Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

As long as MPs rate VI ahead of Approval ratings the PM is safe – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,161
edited March 2022 in General
imageAs long as MPs rate VI ahead of Approval ratings the PM is safe – politicalbetting.com

I am sure that just about all PBers are aware of my position that leader approval numbers are a better guide to the public mood than voting intention.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,175
    First like no.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,839
    edited February 2022
    On topic: agree.

    Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.
  • Boris's knack of getting away with stuff is something to behold. With Partygate, wise heads were asserting that, while he may have wormed his way out of trouble before, this time it will absolutely, positively, definitely be different. And yet here we are. Boris has chalked up yet another escape.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,955
    edited February 2022
    Let's let not leave this lavishly tooled bit of dumbassery behind.

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rather bizarrely, Scottish Green MSP Ross Greer has decided to double-down on the already bizarre decision of the SNP to sow confusion about Scots pensions.

    Apparently, the fact that, after the American Civil War, the victorious Union Govt went on to pay the pensions of the losing Confederates is a useful debating point when considering what might happen after Indy...

    If you're tiring of wind and Russians, there's more here: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/scottish-greens-enter-scexit-pensions-farce

    To be fair, it was news to me that the the last widowers' pension for a Confederate service personnel was paid out in 2012.

    Genuine helpful advise to SNP, from 3,000 miles away. Stop talking about pensions, there’s precicsely nothing that will help your cause by keeping the subject alive.
    If only the SNP would listen to some bloke on the internet.
    Tbf there are tens & tens of thousands of them blokes so it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
    Oh well, keep talking about pensions then. Doesn’t bother me!
    Sorry, your Scotch credentials as someone who thought betting against the SNP as the largest party at the last Holyrood election was a good punt should certainly be given more respect. That puts you in the special SE Pantheon with Leon.
    Oh dear, back to the hugely witty "Scotch" thing again. Apparently all us English folk (you know, that uniform group of privileged white people) refer to people from Scotland as "Scotch". Well, this is how the minds of twisted English hating nationalists like to think English people refer to them, just to create a little more hatred in their sick nationalist minds.

    Unless of course "Scotch credentials" refers to an expertise in whiskey from north of the border perhaps?
    Whiskey!

    Lol, definitely not a scotch expert.

  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,468
    edited February 2022

    Let's let not leave this lavishly tooled bit of dumbassery behind.

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rather bizarrely, Scottish Green MSP Ross Greer has decided to double-down on the already bizarre decision of the SNP to sow confusion about Scots pensions.

    Apparently, the fact that, after the American Civil War, the victorious Union Govt went on to pay the pensions of the losing Confederates is a useful debating point when considering what might happen after Indy...

    If you're tiring of wind and Russians, there's more here: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/scottish-greens-enter-scexit-pensions-farce

    To be fair, it was news to me that the the last widowers' pension for a Confederate service personnel was paid out in 2012.

    Genuine helpful advise to SNP, from 3,000 miles away. Stop talking about pensions, there’s precicsely nothing that will help your cause by keeping the subject alive.
    If only the SNP would listen to some bloke on the internet.
    Tbf there are tens & tens of thousands of them blokes so it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
    Oh well, keep talking about pensions then. Doesn’t bother me!
    Sorry, your Scotch credentials as someone who thought betting against the SNP as the largest party at the last Holyrood election was a good punt should certainly be given more respect. That puts you in the special SE Pantheon with Leon.
    Oh dear, back to the hugely witty "Scotch" thing again. Apparently all us English folk (you know, that uniform group of privileged white people) refer to people from Scotland as "Scotch". Well, this is how the minds of twisted English hating nationalists like to think English people refer to them, just to create a little more hatred in their sick nationalist minds.

    Unless of course "Scotch credentials" refers to an expertise in whiskey from north of the border perhaps?
    Whiskey!

    Lol, definitely not a scotch expert.

    Yep. Even Yanks know that whiskey is Irish bourbon and whisky is Scottish bourbon
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373

    Let's let not leave this lavishly tooled bit of dumbassery behind.

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rather bizarrely, Scottish Green MSP Ross Greer has decided to double-down on the already bizarre decision of the SNP to sow confusion about Scots pensions.

    Apparently, the fact that, after the American Civil War, the victorious Union Govt went on to pay the pensions of the losing Confederates is a useful debating point when considering what might happen after Indy...

    If you're tiring of wind and Russians, there's more here: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/scottish-greens-enter-scexit-pensions-farce

    To be fair, it was news to me that the the last widowers' pension for a Confederate service personnel was paid out in 2012.

    Genuine helpful advise to SNP, from 3,000 miles away. Stop talking about pensions, there’s precicsely nothing that will help your cause by keeping the subject alive.
    If only the SNP would listen to some bloke on the internet.
    Tbf there are tens & tens of thousands of them blokes so it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
    Oh well, keep talking about pensions then. Doesn’t bother me!
    Sorry, your Scotch credentials as someone who thought betting against the SNP as the largest party at the last Holyrood election was a good punt should certainly be given more respect. That puts you in the special SE Pantheon with Leon.
    Oh dear, back to the hugely witty "Scotch" thing again. Apparently all us English folk (you know, that uniform group of privileged white people) refer to people from Scotland as "Scotch". Well, this is how the minds of twisted English hating nationalists like to think English people refer to them, just to create a little more hatred in their sick nationalist minds.

    Unless of course "Scotch credentials" refers to an expertise in whiskey from north of the border perhaps?
    Whiskey!

    Lol, definitely not a scotch expert.

    Are you trying to make a rye post? Because if so, you barley scratched the surface.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fd36667e90e07662ed92c85/Scotch_Whisky_Technical_File_-_June_2019.pdf
  • TimT said:

    Let's let not leave this lavishly tooled bit of dumbassery behind.

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rather bizarrely, Scottish Green MSP Ross Greer has decided to double-down on the already bizarre decision of the SNP to sow confusion about Scots pensions.

    Apparently, the fact that, after the American Civil War, the victorious Union Govt went on to pay the pensions of the losing Confederates is a useful debating point when considering what might happen after Indy...

    If you're tiring of wind and Russians, there's more here: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/scottish-greens-enter-scexit-pensions-farce

    To be fair, it was news to me that the the last widowers' pension for a Confederate service personnel was paid out in 2012.

    Genuine helpful advise to SNP, from 3,000 miles away. Stop talking about pensions, there’s precicsely nothing that will help your cause by keeping the subject alive.
    If only the SNP would listen to some bloke on the internet.
    Tbf there are tens & tens of thousands of them blokes so it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
    Oh well, keep talking about pensions then. Doesn’t bother me!
    Sorry, your Scotch credentials as someone who thought betting against the SNP as the largest party at the last Holyrood election was a good punt should certainly be given more respect. That puts you in the special SE Pantheon with Leon.
    Oh dear, back to the hugely witty "Scotch" thing again. Apparently all us English folk (you know, that uniform group of privileged white people) refer to people from Scotland as "Scotch". Well, this is how the minds of twisted English hating nationalists like to think English people refer to them, just to create a little more hatred in their sick nationalist minds.

    Unless of course "Scotch credentials" refers to an expertise in whiskey from north of the border perhaps?
    Whiskey!

    Lol, definitely not a scotch expert.

    Yep. Even Yanks know that whiskey is Irish bourbon and whisky is Scottish bourbon
    That post takes the biscuit frankly.
  • I think those numbers are very crude. Since people have a binary of either approve or disapprove it doesn't necessarily follow that people disapprove of Boris more than Corbyn.

    If polled I would absolutely say that I disapprove of Boris, no doubt about that. But my disapproval of Boris doesn't come close to my disapproval of Corbyn.

    I expect that's true for a very, very large proportion of people too.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,419
    ydoethur said:

    Let's let not leave this lavishly tooled bit of dumbassery behind.

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rather bizarrely, Scottish Green MSP Ross Greer has decided to double-down on the already bizarre decision of the SNP to sow confusion about Scots pensions.

    Apparently, the fact that, after the American Civil War, the victorious Union Govt went on to pay the pensions of the losing Confederates is a useful debating point when considering what might happen after Indy...

    If you're tiring of wind and Russians, there's more here: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/scottish-greens-enter-scexit-pensions-farce

    To be fair, it was news to me that the the last widowers' pension for a Confederate service personnel was paid out in 2012.

    Genuine helpful advise to SNP, from 3,000 miles away. Stop talking about pensions, there’s precicsely nothing that will help your cause by keeping the subject alive.
    If only the SNP would listen to some bloke on the internet.
    Tbf there are tens & tens of thousands of them blokes so it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
    Oh well, keep talking about pensions then. Doesn’t bother me!
    Sorry, your Scotch credentials as someone who thought betting against the SNP as the largest party at the last Holyrood election was a good punt should certainly be given more respect. That puts you in the special SE Pantheon with Leon.
    Oh dear, back to the hugely witty "Scotch" thing again. Apparently all us English folk (you know, that uniform group of privileged white people) refer to people from Scotland as "Scotch". Well, this is how the minds of twisted English hating nationalists like to think English people refer to them, just to create a little more hatred in their sick nationalist minds.

    Unless of course "Scotch credentials" refers to an expertise in whiskey from north of the border perhaps?
    Whiskey!

    Lol, definitely not a scotch expert.

    Are you trying to make a rye post? Because if so, you barley scratched the surface.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fd36667e90e07662ed92c85/Scotch_Whisky_Technical_File_-_June_2019.pdf
    It's sad when people feel the need to cask aspersions.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368

    TimT said:

    Let's let not leave this lavishly tooled bit of dumbassery behind.

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rather bizarrely, Scottish Green MSP Ross Greer has decided to double-down on the already bizarre decision of the SNP to sow confusion about Scots pensions.

    Apparently, the fact that, after the American Civil War, the victorious Union Govt went on to pay the pensions of the losing Confederates is a useful debating point when considering what might happen after Indy...

    If you're tiring of wind and Russians, there's more here: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/scottish-greens-enter-scexit-pensions-farce

    To be fair, it was news to me that the the last widowers' pension for a Confederate service personnel was paid out in 2012.

    Genuine helpful advise to SNP, from 3,000 miles away. Stop talking about pensions, there’s precicsely nothing that will help your cause by keeping the subject alive.
    If only the SNP would listen to some bloke on the internet.
    Tbf there are tens & tens of thousands of them blokes so it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
    Oh well, keep talking about pensions then. Doesn’t bother me!
    Sorry, your Scotch credentials as someone who thought betting against the SNP as the largest party at the last Holyrood election was a good punt should certainly be given more respect. That puts you in the special SE Pantheon with Leon.
    Oh dear, back to the hugely witty "Scotch" thing again. Apparently all us English folk (you know, that uniform group of privileged white people) refer to people from Scotland as "Scotch". Well, this is how the minds of twisted English hating nationalists like to think English people refer to them, just to create a little more hatred in their sick nationalist minds.

    Unless of course "Scotch credentials" refers to an expertise in whiskey from north of the border perhaps?
    Whiskey!

    Lol, definitely not a scotch expert.

    Yep. Even Yanks know that whiskey is Irish bourbon and whisky is Scottish bourbon
    That post takes the biscuit frankly.
    It's almost enough to drive you to drink (even if it's just a wee dram or 2).
  • pigeon said:

    On topic: agree.

    Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.

    I think a 2010 result is the likely outcome of the next election, but with Labour rather than the Tories having a plurality. With the Tory bogeymen gone, Labour can then try and win over Scottish pro-independence voters to get a majority the following time around.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,246
    edited February 2022
    Surely there must be one or two people out there, or maybe several million, who disapprove of the PM for any number of reasons but who will continue to vote Conservative because they consider it to be in their best interests.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,918
    edited February 2022
    Yes well Labour kept Corbyn as leader before both the 2017 and 2019 general elections, even when most polls before December 2019 had the Tories 10% ahead or more.

    Johnson unlike Corbyn has already proved he can win a general election majority in 2019 so why would Tory MPs replace him when the voting intention figures have the Tories closer to Starmer Labour now than Corbyn Labour was to the Tories in 2019? Unless Labour clearly expands its poll lead again and the Tories suffer heavy losses in May then Boris stays whatever his approval rating.

    I also believe OGH is overrating the impact of a new Tory leader. The hypothetical voting intention and best PM polls suggest even Sunak as PM would still fail to win a majority against Starmer anyway
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,561

    Boris's knack of getting away with stuff is something to behold. With Partygate, wise heads were asserting that, while he may have wormed his way out of trouble before, this time it will absolutely, positively, definitely be different. And yet here we are. Boris has chalked up yet another escape.

