Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

TACTICAL VOTING AT THE 1997 GENERAL ELECTION – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,020
edited March 2022 in General
imageTACTICAL VOTING AT THE 1997 GENERAL ELECTION – politicalbetting.com

I recently looked at Labour/Lib Dem tactical voting since 1983 and noted that the analysis didn’t work quite so well for 1997.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    edited March 2022
    First. That's a scary image at the top of the header!
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,115
    tlg86 said:

    First. That's a scary image at the top of the header!

    Don't egg him on....
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,994
    FPT:

    Just to reiterate from the last thread: Corbyn was still denying that Russia was to blame for the Salisbury attack five weeks after the attack.

    "Jeremy Corbyn has said he still wants to see "incontrovertible evidence" that Russia was behind the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury."


    https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/jeremy-corbyn-refuses-to-blame-russia-for-salisbury-attack-despite-seeing-new-evidence
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43775577
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,796
    edited March 2022

    FPT:

    Just to reiterate from the last thread: Corbyn was still denying that Russia was to blame for the Salisbury attack five weeks after the attack.

    "Jeremy Corbyn has said he still wants to see "incontrovertible evidence" that Russia was behind the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury."


    https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/jeremy-corbyn-refuses-to-blame-russia-for-salisbury-attack-despite-seeing-new-evidence
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43775577

    Corbyn seems to be applying an unrealistically high burden of proof towards these attacks. But what evidence would convince him? The perpetrators fled the country. No one is ever going to be 'held to account' in a criminal court of law. You have to ultimately make a judgement based on the circumstantial and other evidence provided by the security services. In the end he is too naive to see this, so he came across as a fool on this and many other issues relating to international affairs. It is so good that he is gone, but his legacy lives on in the labour party.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    edited March 2022
    - “Having won an exceptionally close four-way battle for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber in 1992, Russell Johnston stood down in 1997 and the Lib Dems were soundly beaten by Labour and the SNP in the successor seat.”

    That 1992 result is a good example of why FPTP is not fit for purpose. The useless Johnston was returned to parliament on 26% of the vote.

    Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber - Result

    LD 26% (-11)
    Lab 25% (nc)
    SNP 25% (+10)
    Con 23% (nc)
    Grn 2% (+2)

    I was an SNP activist and multiple council candidate in this seat at that time. It was almost impossible to find anybody who actually had the Lib Dems as their first preference. I would guesstimate that 80%+ of their vote was Labourites trying to keep the Tories out, or Tories trying to keep the SNP out or SNP trying to keep Labour out, or various other machinations.

    In other words, LD support was simply a mirage. It did not exist in reality. An astonishing feat in retrospect.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    Interesting that the exit poll was out by quite a bit (on share of the vote). Of course, no one remembers that because it made no difference, unlike 1992.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,735

    - “Having won an exceptionally close four-way battle for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber in 1992, Russell Johnston stood down in 1997 and the Lib Dems were soundly beaten by Labour and the SNP in the successor seat.”

    That 1992 result is a good example of why FPTP is not fit for purpose. The useless Johnston was returned to parliament on 26% of the vote.

    Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber - Result

    LD 26% (-11)
    Lab 25% (nc)
    SNP 25% (+10)
    Con 23% (nc)
    Grn 2% (+2)

    I was an SNP activist and multiple council candidate in this seat at that time. It was almost impossible to find anybody who actually had the Lib Dems as their first preference. I would guesstimate that 80%+ of their vote was Labourites trying to keep the Tories out, or Tories trying to keep the SNP out or SNP trying to keep Labour out, or various other machinations.

    In other words, LD support was simply a mirage. It did not exist in reality. An astonishing feat in retrospect.

    I dislike FPTP but not sure your point is valid even if your guesstimate is correct. Those of us who do not identify with a particular party will often vote on an anyone but x or y viewpoint and I am not clear why that should count less than those who do vote for party x or y.

    At the last election I was anyone but Boris, others were anyone bar Corbyn. To me either of those positions is better than those who voted pro Boris or Corbyn!
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,985
    Tom - I think the really interesting observation is more on the change in efficiency in LD vote between 1987 and 1997. The LD and Conservative vote shares fell similarly (indeed, the LDs lost - proportionately - much more of their vote). But the LDs increased their seat count dramatically.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Baxter’s latest prediction for the successor seats to Russell Johnston’s old Lib/LD constituency:

    Highland Central LD 9.8%
    Highland East & Elgin LD 4.0%
    Argyll LD 9.2%

    Like snow off a dyke.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    - “Having won an exceptionally close four-way battle for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber in 1992, Russell Johnston stood down in 1997 and the Lib Dems were soundly beaten by Labour and the SNP in the successor seat.”

    That 1992 result is a good example of why FPTP is not fit for purpose. The useless Johnston was returned to parliament on 26% of the vote.

    Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber - Result

    LD 26% (-11)
    Lab 25% (nc)
    SNP 25% (+10)
    Con 23% (nc)
    Grn 2% (+2)

    I was an SNP activist and multiple council candidate in this seat at that time. It was almost impossible to find anybody who actually had the Lib Dems as their first preference. I would guesstimate that 80%+ of their vote was Labourites trying to keep the Tories out, or Tories trying to keep the SNP out or SNP trying to keep Labour out, or various other machinations.

    In other words, LD support was simply a mirage. It did not exist in reality. An astonishing feat in retrospect.

    I dislike FPTP but not sure your point is valid even if your guesstimate is correct. Those of us who do not identify with a particular party will often vote on an anyone but x or y viewpoint and I am not clear why that should count less than those who do vote for party x or y.

    At the last election I was anyone but Boris, others were anyone bar Corbyn. To me either of those positions is better than those who voted pro Boris or Corbyn!
    You’ve just described one of the key weaknesses of contemporary England & her satellite states: everybody knows what they are against, but gey few know what they are for.

    PR would be a step in the right direction: it strongly encourages electors to cast a positive vote.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    rcs1000 said:

    Tom - I think the really interesting observation is more on the change in efficiency in LD vote between 1987 and 1997. The LD and Conservative vote shares fell similarly (indeed, the LDs lost - proportionately - much more of their vote). But the LDs increased their seat count dramatically.

    Yes, tactical voting was a big part of 1992. But I was interested in seeing how much further it went in 1997. Of course, the popularity of Labour and the certainty of them winning changes the equation somewhat.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    JACK_W said:

    Silver anniversary of "things can only get better" and never a cross word since .. :smiley:

    If only everyone had voted Jacobite…
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,373

    FPT:

    Just to reiterate from the last thread: Corbyn was still denying that Russia was to blame for the Salisbury attack five weeks after the attack.

    "Jeremy Corbyn has said he still wants to see "incontrovertible evidence" that Russia was behind the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury."


    https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/jeremy-corbyn-refuses-to-blame-russia-for-salisbury-attack-despite-seeing-new-evidence
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43775577

    Perhaps explained by Porton Down being "less categorical than we expected", in Boris's interview linked off your link. Boris was convinced it was Russia but was presumably assured novichok was only applied to doorknobs and not sackfuls of rubles or tennis balls. Jeremy Corbyn was convinced enough to call for the boycott of Russian money.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43775573
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    darkage said:

    I cannot avoid the impression that Biden is extremely weak. The story is likely to be that Ukraine lost the war because it couldn't bomb the Russian positions, because it didn't have jets, because Biden prevented it, because Biden was to scared to poke the bear.

    Weak on Afghanistan, now this.

    An evaporation fan.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,985
    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Tom - I think the really interesting observation is more on the change in efficiency in LD vote between 1987 and 1997. The LD and Conservative vote shares fell similarly (indeed, the LDs lost - proportionately - much more of their vote). But the LDs increased their seat count dramatically.

    Yes, tactical voting was a big part of 1992. But I was interested in seeing how much further it went in 1997. Of course, the popularity of Labour and the certainty of them winning changes the equation somewhat.
    I think the story is really one that took two general elections to play out: 1992 and 1997. Either on their own only tells part of the story.

    Of course, boundary changes obsure this somewhat,
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    If anyone is in the mood for a long read on a Sunday morning:

    ‘The politics of Scotland’s bookishness’
    - The country’s official embrace of literature reveals much about its comfortably stuck political culture, cosily immured from an increasingly illiberal world.

    … Official bookishness hints not only at what Scottish nationalism is aiming for, but what it instinctively turns away from...

    https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2022/03/the-politics-of-scotlands-bookishness
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,985

    Baxter’s latest prediction for the successor seats to Russell Johnston’s old Lib/LD constituency:

    Highland Central LD 9.8%
    Highland East & Elgin LD 4.0%
    Argyll LD 9.2%

    Like snow off a dyke.

    That's true of an awful lot of LD seats, though.

    As a party, they have a low (almost non-existent) floor, but a surprisingly high ceiling.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,274
    edited March 2022
    rcs1000 said:

    Tom - I think the really interesting observation is more on the change in efficiency in LD vote between 1987 and 1997. The LD and Conservative vote shares fell similarly (indeed, the LDs lost - proportionately - much more of their vote). But the LDs increased their seat count dramatically.

    But the loss of LD vote was concentrated in its Unwinnable seats, and is quite probably evidence of the original contention. I.e. where the LDs weren’t in contention, some of their voters backed Labour.

    Thus the absolute change in LD vote isn’t just an input, but very significantly part of the output.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: testing finished yesterday. Will post a ramble probably today. First race is a week away.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    felix said:
    I have read some tedious drivel from Dan Hodges in my time but that takes the biscuit!

