and fair," the prime minister said.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the idea Sir Keir "is tough on immigration is a joke" and promised to push Parliament to introduce a cap on migration.

Speaking before the publication of the Immigration White Paper, Sir Keir accused industries being "almost addicted to importing cheap labour" instead of "investing in the skills of people here and want a good job in their community".
He singled out engineering as an industry "where visas have rocketed while apprenticeships have plummeted".
The current system shuts out "young people weighing up their future" who missed out on potential training, Sir Keir said.

PM promises tougher visa rules to fix 'broken' migration system

Sir Keir Starmer promises new migration rules will "create a system that is controlled, selective and fair".

www.bbc.com

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Sir Keir Starmer has promised to overhaul a "broken" immigration system, with plans to tighten English tests for all visa applicants and their adult dependants among the reforms being considered.
Migrants will also have to wait 10 years to apply to settle in the UK, instead of automatically gaining settled status after five years, under the plans.
Labour's long-awaited migration rules, to be published soon, will "create a system that is controlled, selective and fair," the prime minister said.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the idea Sir Keir "is tough on immigration is a joke" and promised to push Parliament to introduce a cap on migration.

Speaking before the publication of the Immigration White Paper, Sir Keir accused industries being "almost addicted to importing cheap labour" instead of "investing in the skills of people here and want a good job in their community".
He singled out engineering as an industry "where visas have rocketed while apprenticeships have plummeted".
The current system shuts out "young people weighing up their future" who missed out on potential training, Sir Keir said.

PM promises tougher visa rules to fix 'broken' migration system

Sir Keir Starmer promises new migration rules will "create a system that is controlled, selective and fair".

www.bbc.com

Pretty much sums up how I feel about Labour at the moment, despite being a long-time party member.

Link to Guardian article

 

[Lexxi]

Pretty much sums up how I feel about Labour at the moment, despite being a long-time party member.

Link to Guardian article

Now in power, concerns have been once again pushed aside. There is no time for the luxury of scrutiny of accountability, because now Reform is rising and the party must be stopped. Once again, the voter is asked to park their issues with Labour and save the nation from a worse alternative. “A vote for anyone but Labour risks more chaos under a Farage-Tory coalition,” posted the Labour party on its X account in early May. “Vote Labour. Stop Reform.”


This is hostage politics.

When voters are asked constantly to make decisions not on the kind of government they want, but the one they don’t want, something is broken. The voter is held captive and presented with a series of escalating threats that only a vote for Labour can prevent. Reform’s big gains in the local elections, like a severed finger in a bloody envelope, are proof that no one is bluffing. Vote Labour, stop Reform.

I can see someone making some kind of "don't vote Third Party" "we are the only option" in an election in the USA, but a "Vote Labour. Stop Reform"? In the UK? Why? Because they are the only choice? They aren't the only choice in the UK to stop Tory, Reform, or Tory-Reform. pfft.

The Liberal Democrats entered the 2024 general .... a successful campaign, the party made the biggest gain in seats in its history, winning a party high of 72 seats.

In the 2025 United Kingdom local elections, the Liberal Democrats came second place behind Reform UK.] They won three county councils; Cambridgeshire, Oxfordshire and Shropshire.

I assume they did something to make people hate them, or something recently. Just seems odd to have a column about how Labour is playing hostage politics without once even mentioning the Liberal Democrats (even if it's at a 'and they aren't an option either' mention, if they aren't).

They are the third-largest party in the United Kingdom, with 72 members of Parliament (MPs) in the House of Commons. They have 77 members of the House of Lords, 5 in the Scottish Parliament, 1 in the Welsh Senedd, and more than 3,000 local council seats.

As an outsider looking in, I'm obviously missing something.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I can see someone making some kind of "don't vote Third Party" "we are the only option" in an election in the USA, but a "Vote Labour. Stop Reform"? In the UK? Why? Because they are the only choice? They aren't the only choice in the UK to stop Tory, Reform, or Tory-Reform. pfft.



I assume they did something to make people hate them, or something recently. Just seems odd to have a column about how Labour is playing hostage politics without once even mentioning the Liberal Democrats (even if it's at a 'and they aren't an option either' mention, if they aren't).


As an outsider looking in, I'm obviously missing something.

The UK is a parliamentary democracy, which means the government is led by whoever leads the party or coalition of parties, that compromises a majority in the House of Commons.

In most, though not all, constituencies Labour currently hold, their main challengers at the next election will be Reform or the Conservatives. In those constituencies (mine is one of them) there's no chance a Lib Dem or a Green will win, but any votes that go to them and not Labour make it easier for Reform (or, in my constituency, the Conservatives) to win.

In other constituencies it's a different picture. There the choice is between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives.

In last year's elections there was a de facto electoral pact between Labour and the Lib Dems not to campaign too hard in seats they couldn't win, thus making it easier to keep out the Tories. In that election it wasn't so much that Labour won (though they were returned with a huge majority) as that the Conservatives lost because everyone wanted rid of them.

In the next election, Labour will be defending what will, for various reasons, not all of them under the government's control, be a pretty uninspiring record. In seats they're defending one of the main arguments for people like me who might otherwise be considering voting for the Greens or the Lib Dems in protest against the current government's record will be that, if we do, we'll end up with a Reform (or Conservative, in my constituency) MP and probably a Reform -- Conservative coalition.

If I lived somewhere where the main contender on the centre left was a LibDem or Green candidate I might very possibly vote for them, but I don't, and neither do most Labour voters.