    Not yet he hasn't. Until the police and Grey both exonerate him, he is still very much in trouble.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,625
    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    As concerns grew in Europe over an imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine, Germany’s foreign minister suggested for the first time on Friday that military action by Moscow could mean the end of Nord Stream 2, a natural-gas pipeline running from Russia to Germany.

    NY Times live blog

    It's a finely balanced judgment. The Americans fear Nordstream 2 because they believe it would give the Russians the whip hand over Europe whereas Europeans are in favour because they calculate that Russian dependency on eurocash would make them more malleable. The clever thing about it is that the rate of flow can be carefully adjusted at each end, leading to more or less pressure as the situation demands. But obviously it has to be finished, first.
    The real problem with NordStream2 that Russia can then cut off countries in the "Near Abroad" without interfering with supplies to Germany etc.

    So they can divide an conquer - threaten countries near them and even cut them off, separately to German gas supplies.
    The main reason for the project in the first place, was to cut off Ukraine. Gas pipelines are one of their largest sources of hard currency.

    UK, EU and friendly countries need to start buying Ukranian goods, mostly foodstuffs. Let them see that trade with the West is always the better option for them.
    That of corse is why Maggie and then Major were so supportive of the satellite countries joining the EU and NATO. The expansion of the EU to the East is the best thing to happen to these countries to secure their future peace and prosperity. Britain's role in the EU was as liberator, and well worth the short term cost.

    Brexit was playing into Putins hands by weakening it. If we had remained we could be pushing for Ukranian entry.
    The EU knew our price to stay in, they refused to pay it so we left. There's not a lot more to it than that. If our membership was as valuable as you say then more fool them for not doing whatever it took to keep us in the tent.
    Yep and weakened both ourselves and the EU. Putin must have pissed himself laughing, then Trump too...
    Merkel was always Putin's useful idiot when she refused to properly engage with the real issues Dave raised in the sham negotiation. The price wasn't even very high, it was an ideological refusal to admit that the EU could get anything wrong which drove them to refuse Dave's meagre requests and water down his "victories". Had she actually listened the UK wouldn't have left (because people like me could have been won over to vote remain) and the EU would have come out stronger on the other side with a democratic vote of confidence from one of its most sceptical members.

    C'est la vie.
    Merkel is not to blame for the pathetic nature of Cameron's negotiation. His requests from the start were inadequate, driven by what I believe to be his desire to see the UK at the heart of the EU, with no exemptions, and his overconfidence that he could deliver this by browbeating the public. Therefore instead of opting the UK out of ever closer union, he made a silly demand that the whole EU needed to step away from ever closer union. A convincing semi-detachment of the UK from the EU could have been managed and could have been accepted by all but the most hardcore.
    It is tricky for leavers to come to terms they were Putin's useful idiots, particularly as they like to kid themselves they are "patriots". Much easier to blame the furriners
    Needless to say, I disagree - I don't mind full Brexit, as I think it delivers long term opportunities, though its temporary outworking has been tough going.

    But I would have been very happy to accept a good associate-member status. The real culprits are not leavers at all, but the Cameronite political class, who were ideologically and politically subscribed to a vision of international politics that saw Britain permanently and irrevocably embedded within the EU, and weren't prepared to accept any dilution of that vision.
    If you think of any opportunities you might want to write to Jacob. Apparently he is casting around for ideas.

    I'll let you into a secret. There were no longer term, medium term or short term opportunities. It was all a big con to satisfy the egos of a few anti-EU obsessives.

    Those of us that knew this all along have come to terms with the fact that we lost. It might help if those that were in favour of it also came to terms with the fact that it was pointless. Either way, we are where we are.
    Forgive me, but you don't really seem to have come to terms with it.

    JRM can VM me if he wants any ideas - I believe he posts here as @RochdalePioneers.
    No I genuinely have come to terms with it. I am not in favour of re-joining the EU even if they wanted us. It doesn't stop me pointing out its stupidity and laughing at those who in spite of all of the overwhelming evidence that it was pointless still try and make out it was a worthwhile endeavour. I have to find a bit of humour in the whole thing after all.
    If we had never been members, do you think the case for joining would be unambiguous?
    Good question. My case against Brexit was always that it was an unnecessary upheaval for no gain. That has been proven to be the case. Without the benefit of a parallel universe it is difficult to know the answer to your question because we don't know the condition of the UK had it been outside the EEC/EU all that time, so it would depend on the benefits on offer. I am tempted to think I would probably not been in favour if everything else were even.
    If your primary objection was to their obsession with constitutional issues instead of just accepting things as they were and getting on with it, is there a case for saying that the hardcore Remainers and the Brexiteers have swapped places?
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,904
    pigeon said:

    On topic: agree.

    Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.

    The problem with that, Mr Pigeon, is that you are overlooking the effect that the Lib Dems will have. How many seats in total do you think the Tories will lose next time? Seriously.....
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,454
    HYUFD said:

    Yes well Labour kept Corbyn as leader before both the 2017 and 2019 general elections, even when most polls before December 2019 had the Tories 10% ahead of more.

    Johnson unlike Corbyn has already proved he can win a general election majority in 2019 so why would Tory MPs replace him when the voting intention figures have the Tories closer to Starmer Labour now than Corbyn Labour was to the Tories in 2019? Unless Labour clearly expands its poll lead again and the Tories suffer heavy losses in May then Boris stays whatever his approval rating

    Well just because someone has won once doesn’t mean they will win again. Past performance can not be used to reliably predict the future.
  • ydoethur said:

    Let's let not leave this lavishly tooled bit of dumbassery behind.

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rather bizarrely, Scottish Green MSP Ross Greer has decided to double-down on the already bizarre decision of the SNP to sow confusion about Scots pensions.

    Apparently, the fact that, after the American Civil War, the victorious Union Govt went on to pay the pensions of the losing Confederates is a useful debating point when considering what might happen after Indy...

    If you're tiring of wind and Russians, there's more here: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/scottish-greens-enter-scexit-pensions-farce

    To be fair, it was news to me that the the last widowers' pension for a Confederate service personnel was paid out in 2012.

    Genuine helpful advise to SNP, from 3,000 miles away. Stop talking about pensions, there’s precicsely nothing that will help your cause by keeping the subject alive.
    If only the SNP would listen to some bloke on the internet.
    Tbf there are tens & tens of thousands of them blokes so it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
    Oh well, keep talking about pensions then. Doesn’t bother me!
    Sorry, your Scotch credentials as someone who thought betting against the SNP as the largest party at the last Holyrood election was a good punt should certainly be given more respect. That puts you in the special SE Pantheon with Leon.
    Oh dear, back to the hugely witty "Scotch" thing again. Apparently all us English folk (you know, that uniform group of privileged white people) refer to people from Scotland as "Scotch". Well, this is how the minds of twisted English hating nationalists like to think English people refer to them, just to create a little more hatred in their sick nationalist minds.

    Unless of course "Scotch credentials" refers to an expertise in whiskey from north of the border perhaps?
    Whiskey!

    Lol, definitely not a scotch expert.

    Are you trying to make a rye post? Because if so, you barley scratched the surface.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fd36667e90e07662ed92c85/Scotch_Whisky_Technical_File_-_June_2019.pdf
    It's sad when people feel the need to cask aspersions.
    You're such a dram-ma queen . . .
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,561

    ydoethur said:

    Let's let not leave this lavishly tooled bit of dumbassery behind.

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rather bizarrely, Scottish Green MSP Ross Greer has decided to double-down on the already bizarre decision of the SNP to sow confusion about Scots pensions.

    Apparently, the fact that, after the American Civil War, the victorious Union Govt went on to pay the pensions of the losing Confederates is a useful debating point when considering what might happen after Indy...

    If you're tiring of wind and Russians, there's more here: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/scottish-greens-enter-scexit-pensions-farce

    To be fair, it was news to me that the the last widowers' pension for a Confederate service personnel was paid out in 2012.

    Genuine helpful advise to SNP, from 3,000 miles away. Stop talking about pensions, there’s precicsely nothing that will help your cause by keeping the subject alive.
    If only the SNP would listen to some bloke on the internet.
    Tbf there are tens & tens of thousands of them blokes so it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
    Oh well, keep talking about pensions then. Doesn’t bother me!
    Sorry, your Scotch credentials as someone who thought betting against the SNP as the largest party at the last Holyrood election was a good punt should certainly be given more respect. That puts you in the special SE Pantheon with Leon.
    Oh dear, back to the hugely witty "Scotch" thing again. Apparently all us English folk (you know, that uniform group of privileged white people) refer to people from Scotland as "Scotch". Well, this is how the minds of twisted English hating nationalists like to think English people refer to them, just to create a little more hatred in their sick nationalist minds.

    Unless of course "Scotch credentials" refers to an expertise in whiskey from north of the border perhaps?
    Whiskey!

    Lol, definitely not a scotch expert.

    Are you trying to make a rye post? Because if so, you barley scratched the surface.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fd36667e90e07662ed92c85/Scotch_Whisky_Technical_File_-_June_2019.pdf
    It's sad when people feel the need to cask aspersions.
    Goes against the grain to pun on this subject....
  • Surely there must be one or two people out there, or maybe several million, who disapprove of the PM for any number of reasons but who will continue to vote Conservative because they consider it to be in their best interests.

    Could be. Personally cursed every damn time as I ended up voting for a Clinton.

    Which was, always in general (if they made it that far) but never in primary and/or precinct caucus.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,918
    edited February 2022
    pigeon said:

    On topic: agree.

    Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.

    Indeed, remember even Trump managed to keep Biden to just a 5% victory margin in 2020 despite everything. Boris, like Trump, still fires up the conservative core vote even if they now turn off swing voters
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,874
    pigeon said:

    On topic: agree.

    Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.

    The key isn't to win an outright Labour majority (though I'm sure Starmer would take that with both hands) but to deprive the Conservatives of any possibility of forming any kind of Government which essentially means Lab+SNP+LD must be more than CON+DUP. Now, options such as Lab+LD being greater than CON+DUP will give Starmer more room for manoeuvre but after 14 years in opposition (9 for the LDs of course) by 2024 the opposition may well differ on many things but they will mostly agree on wanting the Conservatives gone.

    As I said the other night, it may be advantageous for the SNP and LDs to sit on the opposition bench rather than provide the Conservatives with the monopoly of opposition so Starmer may well lead a minority Government on paper which has more strength than appears from the parliamentary numbers.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373

    ydoethur said:

    Let's let not leave this lavishly tooled bit of dumbassery behind.

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rather bizarrely, Scottish Green MSP Ross Greer has decided to double-down on the already bizarre decision of the SNP to sow confusion about Scots pensions.

    Apparently, the fact that, after the American Civil War, the victorious Union Govt went on to pay the pensions of the losing Confederates is a useful debating point when considering what might happen after Indy...

    If you're tiring of wind and Russians, there's more here: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/scottish-greens-enter-scexit-pensions-farce

    To be fair, it was news to me that the the last widowers' pension for a Confederate service personnel was paid out in 2012.

    Genuine helpful advise to SNP, from 3,000 miles away. Stop talking about pensions, there’s precicsely nothing that will help your cause by keeping the subject alive.
    If only the SNP would listen to some bloke on the internet.
    Tbf there are tens & tens of thousands of them blokes so it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
    Oh well, keep talking about pensions then. Doesn’t bother me!
    Sorry, your Scotch credentials as someone who thought betting against the SNP as the largest party at the last Holyrood election was a good punt should certainly be given more respect. That puts you in the special SE Pantheon with Leon.
    Oh dear, back to the hugely witty "Scotch" thing again. Apparently all us English folk (you know, that uniform group of privileged white people) refer to people from Scotland as "Scotch". Well, this is how the minds of twisted English hating nationalists like to think English people refer to them, just to create a little more hatred in their sick nationalist minds.

    Unless of course "Scotch credentials" refers to an expertise in whiskey from north of the border perhaps?
    Whiskey!

    Lol, definitely not a scotch expert.

    Are you trying to make a rye post? Because if so, you barley scratched the surface.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fd36667e90e07662ed92c85/Scotch_Whisky_Technical_File_-_June_2019.pdf
    It's sad when people feel the need to cask aspersions.
    Goes against the grain to pun on this subject....
    Ok, I should have kept my mouth shut...
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,419
    HYUFD said:

    Yes well Labour kept Corbyn as leader before both the 2017 and 2019 general elections, even when most polls before December 2019 had the Tories 10% ahead or more.