    For anyone with to much time on their hands highly recommended!
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,373

    FPT:

    Just to reiterate from the last thread: Corbyn was still denying that Russia was to blame for the Salisbury attack five weeks after the attack.

    "Jeremy Corbyn has said he still wants to see "incontrovertible evidence" that Russia was behind the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury."


    https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/jeremy-corbyn-refuses-to-blame-russia-for-salisbury-attack-despite-seeing-new-evidence
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43775577

    Perhaps explained by Porton Down being "less categorical than we expected", in Boris's interview linked off your link. Boris was convinced it was Russia but was presumably assured novichok was only applied to doorknobs and not sackfuls of rubles or tennis balls. Jeremy Corbyn was convinced enough to call for the boycott of Russian money.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43775573
    Oh, pull the other one. When it comes to Israel, Corbyn is liable to believe *anything* bad about it. When it comes to Russia, he demands 'incontrovertible evidence'. When it comes to anti-Semitism, he is utterly blind to it (to the extent of becoming anti-Semitic himself).
    Whataboutery, and hypothetical whataboutery at that.
  • Options
    jonny83jonny83 Posts: 1,261
    https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1502884166593040384?t=3T10KIAdILWf101b7X9Ypg&s=19

    Russia has struck a Ukrainian Military Training Ground 10 miles from the Polish Border. This site is an International Training Facility and also a likely supply route for NATO aid.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,258

    If anyone is in the mood for a long read on a Sunday morning:

    ‘The politics of Scotland’s bookishness’
    - The country’s official embrace of literature reveals much about its comfortably stuck political culture, cosily immured from an increasingly illiberal world.

    … Official bookishness hints not only at what Scottish nationalism is aiming for, but what it instinctively turns away from...

    https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2022/03/the-politics-of-scotlands-bookishness

    An interesting piece which makes me warm to Scotland and Scottish people even more.

    I loathe the onanistic jizz of much contemporary life. Anchoring ourselves in literature is a rather quaint but delightfully appealing alternative.

    I haven't done the article justice: it's worth a read ;)
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,258
    edited March 2022
    darkage said:

    I cannot avoid the impression that Biden is extremely weak. The story is likely to be that Ukraine lost the war because it couldn't bomb the Russian positions, because it didn't have jets, because Biden prevented it, because Biden was too scared to poke the bear.

    Weak on Afghanistan, now this.

    Totally agree.

    Biden is wet behind the ears and an isolationist. His disgraceful sudden dumping of Afghanistan greenlit Putin to invade Ukraine.

    You need courage to stand up to someone like Putin. We did it in the Cuban missile crisis and we should have done it this time. It's not a time to be frit.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    FPT:

    Just to reiterate from the last thread: Corbyn was still denying that Russia was to blame for the Salisbury attack five weeks after the attack.

    "Jeremy Corbyn has said he still wants to see "incontrovertible evidence" that Russia was behind the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury."


    https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/jeremy-corbyn-refuses-to-blame-russia-for-salisbury-attack-despite-seeing-new-evidence
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43775577

    Perhaps explained by Porton Down being "less categorical than we expected", in Boris's interview linked off your link. Boris was convinced it was Russia but was presumably assured novichok was only applied to doorknobs and not sackfuls of rubles or tennis balls. Jeremy Corbyn was convinced enough to call for the boycott of Russian money.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43775573
    Oh, pull the other one. When it comes to Israel, Corbyn is liable to believe *anything* bad about it. When it comes to Russia, he demands 'incontrovertible evidence'. When it comes to anti-Semitism, he is utterly blind to it (to the extent of becoming anti-Semitic himself).
    Whataboutery, and hypothetical whataboutery at that.
    PB's speciality of the house
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Things got better, then some bastard slammed planes into the WTC and the world was never the same. Can we reboot C21?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,985
    Heathener said:

    darkage said:

    I cannot avoid the impression that Biden is extremely weak. The story is likely to be that Ukraine lost the war because it couldn't bomb the Russian positions, because it didn't have jets, because Biden prevented it, because Biden was too scared to poke the bear.

    Weak on Afghanistan, now this.

    Totally agree.

    Biden is wet behind the ears and an isolationist. His disgraceful sudden dumping of Afghanistan greenlit Putin to invade Ukraine.

    You need courage to stand up to someone like Putin. We did it in the Cuban missile crisis and we should have done it this time. It's not a time to be frit.
    Did Biden's hurry to get out of Afghanistan embolden Putin?

    Yes.

    Is Biden a believer in NATO, and in defending Europe from Russian aggression?

    Yes.

    This isn't complicated.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,628
    rcs1000 said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction for the successor seats to Russell Johnston’s old Lib/LD constituency:

    Highland Central LD 9.8%
    Highland East & Elgin LD 4.0%
    Argyll LD 9.2%

    Like snow off a dyke.

    That's true of an awful lot of LD seats, though.

    As a party, they have a low (almost non-existent) floor, but a surprisingly high ceiling.
    I've liked, but wanted to comment that I have liked. It is so true. Unlike Lab and Con we can win anywhere, but constantly have to work to hold otherwise it reverts. Once it reverts we can just disappear. I believe our core vote is below 4% and even that is subject to tactical voting.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,985
    edited March 2022
    Heathener said:

    darkage said:

    I cannot avoid the impression that Biden is extremely weak. The story is likely to be that Ukraine lost the war because it couldn't bomb the Russian positions, because it didn't have jets, because Biden prevented it, because Biden was too scared to poke the bear.

    Weak on Afghanistan, now this.

    Totally agree.

    Biden is wet behind the ears and an isolationist. His disgraceful sudden dumping of Afghanistan greenlit Putin to invade Ukraine.

    You need courage to stand up to someone like Putin. We did it in the Cuban missile crisis and we should have done it this time. It's not a time to be frit.
    Ahhh... the Cuban missile crisis where the US swapped missiles they had in Turkey, for missiles the Russians didn't have in Cuba?
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    kjh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction for the successor seats to Russell Johnston’s old Lib/LD constituency:

    Highland Central LD 9.8%
    Highland East & Elgin LD 4.0%
    Argyll LD 9.2%

    Like snow off a dyke.

    That's true of an awful lot of LD seats, though.

    As a party, they have a low (almost non-existent) floor, but a surprisingly high ceiling.
    I've liked, but wanted to comment that I have liked. It is so true. Unlike Lab and Con we can win anywhere, but constantly have to work to hold otherwise it reverts. Once it reverts we can just disappear. I believe our core vote is below 4% and even that is subject to tactical voting.
    I don’t think that’s true. I couldn’t imagine the Lib Dems winning Mansfield, for example.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,995
    darkage said:

    I cannot avoid the impression that Biden is extremely weak. The story is likely to be that Ukraine lost the war because it couldn't bomb the Russian positions, because it didn't have jets, because Biden prevented it, because Biden was to scared to poke the bear.

    Weak on Afghanistan, now this.

    The Polish Fulcrums have almost no A2G capability outside dumb bombing with WW2 levels of accuracy and efficacy. So they wouldn't be much use for bombing Russians even the US were inclined to let Ukraine have them which they are clearly not.

    The US have just delayed Slovakia's F-16V acquisition by 18 months to 2024. This may or may not be to delay the otherwise imminent availability of their MiG-29s. This is the unholy pact countries make when they join NATO. Do what you're told and shut the fuck up.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,258
    Jonathan said:

    Things got better, then some bastard slammed planes into the WTC and the world was never the same. Can we reboot C21?

    The first half of the C20th wasn't a bundle of fun either.

    WW1
    The Great Depression
    WW2

    They still managed flapper dresses and Art Deco but it wasn't exactly a great time to be alive.

    I wonder if in years and decades to come, when the pb.com tedium of 'whataboutery' retorts finally subsides, whether we will add the Ukraine invasion to the long list of links to the UK-US Iraq War?

    I know Mike is fond of telling us on the Left that we ought to bow down before the altar of Tony Blair but that man has a lot to answer for.
  • Options
    UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 781
    rcs1000 said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction for the successor seats to Russell Johnston’s old Lib/LD constituency:

    Highland Central LD 9.8%
    Highland East & Elgin LD 4.0%
    Argyll LD 9.2%

    Like snow off a dyke.

    That's true of an awful lot of LD seats, though.

    As a party, they have a low (almost non-existent) floor, but a surprisingly high ceiling.
    They're transfer friendly. My big counter-factual for 2019 is what would have happened if Labour's leader was more centrist. I think a lot of Con Remainers who stuck with their man or stayed home would have been inclined to vote Lib Dems if they felt there was no risk of Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM off the back of it.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    The LD recent record.

    Call for a EU referendum.
    Put Cameron in No10
    Do a 180 on their core principles, disappoint everyone that voted for them.
    Get decimated, unlock first Tory majority in decades that leads to Brexit referendum they called for.
    Elect Jo Swinson, Give Boris 2019 Election on his terms, because they have one good poll.
    Get decimated again. Give Tories 80 seat majority,Enable Hard Brexit.

    Clearly there are other factors, eg Corbyn, but the LDs were there at the key moments, reliably there to screw things up.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,373
    edited March 2022
    Heathener said:

    darkage said:

    I cannot avoid the impression that Biden is extremely weak. The story is likely to be that Ukraine lost the war because it couldn't bomb the Russian positions, because it didn't have jets, because Biden prevented it, because Biden was too scared to poke the bear.

    Weak on Afghanistan, now this.

    Totally agree.

