Britain’s World, the Council on Geostrategy’s online magazine, asked whether the United Kingdom can still be called a rising power.
The question follows IMF forecasts suggesting Britain will be the G7’s second fastest-growing economy in 2026 and could overtake Japan by 2030 to become the world’s fifth largest.
Several experts argued that Britain’s global influence remains robust but constrained by persistent domestic weaknesses. Stephen Booth of TheCityUK described the UK as a “leading middle power” rather than a resurgent one, pointing to the country’s economic size, diplomatic reach, and defence partnerships as evidence of continuing relevance—but also warning that structural issues at home could limit its potential.
Others were more bullish. William Freer, of the Council on Geostrategy, suggested that Britain’s decades of “managed decline” might finally be ending, noting forecasts that could see the UK’s GDP overtake Germany’s in the 2030s. Yet, he cautioned that tackling problems such as energy costs and demographic pressures remains essential if any “rise” is to be sustainable.
Some contributors were sceptical of the “rising power” label. Dr Ksenia Kirkham of King’s College London warned against overstating the IMF’s optimism, arguing that the UK lacks the innovation-led growth and investment patterns typical of genuine ascents. She criticised the government’s industrial strategy as incoherent and too narrowly focused on military rearmament.
A more strategic perspective came from James Rogers, the Council’s co-founder, who said Britain’s future strength would depend on its willingness to invest heavily in defence, energy and infrastructure. By doing so, he argued, the UK could become “strategically indispensable” within NATO and the wider Western alliance system.
The article also features contributions from former ministers and defence officials, including Anne-Marie Trevelyan and Peter Watkins, who emphasised the UK’s enduring military, technological, and diplomatic capabilities despite fiscal constraints and regional competition.
Read the full debate at Britain’s World, which explores Britain’s international role and global influence.
Fascinating overview. One can argue till the cows come home on such a subjective issue, yet one fact is clear: all major military crises in Europe, Middle East, and Far East have drawn in British forces for hundreds of years. Not many countries can make that claim, and we will continue to get involved. A major indicator of power is the ability to have a global reach, and this year the UK has demonstrated its impressive naval prowess by sending the PO task group around the World.
More like “In Recovery” after a bad Illness but not off life support yet.
Just my take but IMO Britain’s influence without doubt, remains significant but is now rests more on our ethical and cultural values rather than imperial force.
The UK is changing. Forget the politics; the best recent example is the King’s recent removal of Royal titles from his brother. This action cannot have been easy. It displayed character, grace and sacrifice. Personally, I felt taller as a UK citizen. Thanks and kudos Charles.
😂😂😂
Well, have a good laugh; but I reckon historians will look back at this – Andrew’s official fall from grace – as the moment Britain decided to stop living a life of denial and delusion and face up to reality. The next big events will be the budget ( inc the defence plan), next May’s elections and digesting the impact of the appointment of a woman as Archbishop of Canterbury. Disestablishment of the C of E is a distinct possibility – the Tory party is already ‘disestablished’.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Unfortunately too many people like you have caused the destruction of the UK…mass immigration from the third world, cultural war on native British people, high tax, high government spending, debt, collapse of civic society, woke judges, two tier policing,….etc, etc. The list of ills caused by people like you is endless and unfortunately we all live with the consequences of these bad decisions….
What a ridiculous rant. The electorate have voted the Tories out after 14 years of office because they felt they had mismanaged the country- correctly in my view. The UK economy has been progressively falling behind that of other nations ( who have absorbed even more 3rd world immigration) since the financial crisis in 2008. The Tories have been in power for almost all of the period since. Their governance must take most of the blame for the state we are in. We are a democracy and the present govt has been put in office to try different strategies / policies in an attempt to stop HMS UK from capsizing! If you want to find the source of the self denigration of our national identity and culture I would start with institutions like BBC and the C of E. A BBC woman news presenter has been disciplined for rolling her eyes at the phrase ‘pregnant people’. You are correct that there are hidden forces permeating many walks of life, which attempt to subvert our culture. Their primary weapon is the normalising anti- Christian values. It has been said that the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn’t exist. Have a nice day.