    Johnson unlike Corbyn has already proved he can win a general election majority in 2019 so why would Tory MPs replace him when the voting intention figures have the Tories closer to Starmer Labour now than Corbyn Labour was to the Tories in 2019? Unless Labour clearly expands its poll lead again and the Tories suffer heavy losses in May then Boris stays whatever his approval rating.

    I also believe OGH is overrating the impact of a new Tory leader. The hypothetical voting intention and best PM polls suggest even Sunak as PM would still fail to win a majority against Starmer anyway

    I don't think the results of that polling factor in the honeymoon/feel-good factor/attention that a new leader will get. Boris could try to relaunch his premiership with a raft of popular policies. He'll get a modicum of attention and possibly change a few minds. If on the other hand Sunak comes in and implements the same raft of policies, they will receive great deal more attention, and get a much wider and fairer hearing.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited February 2022
    Both DNR and LNR leaders filmed their "evacuation videos" on February 16th, as Telegram metadata shows. Denis Pushilin even says "today, on February 18th..." . Everything that happens today is clearly and undoubtfully staged.

    https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1494743813830717454
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,957

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    As concerns grew in Europe over an imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine, Germany’s foreign minister suggested for the first time on Friday that military action by Moscow could mean the end of Nord Stream 2, a natural-gas pipeline running from Russia to Germany.

    NY Times live blog

    It's a finely balanced judgment. The Americans fear Nordstream 2 because they believe it would give the Russians the whip hand over Europe whereas Europeans are in favour because they calculate that Russian dependency on eurocash would make them more malleable. The clever thing about it is that the rate of flow can be carefully adjusted at each end, leading to more or less pressure as the situation demands. But obviously it has to be finished, first.
    The real problem with NordStream2 that Russia can then cut off countries in the "Near Abroad" without interfering with supplies to Germany etc.

    So they can divide an conquer - threaten countries near them and even cut them off, separately to German gas supplies.
    The main reason for the project in the first place, was to cut off Ukraine. Gas pipelines are one of their largest sources of hard currency.

    UK, EU and friendly countries need to start buying Ukranian goods, mostly foodstuffs. Let them see that trade with the West is always the better option for them.
    That of corse is why Maggie and then Major were so supportive of the satellite countries joining the EU and NATO. The expansion of the EU to the East is the best thing to happen to these countries to secure their future peace and prosperity. Britain's role in the EU was as liberator, and well worth the short term cost.

    Brexit was playing into Putins hands by weakening it. If we had remained we could be pushing for Ukranian entry.
    The EU knew our price to stay in, they refused to pay it so we left. There's not a lot more to it than that. If our membership was as valuable as you say then more fool them for not doing whatever it took to keep us in the tent.
    Yep and weakened both ourselves and the EU. Putin must have pissed himself laughing, then Trump too...
    Merkel was always Putin's useful idiot when she refused to properly engage with the real issues Dave raised in the sham negotiation. The price wasn't even very high, it was an ideological refusal to admit that the EU could get anything wrong which drove them to refuse Dave's meagre requests and water down his "victories". Had she actually listened the UK wouldn't have left (because people like me could have been won over to vote remain) and the EU would have come out stronger on the other side with a democratic vote of confidence from one of its most sceptical members.

    C'est la vie.
    Merkel is not to blame for the pathetic nature of Cameron's negotiation. His requests from the start were inadequate, driven by what I believe to be his desire to see the UK at the heart of the EU, with no exemptions, and his overconfidence that he could deliver this by browbeating the public. Therefore instead of opting the UK out of ever closer union, he made a silly demand that the whole EU needed to step away from ever closer union. A convincing semi-detachment of the UK from the EU could have been managed and could have been accepted by all but the most hardcore.
    It is tricky for leavers to come to terms they were Putin's useful idiots, particularly as they like to kid themselves they are "patriots". Much easier to blame the furriners
    Needless to say, I disagree - I don't mind full Brexit, as I think it delivers long term opportunities, though its temporary outworking has been tough going.

    But I would have been very happy to accept a good associate-member status. The real culprits are not leavers at all, but the Cameronite political class, who were ideologically and politically subscribed to a vision of international politics that saw Britain permanently and irrevocably embedded within the EU, and weren't prepared to accept any dilution of that vision.
    If you think of any opportunities you might want to write to Jacob. Apparently he is casting around for ideas.

    I'll let you into a secret. There were no longer term, medium term or short term opportunities. It was all a big con to satisfy the egos of a few anti-EU obsessives.

    Those of us that knew this all along have come to terms with the fact that we lost. It might help if those that were in favour of it also came to terms with the fact that it was pointless. Either way, we are where we are.
    Forgive me, but you don't really seem to have come to terms with it.

    JRM can VM me if he wants any ideas - I believe he posts here as @RochdalePioneers.
    No I genuinely have come to terms with it. I am not in favour of re-joining the EU even if they wanted us. It doesn't stop me pointing out its stupidity and laughing at those who in spite of all of the overwhelming evidence that it was pointless still try and make out it was a worthwhile endeavour. I have to find a bit of humour in the whole thing after all.
    If we had never been members, do you think the case for joining would be unambiguous?
    Good question. My case against Brexit was always that it was an unnecessary upheaval for no gain. That has been proven to be the case. Without the benefit of a parallel universe it is difficult to know the answer to your question because we don't know the condition of the UK had it been outside the EEC/EU all that time, so it would depend on the benefits on offer. I am tempted to think I would probably not been in favour if everything else were even.
    If your primary objection was to their obsession with constitutional issues instead of just accepting things as they were and getting on with it, is there a case for saying that the hardcore Remainers and the Brexiteers have swapped places?
    Well you've certainly swapped places with someone.

    Would we want to join if we'd been outside who knows but I believe it was a fervent aim before we did join and of course after the Treaty of Rome specifically articulated the desire to achieve an ever closer union between its nations.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,454

    Both DNR and LNR leaders filmed their "evacuation videos" on February 16th, as Telegram metadata shows. Denis Pushilin even says "today, on February 18th..." . Everything that happens today is clearly and undoubtfully staged.

    https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1494743813830717454

    It’s all looking quite worrying.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,918
    edited February 2022

    HYUFD said:

    Yes well Labour kept Corbyn as leader before both the 2017 and 2019 general elections, even when most polls before December 2019 had the Tories 10% ahead or more.

    Johnson unlike Corbyn has already proved he can win a general election majority in 2019 so why would Tory MPs replace him when the voting intention figures have the Tories closer to Starmer Labour now than Corbyn Labour was to the Tories in 2019? Unless Labour clearly expands its poll lead again and the Tories suffer heavy losses in May then Boris stays whatever his approval rating.

    I also believe OGH is overrating the impact of a new Tory leader. The hypothetical voting intention and best PM polls suggest even Sunak as PM would still fail to win a majority against Starmer anyway

    I don't think the results of that polling factor in the honeymoon/feel-good factor/attention that a new leader will get. Boris could try to relaunch his premiership with a raft of popular policies. He'll get a modicum of attention and possibly change a few minds. If on the other hand Sunak comes in and implements the same raft of policies, they will receive great deal more attention, and get a much wider and fairer hearing.
    Even May and Brown and Callaghan got a brief bounce, it did not last.

    Only Major and Boris sustained their bounces as new midterm PMs through to the next general election as they had major policy differences with their predecessors on the poll tax and Brexit. There are no such major policy differences between Boris and Sunak
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,373
    stodge said:

    pigeon said:

    On topic: agree.

    Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.

    The key isn't to win an outright Labour majority (though I'm sure Starmer would take that with both hands) but to deprive the Conservatives of any possibility of forming any kind of Government which essentially means Lab+SNP+LD must be more than CON+DUP. Now, options such as Lab+LD being greater than CON+DUP will give Starmer more room for manoeuvre but after 14 years in opposition (9 for the LDs of course) by 2024 the opposition may well differ on many things but they will mostly agree on wanting the Conservatives gone.

    As I said the other night, it may be advantageous for the SNP and LDs to sit on the opposition bench rather than provide the Conservatives with the monopoly of opposition so Starmer may well lead a minority Government on paper which has more strength than appears from the parliamentary numbers.
    The DUP are more likely to support gay marriage, abortion on demand and satanic rituals in public than the party which gave them the Northern Irish Protocol and somehow conned them into thinking it was a better deal than May's backstop.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,419

    ydoethur said:

    Let's let not leave this lavishly tooled bit of dumbassery behind.

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rather bizarrely, Scottish Green MSP Ross Greer has decided to double-down on the already bizarre decision of the SNP to sow confusion about Scots pensions.

    Apparently, the fact that, after the American Civil War, the victorious Union Govt went on to pay the pensions of the losing Confederates is a useful debating point when considering what might happen after Indy...

    If you're tiring of wind and Russians, there's more here: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/scottish-greens-enter-scexit-pensions-farce

    To be fair, it was news to me that the the last widowers' pension for a Confederate service personnel was paid out in 2012.

    Genuine helpful advise to SNP, from 3,000 miles away. Stop talking about pensions, there’s precicsely nothing that will help your cause by keeping the subject alive.
    If only the SNP would listen to some bloke on the internet.
    Tbf there are tens & tens of thousands of them blokes so it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
    Oh well, keep talking about pensions then. Doesn’t bother me!
    Sorry, your Scotch credentials as someone who thought betting against the SNP as the largest party at the last Holyrood election was a good punt should certainly be given more respect. That puts you in the special SE Pantheon with Leon.
    Oh dear, back to the hugely witty "Scotch" thing again. Apparently all us English folk (you know, that uniform group of privileged white people) refer to people from Scotland as "Scotch". Well, this is how the minds of twisted English hating nationalists like to think English people refer to them, just to create a little more hatred in their sick nationalist minds.

    Unless of course "Scotch credentials" refers to an expertise in whiskey from north of the border perhaps?
    Whiskey!

    Lol, definitely not a scotch expert.

    Are you trying to make a rye post? Because if so, you barley scratched the surface.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fd36667e90e07662ed92c85/Scotch_Whisky_Technical_File_-_June_2019.pdf
    It's sad when people feel the need to cask aspersions.
    Goes against the grain to pun on this subject....
    It's a compeat embarrassment.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,419
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Yes well Labour kept Corbyn as leader before both the 2017 and 2019 general elections, even when most polls before December 2019 had the Tories 10% ahead or more.

    Johnson unlike Corbyn has already proved he can win a general election majority in 2019 so why would Tory MPs replace him when the voting intention figures have the Tories closer to Starmer Labour now than Corbyn Labour was to the Tories in 2019? Unless Labour clearly expands its poll lead again and the Tories suffer heavy losses in May then Boris stays whatever his approval rating.

    I also believe OGH is overrating the impact of a new Tory leader. The hypothetical voting intention and best PM polls suggest even Sunak as PM would still fail to win a majority against Starmer anyway

    I don't think the results of that polling factor in the honeymoon/feel-good factor/attention that a new leader will get. Boris could try to relaunch his premiership with a raft of popular policies. He'll get a modicum of attention and possibly change a few minds. If on the other hand Sunak comes in and implements the same raft of policies, they will receive great deal more attention, and get a much wider and fairer hearing.
    Even May and Brown and Callaghan got a brief bounce, it did not last.

    Only Major and Boris sustained their bounces as new midterm PMs through to the next general election as they had major policy differences with their predecessors on the poll tax and Brexit. There are no such major policy differences between Boris and Sunak
    As Chancellor, there aren't many policy differences he can have and remain loyal. I have not researched it, and I was too young to remember, but I doubt Major spoke out against the poll tax when he was in Thatcher's cabinet. Far dos if I'm wrong.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Both DNR and LNR leaders filmed their "evacuation videos" on February 16th, as Telegram metadata shows. Denis Pushilin even says "today, on February 18th..." . Everything that happens today is clearly and undoubtfully staged.

    https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1494743813830717454

    Call me naive, but I always thought the point of a false flag attack was not that everyone immediately goes" it's blatantly a false flag attack"...
  • pigeon said:

    On topic: agree.

    Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.

    It's economics that will do for the Conservatives over the next 2 years, and the shredding of their coalition as a result - not values.
  • TOPPING said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    As concerns grew in Europe over an imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine, Germany’s foreign minister suggested for the first time on Friday that military action by Moscow could mean the end of Nord Stream 2, a natural-gas pipeline running from Russia to Germany.

    NY Times live blog

    It's a finely balanced judgment. The Americans fear Nordstream 2 because they believe it would give the Russians the whip hand over Europe whereas Europeans are in favour because they calculate that Russian dependency on eurocash would make them more malleable. The clever thing about it is that the rate of flow can be carefully adjusted at each end, leading to more or less pressure as the situation demands. But obviously it has to be finished, first.
    The real problem with NordStream2 that Russia can then cut off countries in the "Near Abroad" without interfering with supplies to Germany etc.