    Biden is wet behind the ears and an isolationist. His disgraceful sudden dumping of Afghanistan greenlit Putin to invade Ukraine.

    You need courage to stand up to someone like Putin. We did it in the Cuban missile crisis and we should have done it this time. It's not a time to be frit.
    Who is "we" in this context? Was the Royal Navy engaged in blockading Cuba? Did Britain stand alone in Afghanistan or hightail it out of there because decades of Tory defence cuts have left us with almost no capacity for independent action?
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    darkage said:

    I cannot avoid the impression that Biden is extremely weak. The story is likely to be that Ukraine lost the war because it couldn't bomb the Russian positions, because it didn't have jets, because Biden prevented it, because Biden was to scared to poke the bear.

    Weak on Afghanistan, now this.

    The fact that he looks and sounds so fragile is a large part of that impression
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,258
    rcs1000 said:

    Heathener said:

    darkage said:

    I cannot avoid the impression that Biden is extremely weak. The story is likely to be that Ukraine lost the war because it couldn't bomb the Russian positions, because it didn't have jets, because Biden prevented it, because Biden was too scared to poke the bear.

    Weak on Afghanistan, now this.

    Totally agree.

    Biden is wet behind the ears and an isolationist. His disgraceful sudden dumping of Afghanistan greenlit Putin to invade Ukraine.

    You need courage to stand up to someone like Putin. We did it in the Cuban missile crisis and we should have done it this time. It's not a time to be frit.


    Is Biden a believer [...] in defending Europe from Russian aggression?

    I am unconvinced. Actions speak louder than words.

    I don't think Biden is a strong President on the world stage. He lacks the pugnacity to stand up to Putin with the only language Putin understands.

    We have stood by and allowed a European nation get pulverised by Putin.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,258
    edited March 2022
    America is undoubtedly weaker now under Joe Biden.

    (Which when you consider the chaos of his predecessor is quite remarkable.)
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,274
    tlg86 said:

    kjh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction for the successor seats to Russell Johnston’s old Lib/LD constituency:

    Highland Central LD 9.8%
    Highland East & Elgin LD 4.0%
    Argyll LD 9.2%

    Like snow off a dyke.

    That's true of an awful lot of LD seats, though.

    As a party, they have a low (almost non-existent) floor, but a surprisingly high ceiling.
    I've liked, but wanted to comment that I have liked. It is so true. Unlike Lab and Con we can win anywhere, but constantly have to work to hold otherwise it reverts. Once it reverts we can just disappear. I believe our core vote is below 4% and even that is subject to tactical voting.
    I don’t think that’s true. I couldn’t imagine the Lib Dems winning Mansfield, for example.
    Chesterfield isn't so far away and isn't so different.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Mr. Jonathan, you missed out a manifesto promise for a referendum on a treaty then reneging on that to abstain while then calling for a 'real' In/Out referendum.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,274
    edited March 2022
    Unpopular said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction for the successor seats to Russell Johnston’s old Lib/LD constituency:

    Highland Central LD 9.8%
    Highland East & Elgin LD 4.0%
    Argyll LD 9.2%

    Like snow off a dyke.

    That's true of an awful lot of LD seats, though.

    As a party, they have a low (almost non-existent) floor, but a surprisingly high ceiling.
    They're transfer friendly. My big counter-factual for 2019 is what would have happened if Labour's leader was more centrist. I think a lot of Con Remainers who stuck with their man or stayed home would have been inclined to vote Lib Dems if they felt there was no risk of Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM off the back of it.
    Yes, contrary to the assumption often made that the centre party has more political 'space' when the main parties are positioned far apart, experience suggests the reverse is true - people are willing to back a centre party when neither of the main parties is generating fear of its election. Most of the good years for the centre party were elections with a relatively lesser gap between the main parties - 1974 x 2, 1997, 2010.

    The exception people remember is 1983, when an extreme Labour party had people heading for the Alliance in large numbers. But that had followed a significand split in the Labour party and the formation of a then new actor on the stage. And is therefore exceptional.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,373

    Mr. Jonathan, you missed out a manifesto promise for a referendum on a treaty then reneging on that to abstain while then calling for a 'real' In/Out referendum.

    Use the quote button then people can see what you are replying to without having to scroll up and down through potentially hundreds of messages.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,628
    tlg86 said:

    kjh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction for the successor seats to Russell Johnston’s old Lib/LD constituency:

    Highland Central LD 9.8%
    Highland East & Elgin LD 4.0%
    Argyll LD 9.2%

    Like snow off a dyke.

    That's true of an awful lot of LD seats, though.

    As a party, they have a low (almost non-existent) floor, but a surprisingly high ceiling.
    I've liked, but wanted to comment that I have liked. It is so true. Unlike Lab and Con we can win anywhere, but constantly have to work to hold otherwise it reverts. Once it reverts we can just disappear. I believe our core vote is below 4% and even that is subject to tactical voting.
    I don’t think that’s true. I couldn’t imagine the Lib Dems winning Mansfield, for example.
    Yes they could if the circumstances are correct, but you have to focus your resources to the opportunities that arise and convince the population you stand a chance (which is the challenge). You only have to look at some of the by elections we used to win.

    It is also easier often if an opportunity arises where you haven't targeted before as the opposition isn't prepared (usually it is prepared for past targeted areas).

    I have been involved specifically in such activities for the LDs. For instance I ran a campaign in a borough by election in a seat we had never won, did not have a single member and had no information. A typical LD campaign won it. A huge blitz of leaflets and taking the opposition by surprise who never expected us to appear and couldn't react.

    Our staring positions was we had nothing better to do and a decent candidate from a neighbouring ward so let's go for it. Getting the signatures on the nomination papers was actually the most difficult thing with no known supporters.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,995

    Heathener said:

    darkage said:

    I cannot avoid the impression that Biden is extremely weak. The story is likely to be that Ukraine lost the war because it couldn't bomb the Russian positions, because it didn't have jets, because Biden prevented it, because Biden was too scared to poke the bear.

    Weak on Afghanistan, now this.

    Totally agree.

    Biden is wet behind the ears and an isolationist. His disgraceful sudden dumping of Afghanistan greenlit Putin to invade Ukraine.

    You need courage to stand up to someone like Putin. We did it in the Cuban missile crisis and we should have done it this time. It's not a time to be frit.
    Who is "we" in this context? Was the Royal Navy engaged in blockading Cuba? Did Britain stand alone in Afghanistan or hightail it out of there because decades of Tory defence cuts have left us with almost no capacity for independent action?
    The Royal Navy did, with partial success, blockade (landlocked) Rhodesia for six years without support from any other nation.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Mr. Jonathan, you missed out a manifesto promise for a referendum on a treaty then reneging on that to abstain while then calling for a 'real' In/Out referendum.

    I don’t believe LD leaders are bad people, but they do make mistakes due to being a little to eager to punch above their weight, able to look two ways at once and occasionally incredibly naive when it comes to politics.

    On reflection, their early stance on referenda, which for them was nothing more than a tactical gimmick, helped legitimise the eurosceptic right.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,258
    edited March 2022
    IanB2 said:

    Unpopular said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction for the successor seats to Russell Johnston’s old Lib/LD constituency:

    Highland Central LD 9.8%
    Highland East & Elgin LD 4.0%
    Argyll LD 9.2%

    Like snow off a dyke.

    That's true of an awful lot of LD seats, though.

    As a party, they have a low (almost non-existent) floor, but a surprisingly high ceiling.
    They're transfer friendly. My big counter-factual for 2019 is what would have happened if Labour's leader was more centrist. I think a lot of Con Remainers who stuck with their man or stayed home would have been inclined to vote Lib Dems if they felt there was no risk of Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM off the back of it.
    Yes, contrary to the assumption often made that the centre party has more political 'space' when the main parties are positioned far apart, experience suggests the reverse is true - people are willing to back a centre party when neither of the main parties is generating fear of its election. Most of the good years for the centre party were elections with a relatively lesser gap between the main parties - 1974 x 2, 1997, 2010.

    The exception people remember is 1983, when an extreme Labour party had people heading for the Alliance in large numbers. But that had followed a significand split in the Labour party and the formation of a then new actor on the stage. And is therefore exceptional.
    A good post. My only proviso to that would be that I'm not so sure Harold Wilson (1974 x 2) should be described as Centrist.

    The high taxes imposed by Wilson would nowadays be considered eye watering and very left wing. The so-called 95% higher income tax rate is slightly misleading because it was graduated but he was no friend of capitalism, certainly not of high earners. And he was a massive supporter of trade unionism. In many ways it's because of Wilson (or 'bloody Wilson' to quote Basil Fawlty) that we ended up with the 3-day week under Heath, the winter of discontent under Callaghan and the Thatcher revolution which turned it all on its head and put power back in the people's hands.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/03/uk-tax-burden-high-1960s/
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,258
    Jonathan said:

    Mr. Jonathan, you missed out a manifesto promise for a referendum on a treaty then reneging on that to abstain while then calling for a 'real' In/Out referendum.

    I don’t believe LD leaders are bad people, but they do make mistakes due to being a little to eager to punch above their weight
    The Jo Swinson 'prepare for Government' debacle comes to mind. Oh lord. Talk about hubris.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,274
    Heathener said:

    IanB2 said:

    Unpopular said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction for the successor seats to Russell Johnston’s old Lib/LD constituency:

    Highland Central LD 9.8%
    Highland East & Elgin LD 4.0%
    Argyll LD 9.2%

    Like snow off a dyke.

    That's true of an awful lot of LD seats, though.