What a weird comment. Aside from quite how you managed to draw such conclusions from the previous comment, the UK is clearly not ‘destroyed’. Indeed, the article itself is discussing whether we are ‘ascending’ or not… I recommend reading it. There is no ‘cultural war’ on the natives. Your culture is whatever you want it to be. That right extends to everyone and, if you want, you can share it with others. It’s not a zero sum game – my culture is completely fine. How is yours not? As for the high tax, more than the defence budget is spent on paying interest on debt, which has gone from £400B just before the financial crisis of 2008, to £2900B now. The original crisis was cased by selfish spivs and chancers; millionaires and billions. The debt taken on to save them was by politicians of the same class, like Farage and Bojo, who now want us to blame each other. Immigration is clearly too high for the country to manage right now – both socially and financially – but I don’t see those people themselves as the enemy. There is no two-tier policing. Police are currently dragging away disabled old people for holding card board signs AS WELL AS arresting people for trying to encourage or actively burn down buildings full of people. There are no woke judges. What does that even mean?
Rising? 🤣is this an April fools article??.
No… Britain is in no way, a rising power. Britain’s power is in-fact waning.
You can’t post links here. However, The IMF publish datasets of national annual gdp per capita from 1980 to present and projections up to 5 years ahead. It is interesting, but more so shocking, to see where the IMF sees the UK compared to Germany and France in 2030. It’s puts a wrecking ball to much of the negative spin about the UK since you know what. Looks like we (EU) haven’t done very well since you left us. Haha!
Just try going the the start of each line below, starting from the 2nd line, and backspace. Copy and paste.
imf
.org
/external
/datamapper
/NGDPDPC
@WEO
/GBR
/DEU
/FRA
/EURO
/EU
Or search – World Economic Outlook – GDP per capita, current prices
Just one perspective from an economic view. Bad, very bad, but could be a lot worse; you could still be in this cluster buck of a union.
That’s ruined my usual line that Brexit is a disaster. Thanks for that!
It would be welcome news indeed. Especially in light of our Chancellor’s comments this week.
Christ Mark, I bet you’re fun at parties !!!! 😂
Well British remainers find me particularly tiresome. They just hate it when I use loathsome facts backed by irritating logic and inconvenient hard data.
Hello Mark,
I hope you wont find me tiresome for using facts, logic and hard data to query you.
I believe your sources are all about total GDP, not per capita. They are based on the assumption of current population trends continuing. IE the UKs population growing faster than the EU’s which is likely to decline. This is likely to mean a continuing Islamisation of the UK.
We already have a population density far higher than Germany’s and the far higher property prices this causes. For the same income in hard currency I could already have a far higher standard of living in Germany than the UK. If these predictions are correct those will difference will accelerate.
I don’t find facts tiresome at all. It’s a pity you have not provided any. You clearly didn’t look at the link provided in my 1st post. It clearly states at the top of the web page:
“GDP per capita, current prices
U.S. dollars per capita”;
and certainly not National GDP.
Cyprus, Bulgaria, France, Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands and Austria, all EU countries, have larger Muslim populations, as a percentage, than the UK. Germany is about the same, 6.5 vs 6.1%.
Many of those Muslims in the UK are British born and I’m sure, unless you have evidence to the contrary, are just as British and as patriotic as you.
Interesting fact:
400,000 Indian Muslims fought for the British Army, with 89,000 dying, in World War II.
Here’s some more welcome news.
www
.seair
.co.in
/blog
/largest-exporters-in-the-world.aspx
Where did they get that extraordinary statement .? Rising power.? How? I would love to believe it but even before Reeves the merciless has another go almost all the figures for available employment; bankruptcies productivity; national debt; unemployment are all bad. We are very,very poorly so we won’t be rising anytime soon.
To be fair Geoff, “They” didn’t, It’s a question being asked.
Looking at the responses here already, there is no real answer (and some rather comical ones).
