That is the means, not the motivation.

Midterms might put a halt to some of his more extreme policies. But without a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, Dems cannot force anything through. He can still abuse executive orders. They can impeach him a thousand times, for all the difference it makes.

Maybe ironic more than roll on the floor hilarious?

Americans voted for him though. I despise Trump a much as the next sane individual. But I'm more worried about the people who voted for him. In 2020 he got more votes than in 2016, and in 2024 he got more than 2020. The more incompetent and insane he is, the more people support him. Why?

Trump has not even been there a year yet. I am terrified to think of the damage he could do over the next three years.

We have known what he is like since 2015. And yet the numbers who vote for him have increased at every election. People clearly want an incompetent, vain, bigoted ignoramus in the White House. What does that say about voters?

How are you any different? You literally went to help Putin's genocide in Ukraine, and leave NATO. You seem to enjoy a fascist as much as Farage does.

Hahahahha

And yet you won't promise to reverse it. The reasons you gave for not having a policy to rejoin the EU were pathetic and unconvincing. You're no friend to those us who want to rejoin.

Excellent piece! I am sceptical that changing leader is sensible. But Starmer is so incompetent! Can he even find an effective director of communications or chief of staff? If I could replace him, I'd go for Miliband. He was Labour's best leader while in opposition. I think he'd be ace.

You're not wrong, I am here in Finland (though I am British), and we have the proto-fascists in government!

Won't hear an argument from me. When Powell gave his Rivers of Blood Speech the entire political establishment condemned him. Meanwhile Labour are pandering to Reform on the issue of refugees. The Tories are Reform *are* worse though. They are talking about deporting legal immigrants.

In the podcast @bwalker.uk argues that Plaid won't benefit from tactical voting in the next Senedd general election. Why does he think that? By my reckoning if Caerffili had been d'Hondt it would be 3 to Reform, and 3 to Plaid. But if 3,000 Lab voters switched to Plaid, it would be 4-2 to Plaid.

By my reckoning, if the Caerffili result had been a d'Hondt election Plaid and Reform would each win 3 seats. *But* if 3,000 of the Labour voters had tactically switched to Plaid, then Plaid would win 4 seats and Reform 2 seats. Food for thought.

I am talking about the Polanski. He has ways said he is a populist. Populists like fascists, that is a given. Polanski has said he want to abandon Ukraine to Putin's genocide. He has said he wants to leave NATO. The guy is clearly an idiot.

Greens want to abandon Ukraine. That is tantamount to supporting fascism in Russia. Leaving NATO is a cretinous policy. Not a serious party.

Labour's campaign was all negative, it was atrociously bad. They're doomed next spring unless they find a positive issue to campaign on. With the new list system, and full PR, the zero-sum game of FPTP simply won't work.