    As a party, they have a low (almost non-existent) floor, but a surprisingly high ceiling.
    They're transfer friendly. My big counter-factual for 2019 is what would have happened if Labour's leader was more centrist. I think a lot of Con Remainers who stuck with their man or stayed home would have been inclined to vote Lib Dems if they felt there was no risk of Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM off the back of it.
    Yes, contrary to the assumption often made that the centre party has more political 'space' when the main parties are positioned far apart, experience suggests the reverse is true - people are willing to back a centre party when neither of the main parties is generating fear of its election. Most of the good years for the centre party were elections with a relatively lesser gap between the main parties - 1974 x 2, 1997, 2010.

    The exception people remember is 1983, when an extreme Labour party had people heading for the Alliance in large numbers. But that had followed a significand split in the Labour party and the formation of a then new actor on the stage. And is therefore exceptional.
    A good post. My only proviso to that would be that I'm not so sure Harold Wilson (1974 x 2) should be described as Centrist.

    The high taxes imposed by Wilson would nowadays be considered eye watering and very left wing. The so-called 95% higher income tax rate is slightly misleading because it was graduated but he was no friend of capitalism, certainly not of high earners. And he was a massive supporter of trade unionism. In many ways it's because of Wilson (or 'bloody Wilson' to quote Basil Fawlty) that we ended up with the 3-day week under Heath, the winter of discontent under Callaghan and the Thatcher revolution which turned it all on its head and put power back in the people's hands.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/03/uk-tax-burden-high-1960s/
    But the question is whether there was a big policy gulf between the main parties in 1974? It's distant history now, but I am not convinced that there was.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Heathener said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mr. Jonathan, you missed out a manifesto promise for a referendum on a treaty then reneging on that to abstain while then calling for a 'real' In/Out referendum.

    I don’t believe LD leaders are bad people, but they do make mistakes due to being a little to eager to punch above their weight
    The Jo Swinson 'prepare for Government' debacle comes to mind. Oh lord. Talk about hubris.
    Jo went out of her way to not only irritate, but thoroughly antagonise the (large) Tory support in her constituency. She was thoroughly dependent on tactical votes, especially Tory tactical votes, if she was to have a chance of fighting off the SNP.

    A lesson for every single candidate everywhere: you cannot fight the big fights in London but ignore your local base. Fight local fights first, then the big ones. Boris Johnson take note: this rule applies even to party leaders.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,167

    Heathener said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mr. Jonathan, you missed out a manifesto promise for a referendum on a treaty then reneging on that to abstain while then calling for a 'real' In/Out referendum.

    I don’t believe LD leaders are bad people, but they do make mistakes due to being a little to eager to punch above their weight
    The Jo Swinson 'prepare for Government' debacle comes to mind. Oh lord. Talk about hubris.
    Jo went out of her way to not only irritate, but thoroughly antagonise the (large) Tory support in her constituency. She was thoroughly dependent on tactical votes, especially Tory tactical votes, if she was to have a chance of fighting off the SNP.

    A lesson for every single candidate everywhere: you cannot fight the big fights in London but ignore your local base. Fight local fights first, then the big ones. Boris Johnson take note: this rule applies even to party leaders.
    All politics is local.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,032
    Heathener said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Heathener said:

    darkage said:

    I cannot avoid the impression that Biden is extremely weak. The story is likely to be that Ukraine lost the war because it couldn't bomb the Russian positions, because it didn't have jets, because Biden prevented it, because Biden was too scared to poke the bear.

    Weak on Afghanistan, now this.

    Totally agree.

    Biden is wet behind the ears and an isolationist. His disgraceful sudden dumping of Afghanistan greenlit Putin to invade Ukraine.

    You need courage to stand up to someone like Putin. We did it in the Cuban missile crisis and we should have done it this time. It's not a time to be frit.


    Is Biden a believer [...] in defending Europe from Russian aggression?

    I am unconvinced. Actions speak louder than words.

    I don't think Biden is a strong President on the world stage. He lacks the pugnacity to stand up to Putin with the only language Putin understands.

    We have stood by and allowed a European nation get pulverised by Putin.
    I still struggle with the fact that 3 weeks ago it was “Putin will never invade, what the f**k are NATO doing?” and today it’s “NATO must escalate immediately, what the f**k are they doing?”

    It may be a pure coincidence, but on both occasions that has been what Putin wants to happen. Can you help clarify the matter?
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Jonathan said:

    The LD recent record.

    Call for a EU referendum.
    Put Cameron in No10
    Do a 180 on their core principles, disappoint everyone that voted for them.
    Get decimated, unlock first Tory majority in decades that leads to Brexit referendum they called for.
    Elect Jo Swinson, Give Boris 2019 Election on his terms, because they have one good poll.
    Get decimated again. Give Tories 80 seat majority,Enable Hard Brexit.

    Clearly there are other factors, eg Corbyn, but the LDs were there at the key moments, reliably there to screw things up.

    There is one constant in English and Scottish politics: Liberals never learn. They sook up to Tories. They sook up to Labour. They never stand up for liberalism.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,608
    Jonathan said:

    The LD recent record.

    Call for a EU referendum.
    Put Cameron in No10
    Do a 180 on their core principles, disappoint everyone that voted for them.
    Get decimated, unlock first Tory majority in decades that leads to Brexit referendum they called for.
    Elect Jo Swinson, Give Boris 2019 Election on his terms, because they have one good poll.
    Get decimated again. Give Tories 80 seat majority,Enable Hard Brexit.

    Clearly there are other factors, eg Corbyn, but the LDs were there at the key moments, reliably there to screw things up.

    The period of 2010-15 with the Lib Dems in government was a difficult period, dealing with the massive deficit from the GFC. There were mis-steps such as Cables Student fees, but by and large the LDs were very effective ministers.

    We see since what awful, incompetent Tory government looks like. The LD role in coalition is nothing to be embarrassed about, indeed it was a golden period of good government compared to what went before and after.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,115
    Taz said:

    Heathener said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mr. Jonathan, you missed out a manifesto promise for a referendum on a treaty then reneging on that to abstain while then calling for a 'real' In/Out referendum.

    I don’t believe LD leaders are bad people, but they do make mistakes due to being a little to eager to punch above their weight
    The Jo Swinson 'prepare for Government' debacle comes to mind. Oh lord. Talk about hubris.
    Jo went out of her way to not only irritate, but thoroughly antagonise the (large) Tory support in her constituency. She was thoroughly dependent on tactical votes, especially Tory tactical votes, if she was to have a chance of fighting off the SNP.

    A lesson for every single candidate everywhere: you cannot fight the big fights in London but ignore your local base. Fight local fights first, then the big ones. Boris Johnson take note: this rule applies even to party leaders.
    All politics is local.
    Except, Jo went out of her way to not only irritate, but thoroughly antagonise the Tory support in every constituency. The vehemence of attacks on the doorsteps against her was one of the big surprises of the 2019 election. I reported my surprise on here.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Jonathan said:

    Mr. Jonathan, you missed out a manifesto promise for a referendum on a treaty then reneging on that to abstain while then calling for a 'real' In/Out referendum.

    I don’t believe LD leaders are bad people, but they do make mistakes due to being a little to eager to punch above their weight, able to look two ways at once and occasionally incredibly naive when it comes to politics.

    On reflection, their early stance on referenda, which for them was nothing more than a tactical gimmick, helped legitimise the eurosceptic right.
    The LDs unsurprisingly are like the EU - they favour referendums ... which give the 'correct' result - no matter how many it takes.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Dr. Foxy, it's an irony that a party in love with the concept of coalitions was so inept at campaigning after being in one (and helping to govern pretty well).

    They'd lost the leftists who thought the Lib Dems owed allegiance to Labour, seemed embarrassed to have the temerity to be in office, and left the Conservatives to assume the mantle of government while they presented their pretend yellow Budget.

    It was quite odd.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,274
    edited March 2022
    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    The LD recent record.

    Call for a EU referendum.
    Put Cameron in No10
    Do a 180 on their core principles, disappoint everyone that voted for them.
    Get decimated, unlock first Tory majority in decades that leads to Brexit referendum they called for.
    Elect Jo Swinson, Give Boris 2019 Election on his terms, because they have one good poll.
    Get decimated again. Give Tories 80 seat majority,Enable Hard Brexit.

    Clearly there are other factors, eg Corbyn, but the LDs were there at the key moments, reliably there to screw things up.

    The period of 2010-15 with the Lib Dems in government was a difficult period, dealing with the massive deficit from the GFC. There were mis-steps such as Cables Student fees, but by and large the LDs were very effective ministers.

    We see since what awful, incompetent Tory government looks like. The LD role in coalition is nothing to be embarrassed about, indeed it was a golden period of good government compared to what went before and after.
    And people forget that Labour's 2010 policy offering wasn't that much difficult, with the spending/cuts profile that the coalition actually delivered ending up almost exactly what Labour, rather than the Tories, had proposed before the election.

    The unknown counter-factual is how things would have panned out had the UK gone it alone with what has essentially become global economic policy during the pandemic, and printed money without regard to the deficit.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,653
    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    America is undoubtedly weaker now under Joe Biden.

    (Which when you consider the chaos of his predecessor is quite remarkable.)

    Why all the hate for Biden this morning?

    His policy on Ukraine is identical to ours and the EU: supply arms, intelligence and economic support, but no direct military involvement.

    His policy on the Afghan withdrawal was Trump's policy, already underway when he took over, having been prevented from having a transitional handover. We scuttled out too.

    What he said.