Wow lets hope the IMF can see something we can’t
We won’t hear Starmer Labour the BBC or the Establishment mention that we are now unfettered by the EU and maybe now we are benefiting
However our national debt and even much larger public service pension indebtness is beyond brlief and unsustainable
Even worse Reeves first budget for growth!!!!!!! was a disaster and she looks like she is going to repeat it
Spend spend and spend on black holes!! of nothingnes
Oh dear I need Halfwit and friends to lift my humour
Hey Smickers, the day is young, I’m just thawing out from an epic *Hooning* session earlier (before the rain).
Give it time and I’m sure there will be some Humour along in a while.
To be honest, I’m pissing myself already with certain comments here.
* Hooning is a term used by certain areas Bikers, to describe a ride containing copious amounts of speed related fun, It’s not everyones cup of tea though but Sundays are always good for a bit of hooning especially when others are in Church praising one of the 3000 Gods or having afternoon Tea with King Jug Ears !😂😂😂👀🤡
60 years ago my new wife and I had a ‘ hoon’ in Ireland. We called it a honeymoon without any money!
Just remember that politicians are involved, and they fuck things up. Not to mention many factors can knock this, if true, sideways. We have just seen Japan and America sign a partnership; this could put GCAP at risk. Sorry for being a downer.
The UK hasn’t been a rising power since it’s share of global GDP peaked in the 1860s. By all means debate the rate of decline, but let’s be realistic.
Interesting, I would not say that the UK is a rising power I think that overstates things, it’s a stable mid ranking world power.. essentially it will sit happily in that second rank behind the superpowers of the US and china. For me the key question is not will the UK suddenly increase or decrease in power and influence its how it will align itself in the wider geopolitical world and how much it will participate in the geostrategic balance in each part of the world.
One of the key factors in that and something that has been an obsession of the UK is the EU. Will the EU become more centralised politically and develop as the third superpower or will it suffer a political breakdown.
Like all second rank world powers on a edge of these superpower or almost superpower blocks the UK will need to decide its path, this is same for Russia ( that still deluded itself its a first ranks superpower) Japan, Korea, the UK and India. Will it essentially become second fiddle to its closest and most aligned superpower or will it play its independence on the world stage.
The UK has a slightly easier time of this as it essentially sits snuggled between two powers that essentially align with it and are friendly to it and each other( the US and Europe ) allowing it a level of independent action as a bridging power for both and offering both significant advantages. Some of the second tier world powers have a more difficult set of decisions.. with Japan and Korean having just about the hardest… both essentially sitting next door to a superpowerblock that does not like them much and their friendly superpower that they had hung their security on being 10,000kms away and becoming more and more irrational in its utter internal focus.
The other great advantage the Uk has that it’s somewhat overlooked and downplayed in its years of rejecting iself as a post imperial power is that fact it’s the only nation on earth that spans the entire globe. The UK is a nation that spans the Atlantic, south Atlantic, Antarctic, Indian Ocean and pacific. As a second tier world power this is essentially huge… and instead of retreating from it the UK should be embracing it especially its Atlantic territories.. the future exploitation of the Antarctic is huge and the UK has a significant claim.. it’s also the only northern hemisphere western power to have a direct airbridge all the way to the Antarctic as well as significant port and airport facilities very close, only 750 miles. Personally I think the Uk should be considering the likelihood of the BAT becoming a massive bonanza for the UK that will be threatened by other powers and should mark its superior claim by bringing all its Atlantic territories into the UK proper.. I also think it should do the same same for the BIOT and go FU to the UN.. let all the chagos islanders move back to the islands and give them full British citizenship and an MP then allow them a self determination vote, let’s see which nation they vote to be part of and stick 2 fingers up to the UN.. that would completely remove the legal issues around the BIOT EEZ and there would be FA anyone could do anything about it because self determination trumps all whinging by some third world authoritarian.
Im not sure I agree that the governments focus on the arms industry is a less than optimal thing.. it’s something the Uk is good at and it’s a thing that is swayed by political influence and soft power as well as hard power.. it also gives massive soft power and the ability to transform wealth to hard power very quickly when needed..
