TACTICAL VOTING AT THE 1997 GENERAL ELECTION – politicalbetting.com
TACTICAL 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.
Comments
-
First. That's a scary image at the top of the header!0
-
Don't egg him on....tlg86 said:First. That's a scary image at the top of the header!
4 -
Silver anniversary of "things can only get better" and never a cross word since ..
5 -
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-437755773 -
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.JosiasJessop 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-437755771 -
- “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.2 -
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 1992.1
-
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.StuartDickson said:- “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.
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!2 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
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.noneoftheabove said:
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.StuartDickson said:- “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.
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!
PR would be a step in the right direction: it strongly encourages electors to cast a positive vote.1 -
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.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.
0 -
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.5 -
If only everyone had voted Jacobite…JACK_W said:Silver anniversary of "things can only get better" and never a cross word since ..
1 -
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.JosiasJessop 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
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-437755730 -
An evaporation fan.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.0 -
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.tlg86 said:
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.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.
Of course, boundary changes obsure this somewhat,0 -
-
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-bookishness1 -
That's true of an awful lot of LD seats, though.StuartDickson 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.
As a party, they have a low (almost non-existent) floor, but a surprisingly high ceiling.2 -
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.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.
Thus the absolute change in LD vote isn’t just an input, but very significantly part of the output.0 -
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).DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.JosiasJessop 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
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-437755739 -
Good morning, everyone.
F1: testing finished yesterday. Will post a ramble probably today. First race is a week away.0 -
I have read some tedious drivel from Dan Hodges in my time but that takes the biscuit!felix said:
For anyone with to much time on their hands highly recommended!1 -
Whataboutery, and hypothetical whataboutery at that.JosiasJessop said:
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).DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.JosiasJessop 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
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-437755731 -
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.0 -
An interesting piece which makes me warm to Scotland and Scottish people even more.StuartDickson said: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
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
1 -
Totally agree.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.
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.1 -
PB's speciality of the houseDecrepiterJohnL said:
Whataboutery, and hypothetical whataboutery at that.JosiasJessop said:
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).DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.JosiasJessop 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
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-437755733 -
Things got better, then some bastard slammed planes into the WTC and the world was never the same. Can we reboot C21?0
-
Did Biden's hurry to get out of Afghanistan embolden Putin?Heathener said:
Totally agree.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.
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.
Yes.
Is Biden a believer in NATO, and in defending Europe from Russian aggression?
Yes.
This isn't complicated.3 -
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.rcs1000 said:
That's true of an awful lot of LD seats, though.StuartDickson 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.
As a party, they have a low (almost non-existent) floor, but a surprisingly high ceiling.1 -
Ahhh... the Cuban missile crisis where the US swapped missiles they had in Turkey, for missiles the Russians didn't have in Cuba?Heathener said:
Totally agree.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.
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.0 -
I don’t think that’s true. I couldn’t imagine the Lib Dems winning Mansfield, for example.kjh said:
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.rcs1000 said:
That's true of an awful lot of LD seats, though.StuartDickson 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.
As a party, they have a low (almost non-existent) floor, but a surprisingly high ceiling.1 -
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.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 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.1 -
The first half of the C20th wasn't a bundle of fun either.Jonathan said:Things got better, then some bastard slammed planes into the WTC and the world was never the same. Can we reboot C21?
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.
0 -
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.rcs1000 said:
That's true of an awful lot of LD seats, though.StuartDickson 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.
As a party, they have a low (almost non-existent) floor, but a surprisingly high ceiling.2 -
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.2 -
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?Heathener said:
Totally agree.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.
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.0 -
The fact that he looks and sounds so fragile is a large part of that impressiondarkage 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.2 -
I am unconvinced. Actions speak louder than words.rcs1000 said:Heathener said:
Totally agree.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.
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 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.0 -
America is undoubtedly weaker now under Joe Biden.
(Which when you consider the chaos of his predecessor is quite remarkable.)1 -
Chesterfield isn't so far away and isn't so different.tlg86 said:
I don’t think that’s true. I couldn’t imagine the Lib Dems winning Mansfield, for example.kjh said:
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.rcs1000 said:
That's true of an awful lot of LD seats, though.StuartDickson 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.
As a party, they have a low (almost non-existent) floor, but a surprisingly high ceiling.0 -
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.1
-
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.Unpopular said:
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.rcs1000 said:
That's true of an awful lot of LD seats, though.StuartDickson 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.
As a party, they have a low (almost non-existent) floor, but a surprisingly high ceiling.
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.3 -
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.Morris_Dancer 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.
2 -
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.tlg86 said:
I don’t think that’s true. I couldn’t imagine the Lib Dems winning Mansfield, for example.kjh said:
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.rcs1000 said:
That's true of an awful lot of LD seats, though.StuartDickson 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.
As a party, they have a low (almost non-existent) floor, but a surprisingly high ceiling.
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.0 -
The Royal Navy did, with partial success, blockade (landlocked) Rhodesia for six years without support from any other nation.DecrepiterJohnL said:
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?Heathener said:
Totally agree.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.