    Odd how those who profess to despise the “strong man” (sic) of Russia seem to hanker after one in the US.

    I have no doubt that Biden has been instrumental in getting the Western coalition to cooperate across such a wide range of measures - including getting a leading member to dump decades of foreign policy literally almost overnight.

    The chances of someone like Trump achieving as much? Pretty close to zero.

    And yes, the UK has played a leading role - mainly by having been right about Russia and acting on that basis for much longer than most western powers. Johnson has been a good frontman for a policy which well preceded him.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,115
    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    The LD recent record.

    Call for a EU referendum.
    Put Cameron in No10
    Do a 180 on their core principles, disappoint everyone that voted for them.
    Get decimated, unlock first Tory majority in decades that leads to Brexit referendum they called for.
    Elect Jo Swinson, Give Boris 2019 Election on his terms, because they have one good poll.
    Get decimated again. Give Tories 80 seat majority,Enable Hard Brexit.

    Clearly there are other factors, eg Corbyn, but the LDs were there at the key moments, reliably there to screw things up.

    The period of 2010-15 with the Lib Dems in government was a difficult period, dealing with the massive deficit from the GFC. There were mis-steps such as Cables Student fees, but by and large the LDs were very effective ministers.

    We see since what awful, incompetent Tory government looks like. The LD role in coalition is nothing to be embarrassed about, indeed it was a golden period of good government compared to what went before and after.
    The LibDems point blank refusal to have any discussion in the Coalition about an EU referendum - because of their own confused stance - leads in a straight line to Brexit.

    Undoubtedly their (including the Liberals) most important contribution to politics in the past 50 years. But you aren't embarrassed about this "golden period of good government", so....
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,274

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    America is undoubtedly weaker now under Joe Biden.

    (Which when you consider the chaos of his predecessor is quite remarkable.)

    Why all the hate for Biden this morning?

    His policy on Ukraine is identical to ours and the EU: supply arms, intelligence and economic support, but no direct military involvement.

    His policy on the Afghan withdrawal was Trump's policy, already underway when he took over, having been prevented from having a transitional handover. We scuttled out too.

    What he said.

    Odd how those who profess to despise the “strong man” (sic) of Russia seem to hanker after one in the US.

    I have no doubt that Biden has been instrumental in getting the Western coalition to cooperate across such a wide range of measures - including getting a leading member to dump decades of foreign policy literally almost overnight.

    The chances of someone like Trump achieving as much? Pretty close to zero.

    And yes, the UK has played a leading role - mainly by having been right about Russia and acting on that basis for much longer than most western powers. Johnson has been a good frontman for a policy which well preceded him.
    Johnson is starting to look as if he has long been heavily in hock to Russian interests - so perhaps we should simply be grateful that Brexit and then covid have kept him busy such that he hasn't started to unwind the foreign policy and defence foundations laid during and after the coalition?
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,735
    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    America is undoubtedly weaker now under Joe Biden.

    (Which when you consider the chaos of his predecessor is quite remarkable.)

    Why all the hate for Biden this morning?

    His policy on Ukraine is identical to ours and the EU: supply arms, intelligence and economic support, but no direct military involvement.

    His policy on the Afghan withdrawal was Trump's policy, already underway when he took over, having been prevented from having a transitional handover. We scuttled out too.

    It seems to me to be most of the flak he gets originates from a mix of he is on the wrong "team", old and a bit dull in that order.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,608

    Dr. Foxy, it's an irony that a party in love with the concept of coalitions was so inept at campaigning after being in one (and helping to govern pretty well).

    They'd lost the leftists who thought the Lib Dems owed allegiance to Labour, seemed embarrassed to have the temerity to be in office, and left the Conservatives to assume the mantle of government while they presented their pretend yellow Budget.

    It was quite odd.

    Coalition is not the norm in this country, there has been no real precedent. The wartime coalition and National government are the other examples, both of which led to landslides against one of the parties of the coalition, for the other.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,994

    FPT:

    Just to reiterate from the last thread: Corbyn was still denying that Russia was to blame for the Salisbury attack five weeks after the attack.

    "Jeremy Corbyn has said he still wants to see "incontrovertible evidence" that Russia was behind the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury."


    https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/jeremy-corbyn-refuses-to-blame-russia-for-salisbury-attack-despite-seeing-new-evidence
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43775577

    Perhaps explained by Porton Down being "less categorical than we expected", in Boris's interview linked off your link. Boris was convinced it was Russia but was presumably assured novichok was only applied to doorknobs and not sackfuls of rubles or tennis balls. Jeremy Corbyn was convinced enough to call for the boycott of Russian money.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43775573
    Oh, pull the other one. When it comes to Israel, Corbyn is liable to believe *anything* bad about it. When it comes to Russia, he demands 'incontrovertible evidence'. When it comes to anti-Semitism, he is utterly blind to it (to the extent of becoming anti-Semitic himself).
    Whataboutery, and hypothetical whataboutery at that.
    A really poor response, yourself, Nick and others were jumping on the fact that Corbyn had seemed to blame Russia 'eight days' after the event. But here he was, five weeks after, rowing back on it, demanding 'incontrovertible evidence'.

    Which he does not ask for on other occasions. Sensible people might ask themselves why....
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,628
    felix said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mr. Jonathan, you missed out a manifesto promise for a referendum on a treaty then reneging on that to abstain while then calling for a 'real' In/Out referendum.

    I don’t believe LD leaders are bad people, but they do make mistakes due to being a little to eager to punch above their weight, able to look two ways at once and occasionally incredibly naive when it comes to politics.

    On reflection, their early stance on referenda, which for them was nothing more than a tactical gimmick, helped legitimise the eurosceptic right.
    The LDs unsurprisingly are like the EU - they favour referendums ... which give the 'correct' result - no matter how many it takes.
    Not sure that is true as a general principle. Now if you said we had cynically favoured referendums in certain circumstances I would agree .
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,653
    The EHRC launches an investigation into the bullying of female academics critical of gender identity theory. Stonewall’s response: attack the EHRC at the UN.

    We are getting closer to exposing the ugly truth about what is being done to women.


    https://twitter.com/BluskyeAllison/status/1502916774634868736
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,994

    The speed of the West’s reaction to the Putin War on Ukraine is extraordinary. Corralling dozens of democracies, each with their own decision making processes, into such a united response is a major achievement. Joe Biden has played a key role in enabling it to happen. My guess is that in Europe the 2024 American presidential election is also casting a long shadow. If Trump or an acolyte wins, as seems probable, the US will not be a reliable partner.

    The complete reboot of the EU over the last month and the likelihood of an isolationist, America First, Republican President in 2025 leaves the UK in a very tricky strategic position. We’ll pretend it doesn’t, of course, but in the real world that won’t help.

    That may happen. Or it my have the opposite effect: the UK being outside the EU, but more aligned with their position than America's, may be very much to our advantage as both sides try to 'win' us over.

    It's all unknowns at the moment. I'm hoping a Republican doesn't win in 2024 - but I'm also hoping the Dems put up a better candidate than Biden. 2020 Trump versus Biden was really the US's version of 2019 Johnson versus Corbyn. Bad candidates on both sides.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Dr. Foxy, it's not unreasonable to expect a party in love with the concept of coalitions to be better at campaigning after having been in one than a party that doesn't have any interest in coalitions.

    Mr. Sandpit, is that a repost? Not a criticism (I, and others, often have FPT type posts), I'm trying to work out if I have deja vu or not.

    As an aside, I once had it for 30 minutes solid, which was immensely disconcerting.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,608

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    America is undoubtedly weaker now under Joe Biden.

    (Which when you consider the chaos of his predecessor is quite remarkable.)

    Why all the hate for Biden this morning?

    His policy on Ukraine is identical to ours and the EU: supply arms, intelligence and economic support, but no direct military involvement.

    His policy on the Afghan withdrawal was Trump's policy, already underway when he took over, having been prevented from having a transitional handover. We scuttled out too.

    What he said.

    Odd how those who profess to despise the “strong man” (sic) of Russia seem to hanker after one in the US.

    I have no doubt that Biden has been instrumental in getting the Western coalition to cooperate across such a wide range of measures - including getting a leading member to dump decades of foreign policy literally almost overnight.

    The chances of someone like Trump achieving as much? Pretty close to zero.

    And yes, the UK has played a leading role - mainly by having been right about Russia and acting on that basis for much longer than most western powers. Johnson has been a good frontman for a policy which well preceded him.
    Indeed, what Biden is good at is organising support into a coalition. That was his role in Senate and as VP.

    It's times like this that I am relieved that Trump is sulking in Florida rather than the White House. What would it be like with him in charge? Would he still be cheerleading for Putin, or be bombing Moscow? More likely he would revert to type and American Isolationism.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,734
    darkage said:

    FPT:

    Just to reiterate from the last thread: Corbyn was still denying that Russia was to blame for the Salisbury attack five weeks after the attack.