But this focus on arms as a key to industrial renewal needs a complete relook at our armed forces.. they need three missions 1) act as deterrent and ensure national security 2) act as a core arm of the Military industrial complex, essentially being the showcase and salesroom for the MIC 3) being the core of the required force to fight a peer war. Three things need to change within our present paradigm..
1) an understanding that the standing armed forces are first and foremost a communication of deterrent and this is critical because fighting two peer wars was the thing that destroyed the British empire and sent the UK into a forty year almost terminal decline which we are still managing now ( love her or hate her thatcher was the force that but the breaks on that decline).. this is critical as fighting a peer war on your home turf takes years and burns 30+ percent of your GDP it’s a generation to dig your way our even if you win ( supporting or even helping to fight a peer war on someone else’s turf can be an industrial stimulus to counter the effects of a massive peer war on your own economy as the US knows well).
2) the MIC is the thing that allows you to win peer wars.. your peacetime armed forces should after the deterrent function be utterly focused on the development of this… but this means you see investment in your armed forces as an investment in the nation.. your armed forces should be overflowing with kit from your own industrial complex.. it should then be acting as the sales function for that kit.. the Italians do this well with their escort building..it’s navy is constantly supplied with lots of new escorts that they work up and then happily flog off to other nations as essentially “pre reg”. The U.S. has always done this in the later half of the 20c.
What I do think is our green energy agenda has missed the mark.. personally I’m all up for the UK transferred to an all renewable mix.. because once you get past the capital cost of transfer it’s profoundly cheaper in the long run and gives full long term energy independence..that will grow our economy massively.. if the UK was fully independent using, wind, solar, wave, tidal, nuclear and water batteries ( denorwig style) we would have the cheapest energy in the world.. natural gas and oil are expensive resources..what we should be doing is massive extraction and selling the lot abroad to capitalise our renewable energy infrastructure so we can keep the costs reduced as we transfer… the simple truth is every other nation is extracting oil till the end and we are not going to change that.. all we can do is change our own usage ( to our advantage) and sell what we can to allow that… most nations in the end are moving their long term energy infrastructure to the Same thing..so sell now and use the money honey.
Demographics is a problem for the UK.. people go on about china and yet completely forget that china has a “future” demographics issue in 10-20 years the west has a present massive demographics issue that it tried to paper over with uncontrolled migration.. and that has created massive social tension and a sundering of political trust. So what do we do.. birth rates are to low, the heathy life expectancy has not gone up ( it’s still in the low 60s ) but life expectancy has.. in 1980 healthy life expectancy for men was 60 and life expectancy was 73 now healthy life expectancy is still only 62 but life expectancy is 82 the rise in life expectancy is on the back of a massively increased healthcare cost in those final years of ill health with the ill health life now about 20 years long.. it’s not sustainable.. the last decade of a persons life 70s to 80s sucks up a truely profound level of cost ( without pension or social care, just healthcare you are talking up to 10 times the cost to keep a person treated in their late 70s and 80s than the healthcare costs of most people in their 40s..60s) the cost of healthcare after the point of healthy life is profound so we need to refocus our society from the elongation of ill health life to the elongation of healthy life.. so shift the healthly life expectancy from the early 60s to the 70s so it is within 10 years of life expectancy that is the only way to manage health costs.. if we do that we can also morally and practically shift the pension age.. at present we are shifting the pension age more and more into the zone of unhealthy lives which is not tenable.. if the average person is living an unhealthy life ( has multiple long term conditions) from 62 then a pension age of 67-68 is untenable an wrong..if the average person is living a healthy life to 70 then it’s fine… just as an example Norway has a healthy life expectancy of 70 for men and 72 for women.. if we can get to that as well as stabilise birth rates to 2.1 children then we will essentially sort out the core rot killing our nation.
Christ Jonathan, You certainly know how to cheer up us 62 year old unhealthy male Bikers thats for sure.
I might be away for a bit, going to write my will before Iminent Death arrives !!!
It’s fine as a 62 year old you have 20 years of ill health to look forward to 😂😂😂
The import thing to remember is we are all going to crock, but not at this minute not now.. and now is what matters.. the future is a pretty picture that exists only in your imagination.