    So they can divide an conquer - threaten countries near them and even cut them off, separately to German gas supplies.
    The main reason for the project in the first place, was to cut off Ukraine. Gas pipelines are one of their largest sources of hard currency.

    UK, EU and friendly countries need to start buying Ukranian goods, mostly foodstuffs. Let them see that trade with the West is always the better option for them.
    That of corse is why Maggie and then Major were so supportive of the satellite countries joining the EU and NATO. The expansion of the EU to the East is the best thing to happen to these countries to secure their future peace and prosperity. Britain's role in the EU was as liberator, and well worth the short term cost.

    Brexit was playing into Putins hands by weakening it. If we had remained we could be pushing for Ukranian entry.
    The EU knew our price to stay in, they refused to pay it so we left. There's not a lot more to it than that. If our membership was as valuable as you say then more fool them for not doing whatever it took to keep us in the tent.
    Yep and weakened both ourselves and the EU. Putin must have pissed himself laughing, then Trump too...
    Merkel was always Putin's useful idiot when she refused to properly engage with the real issues Dave raised in the sham negotiation. The price wasn't even very high, it was an ideological refusal to admit that the EU could get anything wrong which drove them to refuse Dave's meagre requests and water down his "victories". Had she actually listened the UK wouldn't have left (because people like me could have been won over to vote remain) and the EU would have come out stronger on the other side with a democratic vote of confidence from one of its most sceptical members.

    C'est la vie.
    Merkel is not to blame for the pathetic nature of Cameron's negotiation. His requests from the start were inadequate, driven by what I believe to be his desire to see the UK at the heart of the EU, with no exemptions, and his overconfidence that he could deliver this by browbeating the public. Therefore instead of opting the UK out of ever closer union, he made a silly demand that the whole EU needed to step away from ever closer union. A convincing semi-detachment of the UK from the EU could have been managed and could have been accepted by all but the most hardcore.
    It is tricky for leavers to come to terms they were Putin's useful idiots, particularly as they like to kid themselves they are "patriots". Much easier to blame the furriners
    Needless to say, I disagree - I don't mind full Brexit, as I think it delivers long term opportunities, though its temporary outworking has been tough going.

    But I would have been very happy to accept a good associate-member status. The real culprits are not leavers at all, but the Cameronite political class, who were ideologically and politically subscribed to a vision of international politics that saw Britain permanently and irrevocably embedded within the EU, and weren't prepared to accept any dilution of that vision.
    If you think of any opportunities you might want to write to Jacob. Apparently he is casting around for ideas.

    I'll let you into a secret. There were no longer term, medium term or short term opportunities. It was all a big con to satisfy the egos of a few anti-EU obsessives.

    Those of us that knew this all along have come to terms with the fact that we lost. It might help if those that were in favour of it also came to terms with the fact that it was pointless. Either way, we are where we are.
    Forgive me, but you don't really seem to have come to terms with it.

    JRM can VM me if he wants any ideas - I believe he posts here as @RochdalePioneers.
    No I genuinely have come to terms with it. I am not in favour of re-joining the EU even if they wanted us. It doesn't stop me pointing out its stupidity and laughing at those who in spite of all of the overwhelming evidence that it was pointless still try and make out it was a worthwhile endeavour. I have to find a bit of humour in the whole thing after all.
    If we had never been members, do you think the case for joining would be unambiguous?
    Good question. My case against Brexit was always that it was an unnecessary upheaval for no gain. That has been proven to be the case. Without the benefit of a parallel universe it is difficult to know the answer to your question because we don't know the condition of the UK had it been outside the EEC/EU all that time, so it would depend on the benefits on offer. I am tempted to think I would probably not been in favour if everything else were even.
    If your primary objection was to their obsession with constitutional issues instead of just accepting things as they were and getting on with it, is there a case for saying that the hardcore Remainers and the Brexiteers have swapped places?
    Well you've certainly swapped places with someone.

    Would we want to join if we'd been outside who knows but I believe it was a fervent aim before we did join and of course after the Treaty of Rome specifically articulated the desire to achieve an ever closer union between its nations.
    "Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,839
    HYUFD said:

    pigeon said:

    On topic: agree.

    Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.

    Indeed, remember even Trump managed to keep Biden to just a 5% victory margin in 2020 despite everything. Boris, like Trump, still fires up the conservative core vote even if they now turn off swing voters
    What I feel has changed most, however, compared with the situation 25 years ago, is that the Conservative vote is also much more efficiently distributed. 31% earned John Major an almighty shellacking; nowadays, 33% (which is my best guess of what the irreducible Tory core vote now stands at) ought to be enough to leave the party on perhaps somewhere around 230 seats and Labour barely scraping to an overall majority; 35% would likely still leave the Conservatives as the second party, but in a competitive position to bounce back in a Hung Parliament.

    What @stodge has said is also, of course, correct: the primary aim of the collective Opposition must be to deprive the Conservatives of the votes needed to govern. But I suspect that a lot of people are looking forward to Boris Johnson and his party being rewarded for their numerous misdemeanours and incompetent governance with an epochal defeat. My point is, simply, that this isn't going to happen - especially given that the elderly demographic continues to grow as a proportion of the entire electorate, and still breaks heavily in favour of the Conservatives. There's simply only so far the Government's vote is going to sink, regardless of how poor its overall reputation with the electorate becomes.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,759
    Applicant said:

    Both DNR and LNR leaders filmed their "evacuation videos" on February 16th, as Telegram metadata shows. Denis Pushilin even says "today, on February 18th..." . Everything that happens today is clearly and undoubtfully staged.

    https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1494743813830717454

    Call me naive, but I always thought the point of a false flag attack was not that everyone immediately goes" it's blatantly a false flag attack"...
    It could be said that the purpose of suggesting false flag attacks is so that that you can make all sorts of irritating and provocative steps without fear of response.

    I'm pretty sure the west (in various forms) is playing some side games here.

    Putin though is the chief villain in this. If he goes to war (and nobody believes for a moment it'll be anybody other than him precipitating this) he'll be despised. Not just by me, not just by the authors of the many, many likes my posts normally attain, but by billions.

    He can follow a different path though, a path that will perhaps, in time, glean many likes on PB. He can pull himself together and stop being an arse.


  • ydoethur said:

    Let's let not leave this lavishly tooled bit of dumbassery behind.

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rather bizarrely, Scottish Green MSP Ross Greer has decided to double-down on the already bizarre decision of the SNP to sow confusion about Scots pensions.

    Apparently, the fact that, after the American Civil War, the victorious Union Govt went on to pay the pensions of the losing Confederates is a useful debating point when considering what might happen after Indy...

    If you're tiring of wind and Russians, there's more here: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/scottish-greens-enter-scexit-pensions-farce

    To be fair, it was news to me that the the last widowers' pension for a Confederate service personnel was paid out in 2012.

    Genuine helpful advise to SNP, from 3,000 miles away. Stop talking about pensions, there’s precicsely nothing that will help your cause by keeping the subject alive.
    If only the SNP would listen to some bloke on the internet.
    Tbf there are tens & tens of thousands of them blokes so it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
    Oh well, keep talking about pensions then. Doesn’t bother me!
    Sorry, your Scotch credentials as someone who thought betting against the SNP as the largest party at the last Holyrood election was a good punt should certainly be given more respect. That puts you in the special SE Pantheon with Leon.
    Oh dear, back to the hugely witty "Scotch" thing again. Apparently all us English folk (you know, that uniform group of privileged white people) refer to people from Scotland as "Scotch". Well, this is how the minds of twisted English hating nationalists like to think English people refer to them, just to create a little more hatred in their sick nationalist minds.

    Unless of course "Scotch credentials" refers to an expertise in whiskey from north of the border perhaps?
    Whiskey!

    Lol, definitely not a scotch expert.

    Are you trying to make a rye post? Because if so, you barley scratched the surface.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fd36667e90e07662ed92c85/Scotch_Whisky_Technical_File_-_June_2019.pdf
    It's sad when people feel the need to cask aspersions.
    Goes against the grain to pun on this subject....
    Oh for peat's sake
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,839
    ClippP said:

    pigeon said:

    On topic: agree.

    Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.

    The problem with that, Mr Pigeon, is that you are overlooking the effect that the Lib Dems will have. How many seats in total do you think the Tories will lose next time? Seriously.....
    The Liberal Democrats are weak, have limited resources, and fighting dozens of seats at once in the midst of a GE campaign dominated by Lab and Con is a quite different prospect from performing spectacularly in a by-election.

    I'm reluctant to predict how the Tories will do so far out, but unless something changes dramatically for the LDs I don't see them achieving a transformational result. As things stand they'll be doing very well indeed to make twenty gains; ten seems more realistic.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,874


    "Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.

    The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.

    Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.

    We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,957

    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    As concerns grew in Europe over an imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine, Germany’s foreign minister suggested for the first time on Friday that military action by Moscow could mean the end of Nord Stream 2, a natural-gas pipeline running from Russia to Germany.

    NY Times live blog

    It's a finely balanced judgment. The Americans fear Nordstream 2 because they believe it would give the Russians the whip hand over Europe whereas Europeans are in favour because they calculate that Russian dependency on eurocash would make them more malleable. The clever thing about it is that the rate of flow can be carefully adjusted at each end, leading to more or less pressure as the situation demands. But obviously it has to be finished, first.
    The real problem with NordStream2 that Russia can then cut off countries in the "Near Abroad" without interfering with supplies to Germany etc.

    So they can divide an conquer - threaten countries near them and even cut them off, separately to German gas supplies.
    The main reason for the project in the first place, was to cut off Ukraine. Gas pipelines are one of their largest sources of hard currency.

    UK, EU and friendly countries need to start buying Ukranian goods, mostly foodstuffs. Let them see that trade with the West is always the better option for them.
    That of corse is why Maggie and then Major were so supportive of the satellite countries joining the EU and NATO. The expansion of the EU to the East is the best thing to happen to these countries to secure their future peace and prosperity. Britain's role in the EU was as liberator, and well worth the short term cost.

    Brexit was playing into Putins hands by weakening it. If we had remained we could be pushing for Ukranian entry.
    The EU knew our price to stay in, they refused to pay it so we left. There's not a lot more to it than that. If our membership was as valuable as you say then more fool them for not doing whatever it took to keep us in the tent.
    Yep and weakened both ourselves and the EU. Putin must have pissed himself laughing, then Trump too...
    Merkel was always Putin's useful idiot when she refused to properly engage with the real issues Dave raised in the sham negotiation. The price wasn't even very high, it was an ideological refusal to admit that the EU could get anything wrong which drove them to refuse Dave's meagre requests and water down his "victories". Had she actually listened the UK wouldn't have left (because people like me could have been won over to vote remain) and the EU would have come out stronger on the other side with a democratic vote of confidence from one of its most sceptical members.

    C'est la vie.
    Merkel is not to blame for the pathetic nature of Cameron's negotiation. His requests from the start were inadequate, driven by what I believe to be his desire to see the UK at the heart of the EU, with no exemptions, and his overconfidence that he could deliver this by browbeating the public. Therefore instead of opting the UK out of ever closer union, he made a silly demand that the whole EU needed to step away from ever closer union. A convincing semi-detachment of the UK from the EU could have been managed and could have been accepted by all but the most hardcore.
    It is tricky for leavers to come to terms they were Putin's useful idiots, particularly as they like to kid themselves they are "patriots". Much easier to blame the furriners
    Needless to say, I disagree - I don't mind full Brexit, as I think it delivers long term opportunities, though its temporary outworking has been tough going.

    But I would have been very happy to accept a good associate-member status. The real culprits are not leavers at all, but the Cameronite political class, who were ideologically and politically subscribed to a vision of international politics that saw Britain permanently and irrevocably embedded within the EU, and weren't prepared to accept any dilution of that vision.
    If you think of any opportunities you might want to write to Jacob. Apparently he is casting around for ideas.

    I'll let you into a secret. There were no longer term, medium term or short term opportunities. It was all a big con to satisfy the egos of a few anti-EU obsessives.

    Those of us that knew this all along have come to terms with the fact that we lost. It might help if those that were in favour of it also came to terms with the fact that it was pointless. Either way, we are where we are.
    Forgive me, but you don't really seem to have come to terms with it.