    "Jeremy Corbyn has said he still wants to see "incontrovertible evidence" that Russia was behind the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury."


    https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/jeremy-corbyn-refuses-to-blame-russia-for-salisbury-attack-despite-seeing-new-evidence
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43775577

    Corbyn seems to be applying an unrealistically high burden of proof towards these attacks. But what evidence would convince him? The perpetrators fled the country. No one is ever going to be 'held to account' in a criminal court of law. You have to ultimately make a judgement based on the circumstantial and other evidence provided by the security services. In the end he is too naive to see this, so he came across as a fool on this and many other issues relating to international affairs. It is so good that he is gone, but his legacy lives on in the labour party.
    Demanding unrealistically high burdens of proof is a classic diversionary tactic. Its akin to people always asking for more evidence, more consultation, no matter how much there has been on an issue, when the truth is they're opposed but want to pretend they are being the reasonable ones.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,115

    The speed of the West’s reaction to the Putin War on Ukraine is extraordinary. Corralling dozens of democracies, each with their own decision making processes, into such a united response is a major achievement. Joe Biden has played a key role in enabling it to happen. My guess is that in Europe the 2024 American presidential election is also casting a long shadow. If Trump or an acolyte wins, as seems probable, the US will not be a reliable partner.

    The complete reboot of the EU over the last month and the likelihood of an isolationist, America First, Republican President in 2025 leaves the UK in a very tricky strategic position. We’ll pretend it doesn’t, of course, but in the real world that won’t help.

    Oh enough of your "Brexit will fuck up Europe" bollocks. We have been at the front of protecting Ukraine, before and after the Referendum. Brexit has not remotely impacted our ability to Do The Right Thing. In many ways, it has robbed Germany of an excuse - and it has now had to stand up and have its defence budget counted.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,105

    The speed of the West’s reaction to the Putin War on Ukraine is extraordinary. Corralling dozens of democracies, each with their own decision making processes, into such a united response is a major achievement. Joe Biden has played a key role in enabling it to happen. My guess is that in Europe the 2024 American presidential election is also casting a long shadow. If Trump or an acolyte wins, as seems probable, the US will not be a reliable partner.

    The complete reboot of the EU over the last month and the likelihood of an isolationist, America First, Republican President in 2025 leaves the UK in a very tricky strategic position. We’ll pretend it doesn’t, of course, but in the real world that won’t help.

    Oh enough of your "Brexit will fuck up Europe" bollocks. We have been at the front of protecting Ukraine, before and after the Referendum. Brexit has not remotely impacted our ability to Do The Right Thing. In many ways, it has robbed Germany of an excuse - and it has now had to stand up and have its defence budget counted.
    Our response on refugees has been absolutely pathetic and that is a direct result of being outside the EU.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,931

    The speed of the West’s reaction to the Putin War on Ukraine is extraordinary. Corralling dozens of democracies, each with their own decision making processes, into such a united response is a major achievement. Joe Biden has played a key role in enabling it to happen. My guess is that in Europe the 2024 American presidential election is also casting a long shadow. If Trump or an acolyte wins, as seems probable, the US will not be a reliable partner.

    The complete reboot of the EU over the last month and the likelihood of an isolationist, America First, Republican President in 2025 leaves the UK in a very tricky strategic position. We’ll pretend it doesn’t, of course, but in the real world that won’t help.

    That may happen. Or it my have the opposite effect: the UK being outside the EU, but more aligned with their position than America's, may be very much to our advantage as both sides try to 'win' us over.

    It's all unknowns at the moment. I'm hoping a Republican doesn't win in 2024 - but I'm also hoping the Dems put up a better candidate than Biden. 2020 Trump versus Biden was really the US's version of 2019 Johnson versus Corbyn. Bad candidates on both sides.

    The one thing we cannot change is our geography. I am not sure how you align with an isolationist, America First president if you are an integral part of the continent of Europe.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,734
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    America is undoubtedly weaker now under Joe Biden.

    (Which when you consider the chaos of his predecessor is quite remarkable.)

    Why all the hate for Biden this morning?

    His policy on Ukraine is identical to ours and the EU: supply arms, intelligence and economic support, but no direct military involvement.

    His policy on the Afghan withdrawal was Trump's policy, already underway when he took over, having been prevented from having a transitional handover. We scuttled out too.

    What he said.

    Odd how those who profess to despise the “strong man” (sic) of Russia seem to hanker after one in the US.

    I have no doubt that Biden has been instrumental in getting the Western coalition to cooperate across such a wide range of measures - including getting a leading member to dump decades of foreign policy literally almost overnight.

    The chances of someone like Trump achieving as much? Pretty close to zero.

    And yes, the UK has played a leading role - mainly by having been right about Russia and acting on that basis for much longer than most western powers. Johnson has been a good frontman for a policy which well preceded him.
    Indeed, what Biden is good at is organising support into a coalition. That was his role in Senate and as VP.

    It's times like this that I am relieved that Trump is sulking in Florida rather than the White House. What would it be like with him in charge? Would he still be cheerleading for Putin, or be bombing Moscow? More likely he would revert to type and American Isolationism.
    I'm genuinely very worried now about Trump winning in 2024. Previously it was more a case of just really hoping he didn't because he's so odious, now it could truly harm people globally.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,289
    edited March 2022

    The speed of the West’s reaction to the Putin War on Ukraine is extraordinary. Corralling dozens of democracies, each with their own decision making processes, into such a united response is a major achievement. Joe Biden has played a key role in enabling it to happen. My guess is that in Europe the 2024 American presidential election is also casting a long shadow. If Trump or an acolyte wins, as seems probable, the US will not be a reliable partner.

    The complete reboot of the EU over the last month and the likelihood of an isolationist, America First, Republican President in 2025 leaves the UK in a very tricky strategic position. We’ll pretend it doesn’t, of course, but in the real world that won’t help.

    The thought of Trump is a nightmare but the idea the UK will be in a tricky position seems to be unlikely in view of this 2 day meeting in Chequers and Downing Street of the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF)

    We need to realise that this war has changed everything and the time for them and us is yesterday's news as we move to greater cooperation which does not necessitate UK rejoining the EU

    https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-boris-johnson-to-host-summit-with-nordic-and-baltic-leaders-to-deter-russian-aggression-12564716
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,653
    Russians occupying southern city of Kherson are reportedly trying to call a referendum to establish a new statelet: Kherson National Republic (like DNR and LNR).

    Today 44 (out of total 64) members of the Kherson Oblast Council proclaimed that Kherson is part of Ukraine


    https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1502879082987593733
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,735

    The speed of the West’s reaction to the Putin War on Ukraine is extraordinary. Corralling dozens of democracies, each with their own decision making processes, into such a united response is a major achievement. Joe Biden has played a key role in enabling it to happen. My guess is that in Europe the 2024 American presidential election is also casting a long shadow. If Trump or an acolyte wins, as seems probable, the US will not be a reliable partner.

    The complete reboot of the EU over the last month and the likelihood of an isolationist, America First, Republican President in 2025 leaves the UK in a very tricky strategic position. We’ll pretend it doesn’t, of course, but in the real world that won’t help.

    That may happen. Or it my have the opposite effect: the UK being outside the EU, but more aligned with their position than America's, may be very much to our advantage as both sides try to 'win' us over.

    It's all unknowns at the moment. I'm hoping a Republican doesn't win in 2024 - but I'm also hoping the Dems put up a better candidate than Biden. 2020 Trump versus Biden was really the US's version of 2019 Johnson versus Corbyn. Bad candidates on both sides.

    The one thing we cannot change is our geography. I am not sure how you align with an isolationist, America First president if you are an integral part of the continent of Europe.
    Common ground in authoritarian nationalism and kleptocracy is the answer to that one.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,445
    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    kjh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Baxter’s latest prediction for the successor seats to Russell Johnston’s old Lib/LD constituency:

    Highland Central LD 9.8%
    Highland East & Elgin LD 4.0%
    Argyll LD 9.2%

    Like snow off a dyke.

    That's true of an awful lot of LD seats, though.

    As a party, they have a low (almost non-existent) floor, but a surprisingly high ceiling.
    I've liked, but wanted to comment that I have liked. It is so true. Unlike Lab and Con we can win anywhere, but constantly have to work to hold otherwise it reverts. Once it reverts we can just disappear. I believe our core vote is below 4% and even that is subject to tactical voting.
    I don’t think that’s true. I couldn’t imagine the Lib Dems winning Mansfield, for example.
    Chesterfield isn't so far away and isn't so different.
    Have you been to Chesterfield and Mansfield?! They're not chalk and cheese, but, well, I'd rather be in Chesterfield.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,931
    edited March 2022

    The speed of the West’s reaction to the Putin War on Ukraine is extraordinary. Corralling dozens of democracies, each with their own decision making processes, into such a united response is a major achievement. Joe Biden has played a key role in enabling it to happen. My guess is that in Europe the 2024 American presidential election is also casting a long shadow. If Trump or an acolyte wins, as seems probable, the US will not be a reliable partner.

    The complete reboot of the EU over the last month and the likelihood of an isolationist, America First, Republican President in 2025 leaves the UK in a very tricky strategic position. We’ll pretend it doesn’t, of course, but in the real world that won’t help.

    Oh enough of your "Brexit will fuck up Europe" bollocks. We have been at the front of protecting Ukraine, before and after the Referendum. Brexit has not remotely impacted our ability to Do The Right Thing. In many ways, it has robbed Germany of an excuse - and it has now had to stand up and have its defence budget counted.

    I did not say that Brexit has fucked up Europe. I actually think that Putin (not Brexit) has made the EU a hell of a lot stronger. But a much stronger EU creates strategic challenges for a UK that is unavoidably and permanently a part of the continent that the EU already dominates. Throw in an isolationist, America first president on the other side of the Atlantic and those challenges become acute. As I also say, though, we are likely to pretend otherwise. We may fool ourselves for a while, but that will make little difference to anything in the real world.