Mate, I’ve lived with the threat of death every day for 30 plus years now, but as long as I keep her locked up and away from any sharp knives, I’ll be fine.
Blimey your lucky if it’s only knives you have to worry about 😂😂😂
It is interesting I have actually looked after a number of blokes stabbed by female relatives.. it’s a thing.. putting cheese in the dinner, watching the wrong tv programme all can lead knife attacks..
Ha, I have a whole Volume of Life experiences I could share with you here but I’m rather selective about certain things but yes, I have stories to tell about Knives, Women and various other deadly combinations !
There was this Bloke once, re morgaged his house to build a Ski Slope, It all went downhill from there 😁
“Mort” gaged !!!
I nearly Mort gaged out on a ski slope.. zero sense… I was pissed at the time.
Green energy cannot be cheaper because it requires back up generation. Nuclear as back up is very expensive.
In any case, why bother? As the recent paper published by the U.S. Department of Energy clearly shows, the climate will change, has always changed regardless of CO2 levels.
Britain is certainly not an ascendant power, nor will it be until it has a credible conventional deterrent that helps restore ‘The Long Peace’ (in abeyance since 2014) in Europe and a much reduced public sector permitting resumed economic growth and prosperity for all
If you have the correct mix you don’t need that much nuclear.. the UK has the best geography for tidal energy in the world.. tidal is both constant and regular it can be onshore so easy and safe to maintain, it can be distributed as every harbour can be turned into a tidal generator site. You can also build a lot of wave energy in the upper intertidal zone that you can use to generate energy and you can build your wind and solar tie this all into a lot of potential energy batteries.. we have lots of waterways in upland regions and you are golden..As long as you set up up so you manage fluctuations in demand your golden.
You cannot use US energy production as a model for the UK.. the U.S. has vast easy to access hydrocarbons so it’s cheap for it to gain energy dependence using hydrocarbons.. the UK has a very limited amount of hydrocarbons.. which means if we use hydrocarbons we have to buy on the open market.. the first issue with that is LNG from the international market is the single most expensive way to produce electricity.. it’s by far the most expensive of our present energy mix and is why our wholesale price is so high ( the UK sets its wholesale electricity price on the most expensive generation method in use that day and that is aways imported LNG).. also the US has significantly less potential tidal energy than the UK so it’s not an option for it the US.. the UK has the potential to produce about 11 Gigawatts from tidal, which is huge…. Use what we have not what others have to sell us..that’s how you get energy independence.
The second is issue with UK hydrocarbon dependency is most of the worlds hydrocarbons are either under the control of regimes that are not our friends at best neutral or at the end of a long sea bridge that is at risk of being severed.. that leaves us in a geostrategically weak position…which is a stupid place to be the way the world is heading..
As for that US energy paper.. I’ve read it..my first degree was environmental science not healthcare so I always keep up on the evidence base and that report is to put it bluntly a steaming pile of politically driven bollox, it’s a none academic political assessment of the evidence base by 5 scientists who were selected to provide a message…. it is not NOT a PEER REVIEWED systematic review or umbrella review of the scientific primary research… essentially it’s junk put out to provide a justification for ignoring climate change.. it’s primary premise is to show that man made climate change is not having meaningful “economic” impact on the U.S. at present and that if the rest of the world does not move to renewables just the US doing so would not impact significantly on man made climate change on its own…
As for the whole the climate will change regardless of man made CO2 levels… how many times have I heard that before, yes the climate always changes… but guess what human civilisation developed in a remarkably settled period of climate being a a sweet spot and for 99.99999999999% of the planets life the climate has been completely incompatible with human civilisation…. So yes the climate changes and yes if it does significantly shift human civilisation and possibly the species as a whole ends.. just to note the great shifts in climate are know as extinction events.. and do you know how long it takes generally for the climate to change to be significant in these extinction events about 100,000 years… yes 100,000 years that’s rapid climate change.. the great dying the single most impactful event driven by natural events saw a an increase of 10 degrees in temperature over 100,000 years… FFS in the last 200 years since industrialisation the planet has warmed 1.4 degrees.. a 10 degree increase over 100,000 years triggered the extinction of 80% of all marine species and 70% of all vertebrates.. we may get to a 4 degree rise by the end of this century.. do you see the issue.. catastrophic natural climate change even driven by catastrophic events such as a super volcano pumping CO2 into the air cause changes over a period 50 times longer than recorded human history..we will have got almost halfway to an extinction event within 300 years of the start of industrialisation.