    JRM can VM me if he wants any ideas - I believe he posts here as @RochdalePioneers.
    No I genuinely have come to terms with it. I am not in favour of re-joining the EU even if they wanted us. It doesn't stop me pointing out its stupidity and laughing at those who in spite of all of the overwhelming evidence that it was pointless still try and make out it was a worthwhile endeavour. I have to find a bit of humour in the whole thing after all.
    If we had never been members, do you think the case for joining would be unambiguous?
    Good question. My case against Brexit was always that it was an unnecessary upheaval for no gain. That has been proven to be the case. Without the benefit of a parallel universe it is difficult to know the answer to your question because we don't know the condition of the UK had it been outside the EEC/EU all that time, so it would depend on the benefits on offer. I am tempted to think I would probably not been in favour if everything else were even.
    If your primary objection was to their obsession with constitutional issues instead of just accepting things as they were and getting on with it, is there a case for saying that the hardcore Remainers and the Brexiteers have swapped places?
    Well you've certainly swapped places with someone.

    Would we want to join if we'd been outside who knows but I believe it was a fervent aim before we did join and of course after the Treaty of Rome specifically articulated the desire to achieve an ever closer union between its nations.
    "Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
    You seem to have managed to see through the subterfuge yet you don't believe the UK's post war leaders were up to it.
  • Applicant said:

    Both DNR and LNR leaders filmed their "evacuation videos" on February 16th, as Telegram metadata shows. Denis Pushilin even says "today, on February 18th..." . Everything that happens today is clearly and undoubtfully staged.

    https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1494743813830717454

    Call me naive, but I always thought the point of a false flag attack was not that everyone immediately goes" it's blatantly a false flag attack"...
    Who is "everyone"?

    Plenty of Russians listening to their media will believe the Russian spin. China probably won't report it accurately either which is a quarter of the world. Outside Europe and some of the US most of the rest world won't be following it in the same detail, and many will be open to anti western conspiracy theories.

    On a global basis, I would guess somewhere between 20-40% of those who have a view which side is telling the truth will go for Russia.
  • American voter registration shenanigans. MSNBC on a Miami Herald story:-

    Data Shows Odd Clusters Of Florida Voters Switching To Republican Party
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNFMhEEGqEQ
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,070
    Stereodog said:

    ydoethur said:

    Let's let not leave this lavishly tooled bit of dumbassery behind.

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Rather bizarrely, Scottish Green MSP Ross Greer has decided to double-down on the already bizarre decision of the SNP to sow confusion about Scots pensions.

    Apparently, the fact that, after the American Civil War, the victorious Union Govt went on to pay the pensions of the losing Confederates is a useful debating point when considering what might happen after Indy...

    If you're tiring of wind and Russians, there's more here: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/scottish-greens-enter-scexit-pensions-farce

    To be fair, it was news to me that the the last widowers' pension for a Confederate service personnel was paid out in 2012.

    Genuine helpful advise to SNP, from 3,000 miles away. Stop talking about pensions, there’s precicsely nothing that will help your cause by keeping the subject alive.
    If only the SNP would listen to some bloke on the internet.
    Tbf there are tens & tens of thousands of them blokes so it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
    Oh well, keep talking about pensions then. Doesn’t bother me!
    Sorry, your Scotch credentials as someone who thought betting against the SNP as the largest party at the last Holyrood election was a good punt should certainly be given more respect. That puts you in the special SE Pantheon with Leon.
    Oh dear, back to the hugely witty "Scotch" thing again. Apparently all us English folk (you know, that uniform group of privileged white people) refer to people from Scotland as "Scotch". Well, this is how the minds of twisted English hating nationalists like to think English people refer to them, just to create a little more hatred in their sick nationalist minds.

    Unless of course "Scotch credentials" refers to an expertise in whiskey from north of the border perhaps?
    Whiskey!

    Lol, definitely not a scotch expert.

    Are you trying to make a rye post? Because if so, you barley scratched the surface.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fd36667e90e07662ed92c85/Scotch_Whisky_Technical_File_-_June_2019.pdf
    It's sad when people feel the need to cask aspersions.
    Goes against the grain to pun on this subject....
    Oh for peat's sake
    You still at it ?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,153
    HYUFD said:

    Yes well Labour kept Corbyn as leader before both the 2017 and 2019 general elections, even when most polls before December 2019 had the Tories 10% ahead or more.

    Johnson unlike Corbyn has already proved he can win a general election majority in 2019 so why would Tory MPs replace him when the voting intention figures have the Tories closer to Starmer Labour now than Corbyn Labour was to the Tories in 2019? Unless Labour clearly expands its poll lead again and the Tories suffer heavy losses in May then Boris stays whatever his approval rating.

    I also believe OGH is overrating the impact of a new Tory leader. The hypothetical voting intention and best PM polls suggest even Sunak as PM would still fail to win a majority against Starmer anyway

    To be fair, he was no confidenced by most of his MPs back in 2016/17 IIRC.
  • Applicant said:

    Both DNR and LNR leaders filmed their "evacuation videos" on February 16th, as Telegram metadata shows. Denis Pushilin even says "today, on February 18th..." . Everything that happens today is clearly and undoubtfully staged.

    https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1494743813830717454

    Call me naive, but I always thought the point of a false flag attack was not that everyone immediately goes" it's blatantly a false flag attack"...
    Who is "everyone"?

    Plenty of Russians listening to their media will believe the Russian spin. China probably won't report it accurately either which is a quarter of the world. Outside Europe and some of the US most of the rest world won't be following it in the same detail, and many will be open to anti western conspiracy theories.

    On a global basis, I would guess somewhere between 20-40% of those who have a view which side is telling the truth will go for Russia.
    You don't honestly think that Russian citizens believe their own government?

    We were shocked when our PM was caught out lying. Russians are shocked when their President tells the truth.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,153
    Applicant said:

    Both DNR and LNR leaders filmed their "evacuation videos" on February 16th, as Telegram metadata shows. Denis Pushilin even says "today, on February 18th..." . Everything that happens today is clearly and undoubtfully staged.

    https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1494743813830717454

    Call me naive, but I always thought the point of a false flag attack was not that everyone immediately goes" it's blatantly a false flag attack"...
    We're not the audience for this.

    It's for domestic consumption, plus useful idiots like Jeremy Corbyn.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    As concerns grew in Europe over an imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine, Germany’s foreign minister suggested for the first time on Friday that military action by Moscow could mean the end of Nord Stream 2, a natural-gas pipeline running from Russia to Germany.

    NY Times live blog

    It's a finely balanced judgment. The Americans fear Nordstream 2 because they believe it would give the Russians the whip hand over Europe whereas Europeans are in favour because they calculate that Russian dependency on eurocash would make them more malleable. The clever thing about it is that the rate of flow can be carefully adjusted at each end, leading to more or less pressure as the situation demands. But obviously it has to be finished, first.
    The real problem with NordStream2 that Russia can then cut off countries in the "Near Abroad" without interfering with supplies to Germany etc.

    So they can divide an conquer - threaten countries near them and even cut them off, separately to German gas supplies.
    The main reason for the project in the first place, was to cut off Ukraine. Gas pipelines are one of their largest sources of hard currency.

    UK, EU and friendly countries need to start buying Ukranian goods, mostly foodstuffs. Let them see that trade with the West is always the better option for them.
    That of corse is why Maggie and then Major were so supportive of the satellite countries joining the EU and NATO. The expansion of the EU to the East is the best thing to happen to these countries to secure their future peace and prosperity. Britain's role in the EU was as liberator, and well worth the short term cost.

    Brexit was playing into Putins hands by weakening it. If we had remained we could be pushing for Ukranian entry.
    The EU knew our price to stay in, they refused to pay it so we left. There's not a lot more to it than that. If our membership was as valuable as you say then more fool them for not doing whatever it took to keep us in the tent.
    Yep and weakened both ourselves and the EU. Putin must have pissed himself laughing, then Trump too...
    Merkel was always Putin's useful idiot when she refused to properly engage with the real issues Dave raised in the sham negotiation. The price wasn't even very high, it was an ideological refusal to admit that the EU could get anything wrong which drove them to refuse Dave's meagre requests and water down his "victories". Had she actually listened the UK wouldn't have left (because people like me could have been won over to vote remain) and the EU would have come out stronger on the other side with a democratic vote of confidence from one of its most sceptical members.

    C'est la vie.
    Merkel is not to blame for the pathetic nature of Cameron's negotiation. His requests from the start were inadequate, driven by what I believe to be his desire to see the UK at the heart of the EU, with no exemptions, and his overconfidence that he could deliver this by browbeating the public. Therefore instead of opting the UK out of ever closer union, he made a silly demand that the whole EU needed to step away from ever closer union. A convincing semi-detachment of the UK from the EU could have been managed and could have been accepted by all but the most hardcore.
    It is tricky for leavers to come to terms they were Putin's useful idiots, particularly as they like to kid themselves they are "patriots". Much easier to blame the furriners
    Needless to say, I disagree - I don't mind full Brexit, as I think it delivers long term opportunities, though its temporary outworking has been tough going.

    But I would have been very happy to accept a good associate-member status. The real culprits are not leavers at all, but the Cameronite political class, who were ideologically and politically subscribed to a vision of international politics that saw Britain permanently and irrevocably embedded within the EU, and weren't prepared to accept any dilution of that vision.
    If you think of any opportunities you might want to write to Jacob. Apparently he is casting around for ideas.

    I'll let you into a secret. There were no longer term, medium term or short term opportunities. It was all a big con to satisfy the egos of a few anti-EU obsessives.

    Those of us that knew this all along have come to terms with the fact that we lost. It might help if those that were in favour of it also came to terms with the fact that it was pointless. Either way, we are where we are.
    Forgive me, but you don't really seem to have come to terms with it.

    JRM can VM me if he wants any ideas - I believe he posts here as @RochdalePioneers.
    No I genuinely have come to terms with it. I am not in favour of re-joining the EU even if they wanted us. It doesn't stop me pointing out its stupidity and laughing at those who in spite of all of the overwhelming evidence that it was pointless still try and make out it was a worthwhile endeavour. I have to find a bit of humour in the whole thing after all.
    If we had never been members, do you think the case for joining would be unambiguous?
    Good question. My case against Brexit was always that it was an unnecessary upheaval for no gain. That has been proven to be the case. Without the benefit of a parallel universe it is difficult to know the answer to your question because we don't know the condition of the UK had it been outside the EEC/EU all that time, so it would depend on the benefits on offer. I am tempted to think I would probably not been in favour if everything else were even.
    If your primary objection was to their obsession with constitutional issues instead of just accepting things as they were and getting on with it, is there a case for saying that the hardcore Remainers and the Brexiteers have swapped places?
    Well you've certainly swapped places with someone.

    Would we want to join if we'd been outside who knows but I believe it was a fervent aim before we did join and of course after the Treaty of Rome specifically articulated the desire to achieve an ever closer union between its nations.
    "Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
    You seem to have managed to see through the subterfuge yet you don't believe the UK's post war leaders were up to it.
    Of the PMs, Heath was probably a federalist and Major and Blair were federalism-curious. I don't think the others were, but that was where EU27 were heading nevertheless. Brown's Lisbon signing after dark and Cameron's botched renegotiation should have been a warning but the centralist impetus in Brussels was and remains out of control. Current marginalisation of Poland and Hungary is coming an an inopportune time, to say the least.
  • "The main beneficiaries, I would suggest, are Starmer and Davey who would really love to be fighting the incumbent at the next election."

    Spectator has a piece this weekend saying that basically Labour strategists, although there are some internal debates, are on the whole pleased that Johnson has survived. The longer the lying cad stays the more he pollutes the brand.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,153
    pigeon said:

    HYUFD said:

    pigeon said:

    On topic: agree.

    Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.

    Indeed, remember even Trump managed to keep Biden to just a 5% victory margin in 2020 despite everything. Boris, like Trump, still fires up the conservative core vote even if they now turn off swing voters
    What I feel has changed most, however, compared with the situation 25 years ago, is that the Conservative vote is also much more efficiently distributed. 31% earned John Major an almighty shellacking; nowadays, 33% (which is my best guess of what the irreducible Tory core vote now stands at) ought to be enough to leave the party on perhaps somewhere around 230 seats and Labour barely scraping to an overall majority; 35% would likely still leave the Conservatives as the second party, but in a competitive position to bounce back in a Hung Parliament.