  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,032

    The speed of the West’s reaction to the Putin War on Ukraine is extraordinary. Corralling dozens of democracies, each with their own decision making processes, into such a united response is a major achievement. Joe Biden has played a key role in enabling it to happen. My guess is that in Europe the 2024 American presidential election is also casting a long shadow. If Trump or an acolyte wins, as seems probable, the US will not be a reliable partner.

    The complete reboot of the EU over the last month and the likelihood of an isolationist, America First, Republican President in 2025 leaves the UK in a very tricky strategic position. We’ll pretend it doesn’t, of course, but in the real world that won’t help.

    Oh enough of your "Brexit will fuck up Europe" bollocks. We have been at the front of protecting Ukraine, before and after the Referendum. Brexit has not remotely impacted our ability to Do The Right Thing. In many ways, it has robbed Germany of an excuse - and it has now had to stand up and have its defence budget counted.
    Our response on refugees has been absolutely pathetic and that is a direct result of being outside the EU.
    Would it have been different if we were still in the EU with the current government?(appreciate that’s an unlikely scenario but otherwise you can just say “well Cameron wouldn’t have done this, look at Syria”)
  • Options
    Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,600
    Heathener said:

    darkage said:

    I cannot avoid the impression that Biden is extremely weak. The story is likely to be that Ukraine lost the war because it couldn't bomb the Russian positions, because it didn't have jets, because Biden prevented it, because Biden was too scared to poke the bear.

    Weak on Afghanistan, now this.

    Totally agree.

    Biden is wet behind the ears and an isolationist. His disgraceful sudden dumping of Afghanistan greenlit Putin to invade Ukraine.

    You need courage to stand up to someone like Putin. We did it in the Cuban missile crisis and we should have done it this time. It's not a time to be frit.
    I generally agree with you regarding Biden in terms of the scale of military support. The US has held back enough to ensure that Putin has not been brought to a complete stop and entered into serious negotiations. Putin can still see a path to winning if he commits further and deeper.

    While the sanctions package has eventually become a pretty comprehensive one, the failure to signal this economic resolve much earlier still encouraged Putin to go all in.

    Weakness where you escalate with half measures only after your opponent has been encouraged to think that you won't go even that far is the worst of all possible worlds. It leads to further escalation by the aggressor, and further half measures in response.

    But having shown this weakness, what if Biden does now show resolve and draws a line in the sand that would prompt direct intervention risking a direct US-Russia conflict? Based on Biden's earlier track record would Putin take it seriously or would he dismiss it as rhetoric and double down regardless?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,115

    The speed of the West’s reaction to the Putin War on Ukraine is extraordinary. Corralling dozens of democracies, each with their own decision making processes, into such a united response is a major achievement. Joe Biden has played a key role in enabling it to happen. My guess is that in Europe the 2024 American presidential election is also casting a long shadow. If Trump or an acolyte wins, as seems probable, the US will not be a reliable partner.

    The complete reboot of the EU over the last month and the likelihood of an isolationist, America First, Republican President in 2025 leaves the UK in a very tricky strategic position. We’ll pretend it doesn’t, of course, but in the real world that won’t help.

    Oh enough of your "Brexit will fuck up Europe" bollocks. We have been at the front of protecting Ukraine, before and after the Referendum. Brexit has not remotely impacted our ability to Do The Right Thing. In many ways, it has robbed Germany of an excuse - and it has now had to stand up and have its defence budget counted.
    Our response on refugees has been absolutely pathetic and that is a direct result of being outside the EU.
    Angela Merkel's response to refugees is a direct consequence of our being outside the EU.

    And yes, our response has been absolutely pathetic, period.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,373

    FPT:

    Just to reiterate from the last thread: Corbyn was still denying that Russia was to blame for the Salisbury attack five weeks after the attack.

    "Jeremy Corbyn has said he still wants to see "incontrovertible evidence" that Russia was behind the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury."


    https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/jeremy-corbyn-refuses-to-blame-russia-for-salisbury-attack-despite-seeing-new-evidence
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43775577

    Perhaps explained by Porton Down being "less categorical than we expected", in Boris's interview linked off your link. Boris was convinced it was Russia but was presumably assured novichok was only applied to doorknobs and not sackfuls of rubles or tennis balls. Jeremy Corbyn was convinced enough to call for the boycott of Russian money.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43775573
    Oh, pull the other one. When it comes to Israel, Corbyn is liable to believe *anything* bad about it. When it comes to Russia, he demands 'incontrovertible evidence'. When it comes to anti-Semitism, he is utterly blind to it (to the extent of becoming anti-Semitic himself).
    Whataboutery, and hypothetical whataboutery at that.
    A really poor response, yourself, Nick and others were jumping on the fact that Corbyn had seemed to blame Russia 'eight days' after the event. But here he was, five weeks after, rowing back on it, demanding 'incontrovertible evidence'.

    Which he does not ask for on other occasions. Sensible people might ask themselves why....
    And if you followed the link to the Boris interview, you will have seen that the director of Porton Down was also "less catagorical than we expected". You will also note that despite this, Corbyn went further than Boris or the government in demanding an end to Russian money in London and British politics.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,931

    The speed of the West’s reaction to the Putin War on Ukraine is extraordinary. Corralling dozens of democracies, each with their own decision making processes, into such a united response is a major achievement. Joe Biden has played a key role in enabling it to happen. My guess is that in Europe the 2024 American presidential election is also casting a long shadow. If Trump or an acolyte wins, as seems probable, the US will not be a reliable partner.

    The complete reboot of the EU over the last month and the likelihood of an isolationist, America First, Republican President in 2025 leaves the UK in a very tricky strategic position. We’ll pretend it doesn’t, of course, but in the real world that won’t help.

    The thought of Trump is a nightmare but the idea the UK will be in a tricky position seems to be unlikely in view of this 2 day meeting in Chequers and Downing Street of the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF)

    We need to realise that this war has changed everything and the time for them and us is yesterday's news as we move to greater cooperation which does not necessitate UK rejoining the EU

    https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-boris-johnson-to-host-summit-with-nordic-and-baltic-leaders-to-deter-russian-aggression-12564716

    I totally agree. The way forward is for much closer cooperation with the EU, without the need to rejoin. I wonder what the ERG feels about this, though.

  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,734

    FPT:

    Just to reiterate from the last thread: Corbyn was still denying that Russia was to blame for the Salisbury attack five weeks after the attack.

    "Jeremy Corbyn has said he still wants to see "incontrovertible evidence" that Russia was behind the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury."


    https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/jeremy-corbyn-refuses-to-blame-russia-for-salisbury-attack-despite-seeing-new-evidence
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43775577

    Perhaps explained by Porton Down being "less categorical than we expected", in Boris's interview linked off your link. Boris was convinced it was Russia but was presumably assured novichok was only applied to doorknobs and not sackfuls of rubles or tennis balls. Jeremy Corbyn was convinced enough to call for the boycott of Russian money.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43775573
    Oh, pull the other one. When it comes to Israel, Corbyn is liable to believe *anything* bad about it. When it comes to Russia, he demands 'incontrovertible evidence'. When it comes to anti-Semitism, he is utterly blind to it (to the extent of becoming anti-Semitic himself).
    There was the curious situation with some of his fans where he was one of the world's greatest anti racists and anti racism campaigners for decades (I definitely saw that exact claim) and yet simultaneously unable to spot some pretty obvious racism among supporters because he was too kind hearted or something. That mental gymnastics was necessary because Corbyn himself would, when pressed, acknowledge some concerns (eg the famous mural).
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,734
    Heathener said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Heathener said:

    darkage said:

    I cannot avoid the impression that Biden is extremely weak. The story is likely to be that Ukraine lost the war because it couldn't bomb the Russian positions, because it didn't have jets, because Biden prevented it, because Biden was too scared to poke the bear.

    Weak on Afghanistan, now this.

    Totally agree.

    Biden is wet behind the ears and an isolationist. His disgraceful sudden dumping of Afghanistan greenlit Putin to invade Ukraine.

    You need courage to stand up to someone like Putin. We did it in the Cuban missile crisis and we should have done it this time. It's not a time to be frit.


    Is Biden a believer [...] in defending Europe from Russian aggression?

    I am unconvinced. Actions speak louder than words.

    I don't think Biden is a strong President on the world stage. He lacks the pugnacity to stand up to Putin with the only language Putin understands.

    We have stood by and allowed a European nation get pulverised by Putin.
    We have, though not doing nothing, but whilst it is in his interests to act Europe should be more capable of acting without him.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,608

    The speed of the West’s reaction to the Putin War on Ukraine is extraordinary. Corralling dozens of democracies, each with their own decision making processes, into such a united response is a major achievement. Joe Biden has played a key role in enabling it to happen. My guess is that in Europe the 2024 American presidential election is also casting a long shadow. If Trump or an acolyte wins, as seems probable, the US will not be a reliable partner.

    The complete reboot of the EU over the last month and the likelihood of an isolationist, America First, Republican President in 2025 leaves the UK in a very tricky strategic position. We’ll pretend it doesn’t, of course, but in the real world that won’t help.

    Oh enough of your "Brexit will fuck up Europe" bollocks. We have been at the front of protecting Ukraine, before and after the Referendum. Brexit has not remotely impacted our ability to Do The Right Thing. In many ways, it has robbed Germany of an excuse - and it has now had to stand up and have its defence budget counted.
    Our response on refugees has been absolutely pathetic and that is a direct result of being outside the EU.
    No, the Hostile Environment policy and bureaucratic misery that we inflict on refugees long preceeded Brexit.

    Whether Ukraine stands or falls, there will henceforth be a massive Ukranian diaspora across Europe. Mostly young women and families, but when the war conscription ends, their husbands will join them.