Couple of things worth remembering though.
Without Global Warming the UK would still be attached to mainland Europe and the Tidal Power sites would be high and dry.
Hincley Point B has just started a 96 year decomissioning/clean up process.
You dismiss out of hand (defensive, never a good look) the DoE report’s (highly respected) authors but not their (excellent peer reviewed) references. The report specifically requests criticism. Have you made any to DoE. If not, why not?
‘There have been many attempts to realise tidal range power in the UK dating back to the 1920s.
They have not succeeded, mainly due to short-term changes in policy such as electricity privatisation in the 1980s, the dash for gas in the 1990s and the credit crisis of the late 2000s.
Barriers include the high upfront costs, lack of investment pipeline and ecological concerns.
For tidal stream, which didn’t start until the early 2000s, barriers include uncertainty over the technology and cost.’
So all a bit ‘pie in the sky’
And the requirement based on a few dodgy models incapable of computing the complexities of a chaotic climate system; pure scientific hubris with far too much venality at its core.
Stand by for some reading.
Noooo tidal did not succeed because they would not invest in it… it works very very well and is basic proven technology has been for many many decades.. just because we had zero political will and made bad choices does not make that the wrong choice..
I’m really sorry but you clearly don’t understand the scientific process of systematic review and umbrella review.. they themselves have to be peer reviewed to remove bias.. you cannot just take snapshots from a load of different peer reviewed sets of research and create your own conclusions without proper review..If they had undertaken a systematic review via the peer review process and published appropriately that would be a piece that could be used.. this is not that it’s essentially government propaganda for government purposes. understand the limitations of the information being presented.. scientific consensus is gained by individual sets of research that are peer reviewed as that body builds you get peer reviewed systematic reviews of the various individual research.. finally you get peer reviewed umbrella reviews of the metadata that take in all the systematic reviews.. after a few of these there tends to develop a consensus… five PHDs working for a government does not make a meaningful peer reviewed umbrella study.. and asking for public opinions is not a peer review process anyone recognises.. the public are not peers in this case.
To start your reading I will give you an example of a peer reviewed systematic study of man made climate change evidence base that is a good first start…
“Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature”
By Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z Houlton and Simon Perry
19 October 2021, environmental research letters, vol 16, number 11..
This is a well respected peer reviewed systematic study of the evidence base from a well respected scientific journal and publisher with an open and robust peer review process..
Ah I see you’ve fallen foul of Monro’s inability to grasp the fact that studies comissioned by the Trump admin are not to be trusted as they have to make the conclusion Trump wants them too.
My condolences.
It’s hard, but I’ve put it behind me.
Your reading list below. Come back when you know what you are talking about.
Your reference, ‘Greater than 99% consensus….’, has been reviewed:
‘…the rating method used in the study suffers from a subjective bias which is reflected in large variations between ratings of the same paper by different raters…..the conclusions of the study does not follow from the data.’
Climate Oct 2023: ‘Ninety-Nine Percent? Re-Examining the Consensus on the Anthropogenic Contribution to Climate Change’
I say, again, the DoE July 2025 report ‘A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate’ specifically requests criticism. Have you made any to DoE. If not, why not?
I say again, you dismiss five highly respected experts in their chosen fields but make no reference to the long lists of peer reviewed papers that they reference. That does a great deal of damage to your assertions.
Why do you think no-one invested in tidal?…..Maybe a thing called a cost/benefit analysis…..?
‘The results show that when the total cost to the consumer is considered, including wholesale market costs, subsidy requirement and the impact on existing subsidies (Contracts for Difference (CfD)), and the cost of thermal constraint and energy balancing
costs, the counterfactual scenario where no tidal range is included is the cheapest.’