    What @stodge has said is also, of course, correct: the primary aim of the collective Opposition must be to deprive the Conservatives of the votes needed to govern. But I suspect that a lot of people are looking forward to Boris Johnson and his party being rewarded for their numerous misdemeanours and incompetent governance with an epochal defeat. My point is, simply, that this isn't going to happen - especially given that the elderly demographic continues to grow as a proportion of the entire electorate, and still breaks heavily in favour of the Conservatives. There's simply only so far the Government's vote is going to sink, regardless of how poor its overall reputation with the electorate becomes.
    There was also a shit tonne of tactical voting in 1997.

    The LibDems around 15% of their votes (from 6.0m to 5.2m), yet almost trebled their number of seats. (Or to put it differently - they had half the share of 1983, but had 2.5x the seats that was a 5x increase in their vote efficiency.)
  • Applicant said:

    Both DNR and LNR leaders filmed their "evacuation videos" on February 16th, as Telegram metadata shows. Denis Pushilin even says "today, on February 18th..." . Everything that happens today is clearly and undoubtfully staged.

    https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1494743813830717454

    Call me naive, but I always thought the point of a false flag attack was not that everyone immediately goes" it's blatantly a false flag attack"...
    Who is "everyone"?

    Plenty of Russians listening to their media will believe the Russian spin. China probably won't report it accurately either which is a quarter of the world. Outside Europe and some of the US most of the rest world won't be following it in the same detail, and many will be open to anti western conspiracy theories.

    On a global basis, I would guess somewhere between 20-40% of those who have a view which side is telling the truth will go for Russia.
    You don't honestly think that Russian citizens believe their own government?

    We were shocked when our PM was caught out lying. Russians are shocked when their President tells the truth.
    I think there's a middle ground where people from a country go along with what their governments tell them, with actual belief on a somewhat sliding scale. As I recall a lot of Americans, including some sensible friends of mine, seem to be ok with the idea that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. I wouldn't call it unalloyed faith, more we have to support our president.
  • Applicant said:

    Both DNR and LNR leaders filmed their "evacuation videos" on February 16th, as Telegram metadata shows. Denis Pushilin even says "today, on February 18th..." . Everything that happens today is clearly and undoubtfully staged.

    https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1494743813830717454

    Call me naive, but I always thought the point of a false flag attack was not that everyone immediately goes" it's blatantly a false flag attack"...
    Who is "everyone"?

    Plenty of Russians listening to their media will believe the Russian spin. China probably won't report it accurately either which is a quarter of the world. Outside Europe and some of the US most of the rest world won't be following it in the same detail, and many will be open to anti western conspiracy theories.

    On a global basis, I would guess somewhere between 20-40% of those who have a view which side is telling the truth will go for Russia.
    You don't honestly think that Russian citizens believe their own government?

    We were shocked when our PM was caught out lying. Russians are shocked when their President tells the truth.
    Some will, some won't. They get very different information to that we are getting, and have a different understanding of history, so will inevitably have different views.

    Anyway the point of a false flag operation is not to convince many people in the West, it is to convince people back home and give cover to other anti Western governments such as China to at least stay neutral and say the situation is complex and needs to be resolved locally.
  • ..


  • ..


    A coastal thing?
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,839
    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    HYUFD said:

    pigeon said:

    On topic: agree.

    Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.

    Indeed, remember even Trump managed to keep Biden to just a 5% victory margin in 2020 despite everything. Boris, like Trump, still fires up the conservative core vote even if they now turn off swing voters
    What I feel has changed most, however, compared with the situation 25 years ago, is that the Conservative vote is also much more efficiently distributed. 31% earned John Major an almighty shellacking; nowadays, 33% (which is my best guess of what the irreducible Tory core vote now stands at) ought to be enough to leave the party on perhaps somewhere around 230 seats and Labour barely scraping to an overall majority; 35% would likely still leave the Conservatives as the second party, but in a competitive position to bounce back in a Hung Parliament.

    What @stodge has said is also, of course, correct: the primary aim of the collective Opposition must be to deprive the Conservatives of the votes needed to govern. But I suspect that a lot of people are looking forward to Boris Johnson and his party being rewarded for their numerous misdemeanours and incompetent governance with an epochal defeat. My point is, simply, that this isn't going to happen - especially given that the elderly demographic continues to grow as a proportion of the entire electorate, and still breaks heavily in favour of the Conservatives. There's simply only so far the Government's vote is going to sink, regardless of how poor its overall reputation with the electorate becomes.
    There was also a shit tonne of tactical voting in 1997.

    The LibDems around 15% of their votes (from 6.0m to 5.2m), yet almost trebled their number of seats. (Or to put it differently - they had half the share of 1983, but had 2.5x the seats that was a 5x increase in their vote efficiency.)
    And they'll likely benefit next time as well, but their starting position is poor. There are few existing Tory seats available to the Lib Dems on a small swing, and the matter is further complicated by boundary reform, which we have to presume is most likely to be implemented this side of the next election. Even the more politically aware minority amongst the electorate will find it more difficult to identify the most appropriate tactical choice in areas where constituencies have been radically redrawn (as well as potentially complicating some of their defences, notably in the case of Farron, whose seat looks set to vanish.)
  • "The main beneficiaries, I would suggest, are Starmer and Davey who would really love to be fighting the incumbent at the next election."

    Spectator has a piece this weekend saying that basically Labour strategists, although there are some internal debates, are on the whole pleased that Johnson has survived. The longer the lying cad stays the more he pollutes the brand.

    The other side, of course, is that if Boris is replaced by a new Conservative Prime Minister who is, say, an austerity nut, then that might remove all hope of levelling up from Red Wall voters. Swings and roundabouts for Labour's prospects imo.
  • Looking forward to BJ & co loudly supporting Ukraine membership of the EU.


  • rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    HYUFD said:

    pigeon said:

    On topic: agree.

    Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.

    Indeed, remember even Trump managed to keep Biden to just a 5% victory margin in 2020 despite everything. Boris, like Trump, still fires up the conservative core vote even if they now turn off swing voters
    What I feel has changed most, however, compared with the situation 25 years ago, is that the Conservative vote is also much more efficiently distributed. 31% earned John Major an almighty shellacking; nowadays, 33% (which is my best guess of what the irreducible Tory core vote now stands at) ought to be enough to leave the party on perhaps somewhere around 230 seats and Labour barely scraping to an overall majority; 35% would likely still leave the Conservatives as the second party, but in a competitive position to bounce back in a Hung Parliament.

    What @stodge has said is also, of course, correct: the primary aim of the collective Opposition must be to deprive the Conservatives of the votes needed to govern. But I suspect that a lot of people are looking forward to Boris Johnson and his party being rewarded for their numerous misdemeanours and incompetent governance with an epochal defeat. My point is, simply, that this isn't going to happen - especially given that the elderly demographic continues to grow as a proportion of the entire electorate, and still breaks heavily in favour of the Conservatives. There's simply only so far the Government's vote is going to sink, regardless of how poor its overall reputation with the electorate becomes.
    There was also a shit tonne of tactical voting in 1997.

    The LibDems around 15% of their votes (from 6.0m to 5.2m), yet almost trebled their number of seats. (Or to put it differently - they had half the share of 1983, but had 2.5x the seats that was a 5x increase in their vote efficiency.)
    I'm still trying to work out if that's a bug (votes ought to map on to seats fairly reliably) or an ingeneous feature (it picks up how unpopular the government really is with its opponents- do you hate them enough to vote for party X?- and feeds that into the seat totals).
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,874
    rcs1000 said:


    There was also a shit tonne of tactical voting in 1997.

    The LibDems around 15% of their votes (from 6.0m to 5.2m), yet almost trebled their number of seats. (Or to put it differently - they had half the share of 1983, but had 2.5x the seats that was a 5x increase in their vote efficiency.)

    Do you not think there may be some tactical voting in 2024? Whether by tacit understanding or not, the Conservatives will be fighting a war on many fronts while Labour, the LDs, SNP and Greens can target their resources at maximising the non-Conservative vote.

    I can see a road to 30-35 LD MPs but it's a tall order and will need some tactical voting from Labour and other party supporters. If Labour can win 40-50 seats off the Conservatives then the question is whether the Labour, LD and SNP blocs will be numerically greater than the Conservative and DUP blocks.

    You're probably looking at the Conservatives losing 70-80 seats with Labour winning 55 and other parties scooping up the other 25. That makes the Conservatives the largest party but Labour, SNP, LDs and others close to if not past a majority (assuming the elected SF MPs don't sit).
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,419
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    FPT

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    As concerns grew in Europe over an imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine, Germany’s foreign minister suggested for the first time on Friday that military action by Moscow could mean the end of Nord Stream 2, a natural-gas pipeline running from Russia to Germany.

    NY Times live blog

    It's a finely balanced judgment. The Americans fear Nordstream 2 because they believe it would give the Russians the whip hand over Europe whereas Europeans are in favour because they calculate that Russian dependency on eurocash would make them more malleable. The clever thing about it is that the rate of flow can be carefully adjusted at each end, leading to more or less pressure as the situation demands. But obviously it has to be finished, first.
    The real problem with NordStream2 that Russia can then cut off countries in the "Near Abroad" without interfering with supplies to Germany etc.

    So they can divide an conquer - threaten countries near them and even cut them off, separately to German gas supplies.
    The main reason for the project in the first place, was to cut off Ukraine. Gas pipelines are one of their largest sources of hard currency.

    UK, EU and friendly countries need to start buying Ukranian goods, mostly foodstuffs. Let them see that trade with the West is always the better option for them.
    That of corse is why Maggie and then Major were so supportive of the satellite countries joining the EU and NATO. The expansion of the EU to the East is the best thing to happen to these countries to secure their future peace and prosperity. Britain's role in the EU was as liberator, and well worth the short term cost.

    Brexit was playing into Putins hands by weakening it. If we had remained we could be pushing for Ukranian entry.
    The EU knew our price to stay in, they refused to pay it so we left. There's not a lot more to it than that. If our membership was as valuable as you say then more fool them for not doing whatever it took to keep us in the tent.
    Yep and weakened both ourselves and the EU. Putin must have pissed himself laughing, then Trump too...
    Merkel was always Putin's useful idiot when she refused to properly engage with the real issues Dave raised in the sham negotiation. The price wasn't even very high, it was an ideological refusal to admit that the EU could get anything wrong which drove them to refuse Dave's meagre requests and water down his "victories". Had she actually listened the UK wouldn't have left (because people like me could have been won over to vote remain) and the EU would have come out stronger on the other side with a democratic vote of confidence from one of its most sceptical members.

    C'est la vie.
    Merkel is not to blame for the pathetic nature of Cameron's negotiation. His requests from the start were inadequate, driven by what I believe to be his desire to see the UK at the heart of the EU, with no exemptions, and his overconfidence that he could deliver this by browbeating the public. Therefore instead of opting the UK out of ever closer union, he made a silly demand that the whole EU needed to step away from ever closer union. A convincing semi-detachment of the UK from the EU could have been managed and could have been accepted by all but the most hardcore.
    It is tricky for leavers to come to terms they were Putin's useful idiots, particularly as they like to kid themselves they are "patriots". Much easier to blame the furriners
    Needless to say, I disagree - I don't mind full Brexit, as I think it delivers long term opportunities, though its temporary outworking has been tough going.

    But I would have been very happy to accept a good associate-member status. The real culprits are not leavers at all, but the Cameronite political class, who were ideologically and politically subscribed to a vision of international politics that saw Britain permanently and irrevocably embedded within the EU, and weren't prepared to accept any dilution of that vision.
    If you think of any opportunities you might want to write to Jacob. Apparently he is casting around for ideas.

    I'll let you into a secret. There were no longer term, medium term or short term opportunities. It was all a big con to satisfy the egos of a few anti-EU obsessives.

    Those of us that knew this all along have come to terms with the fact that we lost. It might help if those that were in favour of it also came to terms with the fact that it was pointless. Either way, we are where we are.
    Forgive me, but you don't really seem to have come to terms with it.

    JRM can VM me if he wants any ideas - I believe he posts here as @RochdalePioneers.
    No I genuinely have come to terms with it. I am not in favour of re-joining the EU even if they wanted us. It doesn't stop me pointing out its stupidity and laughing at those who in spite of all of the overwhelming evidence that it was pointless still try and make out it was a worthwhile endeavour. I have to find a bit of humour in the whole thing after all.
    If we had never been members, do you think the case for joining would be unambiguous?
    Good question. My case against Brexit was always that it was an unnecessary upheaval for no gain. That has been proven to be the case. Without the benefit of a parallel universe it is difficult to know the answer to your question because we don't know the condition of the UK had it been outside the EEC/EU all that time, so it would depend on the benefits on offer. I am tempted to think I would probably not been in favour if everything else were even.
    If your primary objection was to their obsession with constitutional issues instead of just accepting things as they were and getting on with it, is there a case for saying that the hardcore Remainers and the Brexiteers have swapped places?
    Well you've certainly swapped places with someone.