    It will have a lot of interesting effects, not least repopulating the Baltic States, Moldova and Romania. It will also solidify the EU opposition to Russia*. When the war is over, those sanctions will stay on Russia a very long time.

    *we might see a sign of this in the Hungarian parliamentary elections just 3 weeks away.
  • Options

    The speed of the West’s reaction to the Putin War on Ukraine is extraordinary. Corralling dozens of democracies, each with their own decision making processes, into such a united response is a major achievement. Joe Biden has played a key role in enabling it to happen. My guess is that in Europe the 2024 American presidential election is also casting a long shadow. If Trump or an acolyte wins, as seems probable, the US will not be a reliable partner.

    The complete reboot of the EU over the last month and the likelihood of an isolationist, America First, Republican President in 2025 leaves the UK in a very tricky strategic position. We’ll pretend it doesn’t, of course, but in the real world that won’t help.

    The thought of Trump is a nightmare but the idea the UK will be in a tricky position seems to be unlikely in view of this 2 day meeting in Chequers and Downing Street of the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF)

    We need to realise that this war has changed everything and the time for them and us is yesterday's news as we move to greater cooperation which does not necessitate UK rejoining the EU

    https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-boris-johnson-to-host-summit-with-nordic-and-baltic-leaders-to-deter-russian-aggression-12564716

    I totally agree. The way forward is for much closer cooperation with the EU, without the need to rejoin. I wonder what the ERG feels about this, though.

    I genuinely believe the ERG will be marginalised by circumstances and if not then GE24 is lost to the conservatives
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,628

    The speed of the West’s reaction to the Putin War on Ukraine is extraordinary. Corralling dozens of democracies, each with their own decision making processes, into such a united response is a major achievement. Joe Biden has played a key role in enabling it to happen. My guess is that in Europe the 2024 American presidential election is also casting a long shadow. If Trump or an acolyte wins, as seems probable, the US will not be a reliable partner.

    The complete reboot of the EU over the last month and the likelihood of an isolationist, America First, Republican President in 2025 leaves the UK in a very tricky strategic position. We’ll pretend it doesn’t, of course, but in the real world that won’t help.

    Oh enough of your "Brexit will fuck up Europe" bollocks. We have been at the front of protecting Ukraine, before and after the Referendum. Brexit has not remotely impacted our ability to Do The Right Thing. In many ways, it has robbed Germany of an excuse - and it has now had to stand up and have its defence budget counted.
    Another leaver with Brexit on the brain. That is all you can read in @SouthamObserver rather good post. What is wrong with Brexiters. You won. Get over it.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,994

    FPT:

    Just to reiterate from the last thread: Corbyn was still denying that Russia was to blame for the Salisbury attack five weeks after the attack.

    "Jeremy Corbyn has said he still wants to see "incontrovertible evidence" that Russia was behind the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury."


    https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/jeremy-corbyn-refuses-to-blame-russia-for-salisbury-attack-despite-seeing-new-evidence
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43775577

    Perhaps explained by Porton Down being "less categorical than we expected", in Boris's interview linked off your link. Boris was convinced it was Russia but was presumably assured novichok was only applied to doorknobs and not sackfuls of rubles or tennis balls. Jeremy Corbyn was convinced enough to call for the boycott of Russian money.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43775573
    Oh, pull the other one. When it comes to Israel, Corbyn is liable to believe *anything* bad about it. When it comes to Russia, he demands 'incontrovertible evidence'. When it comes to anti-Semitism, he is utterly blind to it (to the extent of becoming anti-Semitic himself).
    Whataboutery, and hypothetical whataboutery at that.
    A really poor response, yourself, Nick and others were jumping on the fact that Corbyn had seemed to blame Russia 'eight days' after the event. But here he was, five weeks after, rowing back on it, demanding 'incontrovertible evidence'.

    Which he does not ask for on other occasions. Sensible people might ask themselves why....
    And if you followed the link to the Boris interview, you will have seen that the director of Porton Down was also "less catagorical than we expected". You will also note that despite this, Corbyn went further than Boris or the government in demanding an end to Russian money in London and British politics.
    Oh, come one. Firstly, I did follow the link. Secondly, think about what Corbyn said. He wanted 'incontrovertible evidence'.

    A question: do you think Russia was behind the Salisbury attacks? Was the evidence incontrovertible enough for you?
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,931

    The speed of the West’s reaction to the Putin War on Ukraine is extraordinary. Corralling dozens of democracies, each with their own decision making processes, into such a united response is a major achievement. Joe Biden has played a key role in enabling it to happen. My guess is that in Europe the 2024 American presidential election is also casting a long shadow. If Trump or an acolyte wins, as seems probable, the US will not be a reliable partner.

    The complete reboot of the EU over the last month and the likelihood of an isolationist, America First, Republican President in 2025 leaves the UK in a very tricky strategic position. We’ll pretend it doesn’t, of course, but in the real world that won’t help.

    Oh enough of your "Brexit will fuck up Europe" bollocks. We have been at the front of protecting Ukraine, before and after the Referendum. Brexit has not remotely impacted our ability to Do The Right Thing. In many ways, it has robbed Germany of an excuse - and it has now had to stand up and have its defence budget counted.
    Our response on refugees has been absolutely pathetic and that is a direct result of being outside the EU.

    Isn't it more likely that the UK inside the EU would have vetoed a common approach to the treatment of refugees?

  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,994

    The speed of the West’s reaction to the Putin War on Ukraine is extraordinary. Corralling dozens of democracies, each with their own decision making processes, into such a united response is a major achievement. Joe Biden has played a key role in enabling it to happen. My guess is that in Europe the 2024 American presidential election is also casting a long shadow. If Trump or an acolyte wins, as seems probable, the US will not be a reliable partner.

    The complete reboot of the EU over the last month and the likelihood of an isolationist, America First, Republican President in 2025 leaves the UK in a very tricky strategic position. We’ll pretend it doesn’t, of course, but in the real world that won’t help.

    That may happen. Or it my have the opposite effect: the UK being outside the EU, but more aligned with their position than America's, may be very much to our advantage as both sides try to 'win' us over.

    It's all unknowns at the moment. I'm hoping a Republican doesn't win in 2024 - but I'm also hoping the Dems put up a better candidate than Biden. 2020 Trump versus Biden was really the US's version of 2019 Johnson versus Corbyn. Bad candidates on both sides.

    The one thing we cannot change is our geography. I am not sure how you align with an isolationist, America First president if you are an integral part of the continent of Europe.
    Urrm, the Second World War post 1940? When most of the continent of Europe was in Axis hands?
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,931
    Foxy said:

    The speed of the West’s reaction to the Putin War on Ukraine is extraordinary. Corralling dozens of democracies, each with their own decision making processes, into such a united response is a major achievement. Joe Biden has played a key role in enabling it to happen. My guess is that in Europe the 2024 American presidential election is also casting a long shadow. If Trump or an acolyte wins, as seems probable, the US will not be a reliable partner.

    The complete reboot of the EU over the last month and the likelihood of an isolationist, America First, Republican President in 2025 leaves the UK in a very tricky strategic position. We’ll pretend it doesn’t, of course, but in the real world that won’t help.

    Oh enough of your "Brexit will fuck up Europe" bollocks. We have been at the front of protecting Ukraine, before and after the Referendum. Brexit has not remotely impacted our ability to Do The Right Thing. In many ways, it has robbed Germany of an excuse - and it has now had to stand up and have its defence budget counted.
    Our response on refugees has been absolutely pathetic and that is a direct result of being outside the EU.
    No, the Hostile Environment policy and bureaucratic misery that we inflict on refugees long preceeded Brexit.

    Whether Ukraine stands or falls, there will henceforth be a massive Ukranian diaspora across Europe. Mostly young women and families, but when the war conscription ends, their husbands will join them.

    It will have a lot of interesting effects, not least repopulating the Baltic States, Moldova and Romania. It will also solidify the EU opposition to Russia*. When the war is over, those sanctions will stay on Russia a very long time.

    *we might see a sign of this in the Hungarian parliamentary elections just 3 weeks away.

    There is also going to be a very substantial brain drain out of Russia.

  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,931

    The speed of the West’s reaction to the Putin War on Ukraine is extraordinary. Corralling dozens of democracies, each with their own decision making processes, into such a united response is a major achievement. Joe Biden has played a key role in enabling it to happen. My guess is that in Europe the 2024 American presidential election is also casting a long shadow. If Trump or an acolyte wins, as seems probable, the US will not be a reliable partner.

    The complete reboot of the EU over the last month and the likelihood of an isolationist, America First, Republican President in 2025 leaves the UK in a very tricky strategic position. We’ll pretend it doesn’t, of course, but in the real world that won’t help.

    That may happen. Or it my have the opposite effect: the UK being outside the EU, but more aligned with their position than America's, may be very much to our advantage as both sides try to 'win' us over.

    It's all unknowns at the moment. I'm hoping a Republican doesn't win in 2024 - but I'm also hoping the Dems put up a better candidate than Biden. 2020 Trump versus Biden was really the US's version of 2019 Johnson versus Corbyn. Bad candidates on both sides.

    The one thing we cannot change is our geography. I am not sure how you align with an isolationist, America First president if you are an integral part of the continent of Europe.
    Urrm, the Second World War post 1940? When most of the continent of Europe was in Axis hands?

    Post-1940, the US did not have an isolationist, America First government. If it had, we would not have made it through to 1945.

This discussion has been closed.