NESO Report: ‘Strategic Case for Tidal Range’ Oct 2025
‘99% consensus on human caused climate change’ is just plain silly. Here’s some reading to help you out:
‘About 4 in 5 (79%) of respondents (surveyed) are a member in at least one of the key meteorological/climate related organizations….Just over half (59%) say that global climate change will have a significant harm on living conditions for those alive today. Thirty percent say it will have a slight harm, and about 8 percent believe living conditions will improve….Those who do not belong to one of the 6 key organizations are more likely than those who are members to say living conditions will be significantly harmed…..’
The Heartland Institute: ‘Climate Change Study’ Oct 2022
‘French scientists led by Slah Boulila from the Sorbonne (have) found large temperature hikes going back millions of years across the globe. The scientists noted warming up to 15°C within a few decades, “pointing to abrupt and severe changes in Earth’s past climate”.
Scientific Reports: ‘A Jurassic record encodes an analogous Dansgaard–Oeschger climate periodicity’ Feb 2022
‘Statistical analysis of the modern distribution and climate thresholds of Ceratopteris were used to estimate the mean annual temperature (MAT) and mean January temperature (MJaT) of the Lake Baiyangdian area during the mid-Holocene, which were respectively 3.5 °C and 7.7 °C higher than today.’
Science Direct: ‘Paleovegetation and paleotemperature in North China during the mid-Holocene’ June 2022
In any case, more CO2, however created, is a good thing:
‘Over 600 million years it is difficult to observe any general lockstep connection between temperature and gas. It might, however, be noted that over 600 million years, CO2 has generally been declining in the atmosphere to the near denuded levels seen today. As we have seen over the last 40 years even small rises in CO2 lead to significant planet-wide biomass growth. All that CO2 was good for the dinosaurs who roamed the Earth until 66 million years ago, with levels more than three times higher than today. The little extra has also been good for humans since recent crop yields have soared and helped to alleviate naturally-occurring world famine.’
SEPM Vol. 11: ‘Phanerozoic Paleoclimate: An Atlas of Lithologic Indicators of Climate’
Compulsory reading: ‘Climate Uncertainty and Risk: Rethinking Our Response’
Here’s a list of failed climate catastrophising dating back into the 1960s:
‘Doomsday Addiction: Celebrating 50 years of Failed Climate Predictions’ Chris Bennet (AGWEB 30 Oct 2024)
There is plenty more where that came from but the above should get you started. Enjoy!
Thanks for a balanced and thoughtful post. I was braced for this thread of replies to be universally critical. We differ on details in places but you’ve presented your argument clearly and well.
We have a PM terrified of his own shadow who has a look of terror in his eyes at all times.
Take our Atlantic territories into the UK????!!!! If only. He’d sooner give them away, and what is waiting on the left of his party, which I have warned here about for years, and been castigated for, would be even worse.
As always, I agree with everything Jonathan says in his balanced view of geopolitics.
On the article, a “rising power”? No, one in perpetual decline led by 40 years of a political class happy to manage that decline, from our days as a superpower. Which is fine, as this happens to all nations eventually.
Jonathan, I really think you should write an article for George or maybe the Council on Geostrategy. Your thoughts are wasted on writing a well-researched essay under nearly every article, and you have enough material to start your own site if you really wanted to.
I agree completely with everything you are saying (and say, repeatedly), which is why my criticism is more of a question. The idea of giving the overseas territories more direct recognition (French-style) as a buffer against legal challenge is a good one, but there aren’t enough Chagossians to warrant their own MP so I think some form of grouping would be required to make sure that all of the territories are represented as a constituency in the UK would be.
To fit them into our constituency system each group would need a population of 50-80,000 people. The Cayman Islands by themselves are just over the top of that bracket at 88k, while Bermuda is in the middle at 64k. They account for half of the BOT population, so there would need to be two other groups of populations of roughly even numbers.