    Would we want to join if we'd been outside who knows but I believe it was a fervent aim before we did join and of course after the Treaty of Rome specifically articulated the desire to achieve an ever closer union between its nations.
    "Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.
    You seem to have managed to see through the subterfuge yet you don't believe the UK's post war leaders were up to it.
    I don't think anyone has suggested seriously that in private Heath et al were not very clear eyed about federalism.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,153
    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    There was also a shit tonne of tactical voting in 1997.

    The LibDems around 15% of their votes (from 6.0m to 5.2m), yet almost trebled their number of seats. (Or to put it differently - they had half the share of 1983, but had 2.5x the seats that was a 5x increase in their vote efficiency.)

    Do you not think there may be some tactical voting in 2024? Whether by tacit understanding or not, the Conservatives will be fighting a war on many fronts while Labour, the LDs, SNP and Greens can target their resources at maximising the non-Conservative vote.

    I can see a road to 30-35 LD MPs but it's a tall order and will need some tactical voting from Labour and other party supporters. If Labour can win 40-50 seats off the Conservatives then the question is whether the Labour, LD and SNP blocs will be numerically greater than the Conservative and DUP blocks.

    You're probably looking at the Conservatives losing 70-80 seats with Labour winning 55 and other parties scooping up the other 25. That makes the Conservatives the largest party but Labour, SNP, LDs and others close to if not past a majority (assuming the elected SF MPs don't sit).
    Oh, that was what I was saying - that the Conservatives will (like in '92 and '97) do less well than UNS because of tactical voting.
  • "The main beneficiaries, I would suggest, are Starmer and Davey who would really love to be fighting the incumbent at the next election."

    Spectator has a piece this weekend saying that basically Labour strategists, although there are some internal debates, are on the whole pleased that Johnson has survived. The longer the lying cad stays the more he pollutes the brand.

    Johnson = volatility from Tory majority to Labour majority
    Sensible next Tory leader = small Tory majority to hung parliament
    Another bad Tory leader = hung parliament or Labour majority

    Yes Johnson gives Labour far more upside than someone like Sunak would, but he also keeps some upside for the Tories. He is not just a clown, but a ruthless, ambitious and politically astute one.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,153
    pigeon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    pigeon said:

    HYUFD said:

    pigeon said:

    On topic: agree.

    Although I repeat the warning I offered the other day: if anyone's expecting a Conservative implosion in 2024, even under Johnson, then I fear they're in for a terrible disappointment. Turfing the Tories out is eminently achievable, but they're not going to take a 1997-style hammering. Labour will have to perform brilliantly to win any kind of majority.

    Indeed, remember even Trump managed to keep Biden to just a 5% victory margin in 2020 despite everything. Boris, like Trump, still fires up the conservative core vote even if they now turn off swing voters
    What I feel has changed most, however, compared with the situation 25 years ago, is that the Conservative vote is also much more efficiently distributed. 31% earned John Major an almighty shellacking; nowadays, 33% (which is my best guess of what the irreducible Tory core vote now stands at) ought to be enough to leave the party on perhaps somewhere around 230 seats and Labour barely scraping to an overall majority; 35% would likely still leave the Conservatives as the second party, but in a competitive position to bounce back in a Hung Parliament.

    What @stodge has said is also, of course, correct: the primary aim of the collective Opposition must be to deprive the Conservatives of the votes needed to govern. But I suspect that a lot of people are looking forward to Boris Johnson and his party being rewarded for their numerous misdemeanours and incompetent governance with an epochal defeat. My point is, simply, that this isn't going to happen - especially given that the elderly demographic continues to grow as a proportion of the entire electorate, and still breaks heavily in favour of the Conservatives. There's simply only so far the Government's vote is going to sink, regardless of how poor its overall reputation with the electorate becomes.
    There was also a shit tonne of tactical voting in 1997.

    The LibDems around 15% of their votes (from 6.0m to 5.2m), yet almost trebled their number of seats. (Or to put it differently - they had half the share of 1983, but had 2.5x the seats that was a 5x increase in their vote efficiency.)
    And they'll likely benefit next time as well, but their starting position is poor. There are few existing Tory seats available to the Lib Dems on a small swing, and the matter is further complicated by boundary reform, which we have to presume is most likely to be implemented this side of the next election. Even the more politically aware minority amongst the electorate will find it more difficult to identify the most appropriate tactical choice in areas where constituencies have been radically redrawn (as well as potentially complicating some of their defences, notably in the case of Farron, whose seat looks set to vanish.)
    I don't disagree with that. I was merely pointing out that the Conservatives got hammered in the 90s because of tactical voting, and if they are in the mid 30s, it could happen again.

    Worth remembering that 1997 was new boundaries too.
  • Looking forward to BJ & co loudly supporting Ukraine membership of the EU.


    And why not, indeed it would be in everyone's interests but I doubt Russia would think so
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,633

    ..


    A coastal thing?
    A British empire thing, apart from the more progressive bits.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    edited February 2022
    Applicant said:

    Both DNR and LNR leaders filmed their "evacuation videos" on February 16th, as Telegram metadata shows. Denis Pushilin even says "today, on February 18th..." . Everything that happens today is clearly and undoubtfully staged.

    https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1494743813830717454

    Call me naive, but I always thought the point of a false flag attack was not that everyone immediately goes" it's blatantly a false flag attack"...
    That's on the same logic as when my dad reckoned Russia couldn't be behind the Skripal poisoning because it didn't succeed. It being obvious doesn't undermine its status.

    The Russian authorities are not genius masterminds - these are the same people who mass 150k troops on the border and insist something that happened 25 years ago is the aggressive action.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083

    Looking forward to BJ & co loudly supporting Ukraine membership of the EU.


    They should (not that it will ever happen), even if it requires an admission that the EU is a better place for some even if they don't think it would be for the UK.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,243

    ..


    A decent chunk of worlds population and a greater percentage of the democratic population
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083

    ..


    I'm not sure the voting system in Belarus being first past the post matters a great deal in their case.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,633

    Looking forward to BJ & co loudly supporting Ukraine membership of the EU.


    Smart voters. Even more sensible than the Scots.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083

    Applicant said:

    Both DNR and LNR leaders filmed their "evacuation videos" on February 16th, as Telegram metadata shows. Denis Pushilin even says "today, on February 18th..." . Everything that happens today is clearly and undoubtfully staged.

    https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1494743813830717454

    Call me naive, but I always thought the point of a false flag attack was not that everyone immediately goes" it's blatantly a false flag attack"...
    Who is "everyone"?

    Plenty of Russians listening to their media will believe the Russian spin. China probably won't report it accurately either which is a quarter of the world. Outside Europe and some of the US most of the rest world won't be following it in the same detail, and many will be open to anti western conspiracy theories.

    On a global basis, I would guess somewhere between 20-40% of those who have a view which side is telling the truth will go for Russia.
    You don't honestly think that Russian citizens believe their own government?

    We were shocked when our PM was caught out lying. Russians are shocked when their President tells the truth.
    I think there's a middle ground where people from a country go along with what their governments tell them, with actual belief on a somewhat sliding scale. As I recall a lot of Americans, including some sensible friends of mine, seem to be ok with the idea that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. I wouldn't call it unalloyed faith, more we have to support our president.
    My country, right or wrong.

    Easy to scoff at, but as much as I'd like to I couldn't deny there are instances I've done the same.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,633
    kle4 said:

    ..


    I'm not sure the voting system in Belarus being first past the post matters a great deal in their case.
    The have a one man one vote system. One man gets to vote.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,419
    kle4 said:

    Applicant said:

    Both DNR and LNR leaders filmed their "evacuation videos" on February 16th, as Telegram metadata shows. Denis Pushilin even says "today, on February 18th..." . Everything that happens today is clearly and undoubtfully staged.

    https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1494743813830717454

    Call me naive, but I always thought the point of a false flag attack was not that everyone immediately goes" it's blatantly a false flag attack"...
    That's on the same logic as when my dad reckoned Russia couldn't be behind the Skripal poisoning because it didn't succeed.

    The Russian authorities are not genius masterminds - these are the same people who mass 150k troops on the border and insist something that happened 25 years ago is the aggressive action.
    There could be a bit of improv on the part of the separatists themselves. It's obviously in their interests to be embraced into the bosom of Mother Russia; they can hang up their rifles and form the regional Government.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,633

    ..


    A decent chunk of worlds population and a greater percentage of the democratic population
    Zimbabwe and Myanmar...🤔
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    Only the Daily Express could manage to shoehorn a story about Nigel Farage into their lead headline on the storms

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1568415/nigel-farage-storm-eunice-picture-fallen-tree-van-crushed-weather-latest-news

  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,926
    Foxy said:

    Looking forward to BJ & co loudly supporting Ukraine membership of the EU.


    Smart voters. Even more sensible than the Scots.
    Who can say no to free money?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,153
    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    There was also a shit tonne of tactical voting in 1997.

    The LibDems around 15% of their votes (from 6.0m to 5.2m), yet almost trebled their number of seats. (Or to put it differently - they had half the share of 1983, but had 2.5x the seats that was a 5x increase in their vote efficiency.)

    Do you not think there may be some tactical voting in 2024? Whether by tacit understanding or not, the Conservatives will be fighting a war on many fronts while Labour, the LDs, SNP and Greens can target their resources at maximising the non-Conservative vote.

    I can see a road to 30-35 LD MPs but it's a tall order and will need some tactical voting from Labour and other party supporters. If Labour can win 40-50 seats off the Conservatives then the question is whether the Labour, LD and SNP blocs will be numerically greater than the Conservative and DUP blocks.

    You're probably looking at the Conservatives losing 70-80 seats with Labour winning 55 and other parties scooping up the other 25. That makes the Conservatives the largest party but Labour, SNP, LDs and others close to if not past a majority (assuming the elected SF MPs don't sit).
    FWIW, I don't think the LDs will make it to 30 seats, but I think they have a realistic shot of 20. For the last two elections, I forecast 12-14 seats for them, but this time, I think (with caveats), I think the range is probably 16-24 (I will narrow the range as we get closer).
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,419
    Foxy said:

    ..


    A coastal thing?
    A British empire thing, apart from the more progressive bits.
    In a way, that is a coastal thing. The more you had a coast, the more within the reach of the Royal Navy you were.
  • Foxy said:

    Looking forward to BJ & co loudly supporting Ukraine membership of the EU.


    Smart voters. Even more sensible than the Scots.
    Once HYUFD starts his false flag shenanigans we'll get into the 70s.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,717

    kle4 said:

    Applicant said:

    Both DNR and LNR leaders filmed their "evacuation videos" on February 16th, as Telegram metadata shows. Denis Pushilin even says "today, on February 18th..." . Everything that happens today is clearly and undoubtfully staged.

    https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1494743813830717454

    Call me naive, but I always thought the point of a false flag attack was not that everyone immediately goes" it's blatantly a false flag attack"...
    That's on the same logic as when my dad reckoned Russia couldn't be behind the Skripal poisoning because it didn't succeed.

    The Russian authorities are not genius masterminds - these are the same people who mass 150k troops on the border and insist something that happened 25 years ago is the aggressive action.
    There could be a bit of improv on the part of the separatists themselves. It's obviously in their interests to be embraced into the bosom of Mother Russia; they can hang up their rifles and form the regional Government.
    It's in Putin's interest to keep them in Ukraine. That creates a permanent block on Ukraine joining Nato and also a means by which Putin can exert internal pressure on Ukraine.

  • Heathener said:

    Only the Daily Express could manage to shoehorn a story about Nigel Farage into their lead headline on the storms

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1568415/nigel-farage-storm-eunice-picture-fallen-tree-van-crushed-weather-latest-news

    "Diana would have been killed by falling tree if she had not been murdered."

    Tomorrow's headline?

  • Heathener said:

    Only the Daily Express could manage to shoehorn a story about Nigel Farage into their lead headline on the storms

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1568415/nigel-farage-storm-eunice-picture-fallen-tree-van-crushed-weather-latest-news

    I'm surprised they didn't go with, 'Boris to ensure such storms will never hit Britain again'.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    On the face of it I'm not sure how Harry would have a case here? Seems like the bar to whether it was an unreasonable decision, rather than one which might be disagreed with, would be pretty high if it is legal unreasonableness they are after.

    In a first hearing of his action against the home secretary, lawyers told the High Court [Prince Harryt]e didn't feel safe visiting under current arrangements.