Turks and Caicos is 39k
Gibraltar is 35k
BVI 32k
Anguilla 15k
all others sub-10k
So I think the best grouping would be for the Cayman Is and Bermuda to each become their own constituencies, and the other two being formed by our Lesser Antilles and ‘everything else’.
It isn’t too much of a problem that the Lesser Antilles would have too big a population on paper as they are much more closely grouped than the other set, so there would be fewer problems with electing an MP from the other side of the world.
One of the 4 BOT MPs would be designated a Minister for the Overseas Territories and have responsibility for government policy relating to them, while the other 3 would be able to hold them to account and give Parliament a more local view of global events. Their travel expenses might get expensive, though 😉
Christ, I was just about to say all that !!!! 😁
Great minds think alike, and all that 🤨
Seems like a good plan. I think we also need to do something soon for Pitcairn before everyone dies out.
Maybe a Mutiny ?
Nations can be influencal on global stage under the condition they are influential within their own region, it’s a prerequist: china, us or uk in the 19th century are/were powerful on global stage because they are first in their « home » area. Whether or not people Like it, uk lost massive influence by leaving the EU and this Will limit uk’s influence in the future.
I think we could easily become a rising power if we weren’t shackled by incompetent leadership. There’s what in my youth would have been called high unemployment (although these days it’s par for the course) and relatively low productivity. Our finances are being sucked dry by an evil housing market. War looms. Yet it’s the inability of the Home Office to stop illegal migration and process asylum seekers that takes up all the political bandwidth because the newspapers say so.
It’s clear that our leaders aren’t stupid, so why are they incompetent? I think there’s something systemically wrong with our political process that causes our leadership to become spineless morons wher they reach high office. I don’t know what it is. The few capable of acting, do so against the interest of the country. This government want a growth agenda, yet the Bank of England holds interest rates high and is pursuing quantiative tightening, probably the only central bank in the world still doing so. Why doesn’t the government just say no?
Nobody has acted as they said they would since Thatcher. I hated her politics and the grocer’s daughter economics, but she stood for what she believed and acted on that openly. We need capable people who can act for the mass of the people, but its Starmer wearing Attlee’s mantle. We don’t need another manager of decline, we need someone who can lead us out of it. I believe that’s all it will take, although I have to admit I haven’t seen any likely candidates. I worry that whatever is wrong with politics means those who are capable simply couldn’t stomach doing the job.
Apart from big assumptions (that the UK will keep growing faster than Germany, Japan, France etc consistently for years to come, that other larger powers will not emerge, that some other countries in or outside Europe will not start spending a much higher % of GDP on defence out of necessity or geopolitical strategy, etc) we are still talking about the UK as a regional power with global reach, same as France. The size of US and China economy and therefore military spend (potentially adding the EU too in the future) are just another order of magnitude.
Is this thread just a sick joke? The UK is an irrelevance to all the powers that really matter. Politicians are delusional liars conning an increasingly totally apathetic lazy populace who cannot even be bothered to do a days work anymore let alone fight for their country. From cradle to grave we are teaching children ..sorry young people…that they are entitled people who should be wracked with guilt for their country’s previous greatness and should do nothing to allow a return to those times. War is not looming but the second it is millions will flee the country.
It’s a ludicrous question to ask.
Yes – things are being better organised and planned, now we have a Government rather than a collection of headless chickens having a punch up in a cess pit.
But it will take a decade to recover from 15 years of society being gutted. For now, just look in Google Streetview at the maintenance of any bit of your local ara in 2022 compared with 2009. Yesterday I drove past a bush growing out of a pedestrian refuge in one of the main streets in my town.
Then we can ask this question sensibly.
That comment has not aged well……
See, I would say we’re not… But if you ask someone from the Baltics or the Scandinavian region, they say we’re much more important than we realise.
Overall, we have some cracking stuff, we just operate way too little of it to be an effective force. We can make up a Naval Carrier force, with European Ships in the same fleet, but alone, we’re barely able to guard them.
Someone needs to have a hard look at our capabilities and ability to sustain losses and the operational reach… I’m not saying we need a force to rival the USA, but we need an Army that isn’t top heavy with Generals that end up commanding less than half of the USMC.