    He wants to pay for police security for himself and his family while in the UK.

    Government lawyers said his offer was "irrelevant" to how officials took decisions over Royal Family security...

    In his claim, Prince Harry says that Ravec reached this decision unlawfully and unreasonably - including because he has offered to pay for the police time needed and was still in the immediate line of succession to the throne.

    He further argues that his private protection team do not have all the powers they would need to act in the UK, including access to police intelligence about threats to him and his family.

    But in written submissions to the court, lawyers for the Home Secretary said that Prince Harry's claim was completely without merit - and it should be thrown out because it wasn't for the court to second-guess complex decisions about personal security
    .

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60438739
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,419
    geoffw said:

    kle4 said:

    Applicant said:

    Both DNR and LNR leaders filmed their "evacuation videos" on February 16th, as Telegram metadata shows. Denis Pushilin even says "today, on February 18th..." . Everything that happens today is clearly and undoubtfully staged.

    https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1494743813830717454

    Call me naive, but I always thought the point of a false flag attack was not that everyone immediately goes" it's blatantly a false flag attack"...
    That's on the same logic as when my dad reckoned Russia couldn't be behind the Skripal poisoning because it didn't succeed.

    The Russian authorities are not genius masterminds - these are the same people who mass 150k troops on the border and insist something that happened 25 years ago is the aggressive action.
    There could be a bit of improv on the part of the separatists themselves. It's obviously in their interests to be embraced into the bosom of Mother Russia; they can hang up their rifles and form the regional Government.
    It's in Putin's interest to keep them in Ukraine. That creates a permanent block on Ukraine joining Nato and also a means by which Putin can exert internal pressure on Ukraine.

    Yes. Their interests aren't aligned 100% in that regard.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,839
    geoffw said:

    kle4 said:

    Applicant said:

    Both DNR and LNR leaders filmed their "evacuation videos" on February 16th, as Telegram metadata shows. Denis Pushilin even says "today, on February 18th..." . Everything that happens today is clearly and undoubtfully staged.

    https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1494743813830717454

    Call me naive, but I always thought the point of a false flag attack was not that everyone immediately goes" it's blatantly a false flag attack"...
    That's on the same logic as when my dad reckoned Russia couldn't be behind the Skripal poisoning because it didn't succeed.

    The Russian authorities are not genius masterminds - these are the same people who mass 150k troops on the border and insist something that happened 25 years ago is the aggressive action.
    There could be a bit of improv on the part of the separatists themselves. It's obviously in their interests to be embraced into the bosom of Mother Russia; they can hang up their rifles and form the regional Government.
    It's in Putin's interest to keep them in Ukraine. That creates a permanent block on Ukraine joining Nato and also a means by which Putin can exert internal pressure on Ukraine.
    Except he already has what looks very much like a permanent block in the form of Crimea, given that Russia has annexed it, and neither the Ukrainians nor the NATO states recognise this as legitimate.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    edited February 2022

    Heathener said:

    Only the Daily Express could manage to shoehorn a story about Nigel Farage into their lead headline on the storms

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1568415/nigel-farage-storm-eunice-picture-fallen-tree-van-crushed-weather-latest-news

    I'm surprised they didn't go with, 'Boris to ensure such storms will never hit Britain again'.
    A Boris Barricade to be built, ro rise up from the sea to block out high winds.

    I shall do a feasibility study for no more than £1m and report in 3 years. I'll partner up with a Tory doner to reassure the government this is all above board.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,759
    LD good or bad betting... basically unavailable. Surely a nod and a wink from a Smithson could change that.
  • ..


    A coastal thing?
    Botswana, Zambia.... Belarus?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    stodge said:


    "Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.

    The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.

    Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.

    We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
    My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason

    Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    Leon said:

    stodge said:


    "Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.

    The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.

    Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.

    We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
    My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason

    Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
    I always thought Brexiteer was meant to be the more pejorative.

    Brexiter < Brexiteer < Brexitard (a rare one)

    Remainer < Remoaner < Remainiac
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    edited February 2022
    On thread, it's not just that Johnson’s currently doing 4% worse than Corbyn was on the eve of GE2019 (Corbyn -30% then, Johnson -34% now).

    It's also that Starmer's doing 14% better than Johnson was on the eve of winning GE2019 (Johnson net -14% then, Starmer 0% now, again with Opinium.)

    So the leadership ratings are currently more stacked in Labour's benefit than a simple comparison of Corbyn and Johnson alone would suggest.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,717
     
    pigeon said:

    geoffw said:

    kle4 said:

    Applicant said:

    Both DNR and LNR leaders filmed their "evacuation videos" on February 16th, as Telegram metadata shows. Denis Pushilin even says "today, on February 18th..." . Everything that happens today is clearly and undoubtfully staged.

    https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1494743813830717454

    Call me naive, but I always thought the point of a false flag attack was not that everyone immediately goes" it's blatantly a false flag attack"...
    That's on the same logic as when my dad reckoned Russia couldn't be behind the Skripal poisoning because it didn't succeed.

    The Russian authorities are not genius masterminds - these are the same people who mass 150k troops on the border and insist something that happened 25 years ago is the aggressive action.
    There could be a bit of improv on the part of the separatists themselves. It's obviously in their interests to be embraced into the bosom of Mother Russia; they can hang up their rifles and form the regional Government.
    It's in Putin's interest to keep them in Ukraine. That creates a permanent block on Ukraine joining Nato and also a means by which Putin can exert internal pressure on Ukraine.
    Except he already has what looks very much like a permanent block in the form of Crimea, given that Russia has annexed it, and neither the Ukrainians nor the NATO states recognise this as legitimate.
    Putin's aim is Ukraine as a Kremlin suzerainty - nominally independent but in practice constrained to follow Russian objectives. In effect a supercharged "Finlandisation" (thanks Emmanuel) outside Nato and not in the EU.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,310
    Evening to all.

    I hope all have survived unscathed and I hope @IanB2 gets his roof repaired soon.

    I managed to slip and fall on the terrace while pushing a down pipe back into position. I thought I'd just grazed my arm and it was only when I found blood dripping over the sofa and floor that I realised I'd got a nasty gash down my lower arm. Silly me. Anyway all bandaged now.

    A couple of interesting R4 radio programmes on iPlayer.

    1. File on 4 - A First Class Scandal - about one of the many impacts of the Post Office scandal is well worth hearing. The human consequences are awful.
    2. Nazanin - about her and the tank contract and the debt Britain owes Iraq. Really gives the background to this horrible affair.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    stodge said:


    "Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.

    The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.

    Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.

    We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
    My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason

    Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
    I always thought Brexiteer was meant to be the more pejorative.

    Brexiter < Brexiteer < Brexitard (a rare one)

    Remainer < Remoaner < Remainiac
    Noooo, Brexiteer is definitely seen as positive. Buccaneer, Cavalier, Entrepeneur. Singapore on Thames, a free trading Britain. Three cheers for the Brexiteers! The FT really has banned it for this reason, they only ever use Brexiter now, if they can.

    I would say Remoaner is more insulting (and accurately descriptive) than Remainiac

    And don't forget "Brexshitter" which has actually been used by supposedly serious commentators like Yasmin Alibhai Brown


    "How many Brexshitters went or are going skiing in Europe? How many own second homes there? What EU wines do they drink? We must be told."


    https://twitter.com/y_alibhai/status/947441565953388544?s=20&t=qlsd-1hB8xHSd1C5ZgrJvg
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,633
    edited February 2022
    Farooq said:

    Leon said:

    stodge said:


    "Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.

    The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.

    Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.

    We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
    My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason

    Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
    Odd that a Brexitr would want the gilded cage of an Apple product in the first place.
    Any true Brit would be using a Psion, or Sinclair ZX
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,829
    kle4 said:

    Heathener said:

    Only the Daily Express could manage to shoehorn a story about Nigel Farage into their lead headline on the storms

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1568415/nigel-farage-storm-eunice-picture-fallen-tree-van-crushed-weather-latest-news

    I'm surprised they didn't go with, 'Boris to ensure such storms will never hit Britain again'.
    A Boris Barricade to be built, ro rise up from the sea to block out high winds.

    I shall do a feasibility study for no more than £1m and report in 3 years. I'll partner up with a Tory doner to reassure the government this is all above board.
    Kebabs are political? Not that it would make any difference to HMG.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Heathener said:

    Only the Daily Express could manage to shoehorn a story about Nigel Farage into their lead headline on the storms

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1568415/nigel-farage-storm-eunice-picture-fallen-tree-van-crushed-weather-latest-news

    I'm surprised they didn't go with, 'Boris to ensure such storms will never hit Britain again'.
    A Boris Barricade to be built, ro rise up from the sea to block out high winds.

    I shall do a feasibility study for no more than £1m and report in 3 years. I'll partner up with a Tory doner to reassure the government this is all above board.
    Kebabs are political?
    Oh yes

    https://order-order.com/2021/10/27/mask-hypocrisy-kebab-awards-edition/
  • Leon said:

    stodge said:


    "Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.

    The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.

    Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.

    We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
    My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason

    Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
    Regardless of what you call them, are there actually that many of them left?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    stodge said:


    "Ever closer union" was picturesque rhetoric, behind which "federalism by stealth" was the actual policy. It didn't need to be that way, but those who pushed for it knew exactly what they were doing (and still are). It has been a political disaster that will take decades to unravel and the euro-federalists are as much to blame as the brexiteers.

    The problem was our membership was always half-hearted. We could just about go along with a notion of free trade though we sometimes baulked at that in terms of the impact on our traditional trading links with the Commonwealth.

    Over 40 years, we never came close to accepting the EEC or the EU and in the end the illogicality of our membership became too much for all sides. We protested over the finances even though we were and are one of the world's most powerful economies. We were happy to take European money to improve the infrastructure of our poorer peripheries but when the even poorer nations of first southern and then eastern Europe joined, it seemed we (and the Germans) were always left to pay the bill.

    We had two choices - either embrace the European ideal fully - Euro, Schengen etc or leave. Our "neither owt nor nowt" membership frustrated everyone and I suspect it's beneficial for all we go our separate ways for now.
    My iPhone is now desperately trying to autocorrect Brexiteer (the most popular version by an order of magnitude, according to Google) to Brexiter, the preferred form for Remoaners, as the latter seems less romantic and flattering. I believe the Guardian and FT have both banned "Brexiteer" for that reason

    Is Apple run by a europhile? Has Clegg extended his tentacles from Facebook?
    I always thought Brexiteer was meant to be the more pejorative.

    Brexiter < Brexiteer < Brexitard (a rare one)

    Remainer < Remoaner < Remainiac
    Noooo, Brexiteer is definitely seen as positive. Buccaneer, Cavalier, Entrepeneur.
    Yeah, I think that's why I presume it pejorative actually - to co-opt a rather grandiose self label. Sort of how, most of the time, woke is now pejorative.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    A good essay on this lexical battle here (by a lefty Remainer)


    "On 14 June, a short email popped up in the inboxes of all Financial Times editorial staff. It came from the paper’s style guru and announced tersely: ‘The out campaigners should be Brexiters, not Brexiteers.’ As usual for the FT’s style pronouncements, the memo did not lay out the reasoning behind the decision, but it followed a discussion among editors over whether the word ‘Brexiteer’ had connotations of swashbuckling adventure.

    "Much has been said and written about the power of the Leave campaign’s simple and disciplined messaging. Both sides agree that the Remain camp never found a slogan with the clarity and muscular appeal of ‘Take Back Control’ — a potent and proven phrase adapted by Vote Leave campaign director Dominic Cummings from the successful campaign against Britain joining the euro. (A 2001 contribution by Cummings to the BBC website ended: ‘Keep your job, keep control, keep the pound.’)

    "But the FT style note was evidence of a little remarked on and perhaps quietly significant victory in another corner of the linguistic battlefield. Long before June’s seismic result, the Out camp had comprehensively won the battle of collective nouns.

    "‘Brexiteer brings to mind buccaneer, pioneer, musketeer,’ says Michael Gove. ‘It lends a sense of panache and romance to the argument.’ For fellow Leave campaigner Daniel Hannan it had connotations of ‘dashing condottieri’. On the other side of the trenches Remain strategist Lord Cooper feared the word crystallised a feeling about the Out campaign. ‘It helped draw it out. It was exciting, invigorating, boundary-pushing, taking on the world… a positive frame that was taking on our negative frame.’"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/victory-of-the-swashbucklers


    The supposedly smarter Remainers named their campaign with a word that reminded people of death, decay and human corpses. Genius
This discussion has been closed.