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.2 -
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.Morris_Dancer 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.
On reflection, their early stance on referenda, which for them was nothing more than a tactical gimmick, helped legitimise the eurosceptic right.
2 -
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.IanB2 said:
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.Unpopular said:
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.rcs1000 said:
That's true of an awful lot of LD seats, though.StuartDickson 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.
As a party, they have a low (almost non-existent) floor, but a surprisingly high ceiling.
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.
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/
0 -
The Jo Swinson 'prepare for Government' debacle comes to mind. Oh lord. Talk about hubris.Jonathan said:
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 weightMorris_Dancer 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.
1 -
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.Heathener said:
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.IanB2 said:
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.Unpopular said:
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.rcs1000 said:
That's true of an awful lot of LD seats, though.StuartDickson 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.
As a party, they have a low (almost non-existent) floor, but a surprisingly high ceiling.
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.
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/0 -
Why all the hate for Biden this morning?Heathener said:America is undoubtedly weaker now under Joe Biden.
(Which when you consider the chaos of his predecessor is quite remarkable.)
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.
5 -
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.Heathener said:
The Jo Swinson 'prepare for Government' debacle comes to mind. Oh lord. Talk about hubris.Jonathan said:
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 weightMorris_Dancer 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.
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.4 -
All politics is local.StuartDickson said:
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.Heathener said:
The Jo Swinson 'prepare for Government' debacle comes to mind. Oh lord. Talk about hubris.Jonathan said:
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 weightMorris_Dancer 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.
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.1 -
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?”Heathener said:
I am unconvinced. Actions speak louder than words.rcs1000 said:Heathener said:
Totally agree.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.
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 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.
It may be a pure coincidence, but on both occasions that has been what Putin wants to happen. Can you help clarify the matter?4 -
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.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.1 -
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.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.
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.3 -
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.Taz said:
All politics is local.StuartDickson said:
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.Heathener said:
The Jo Swinson 'prepare for Government' debacle comes to mind. Oh lord. Talk about hubris.Jonathan said:
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 weightMorris_Dancer 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.
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.0 -
The LDs unsurprisingly are like the EU - they favour referendums ... which give the 'correct' result - no matter how many it takes.Jonathan said:
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.Morris_Dancer 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.
On reflection, their early stance on referenda, which for them was nothing more than a tactical gimmick, helped legitimise the eurosceptic right.1 -
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.0 -
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.Foxy said:
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.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.
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 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.1 -
What he said.Foxy said:
Why all the hate for Biden this morning?Heathener said:America is undoubtedly weaker now under Joe Biden.
(Which when you consider the chaos of his predecessor is quite remarkable.)
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.
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.2 -
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.Foxy said:
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.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.
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.
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....1 -
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?CarlottaVance said:
What he said.Foxy said:
Why all the hate for Biden this morning?Heathener said:America is undoubtedly weaker now under Joe Biden.
(Which when you consider the chaos of his predecessor is quite remarkable.)
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.
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.1 -
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.Foxy said:
Why all the hate for Biden this morning?Heathener said:America is undoubtedly weaker now under Joe Biden.
(Which when you consider the chaos of his predecessor is quite remarkable.)
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.1 -
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.Morris_Dancer said: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.0 -
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.6 -
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'.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Whataboutery, and hypothetical whataboutery at that.JosiasJessop said:
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).DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.JosiasJessop 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
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43775573
Which he does not ask for on other occasions. Sensible people might ask themselves why....1 -
Not sure that is true as a general principle. Now if you said we had cynically favoured referendums in certain circumstances I would agree .felix said:
The LDs unsurprisingly are like the EU - they favour referendums ... which give the 'correct' result - no matter how many it takes.Jonathan said:
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.Morris_Dancer 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.
On reflection, their early stance on referenda, which for them was nothing more than a tactical gimmick, helped legitimise the eurosceptic right.1 -
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
4 -
F1: more pre-season rambling, by me.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2022/03/2022-pre-season-testing-thoughts.html1 -
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.SouthamObserver 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.
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.2 -
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.0 -
Indeed, what Biden is good at is organising support into a coalition. That was his role in Senate and as VP.CarlottaVance said:
What he said.Foxy said:
Why all the hate for Biden this morning?Heathener said:America is undoubtedly weaker now under Joe Biden.
(Which when you consider the chaos of his predecessor is quite remarkable.)
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.
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.
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.3 -
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.darkage said:
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.JosiasJessop 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-437755773 -
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.SouthamObserver 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.3 -
Our response on refugees has been absolutely pathetic and that is a direct result of being outside the EU.MarqueeMark said:
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.SouthamObserver 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.4 -
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.SouthamObserver 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.
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.
1 -
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.Foxy said:
Indeed, what Biden is good at is organising support into a coalition. That was his role in Senate and as VP.CarlottaVance said:
What he said.Foxy said:
Why all the hate for Biden this morning?Heathener said:America is undoubtedly weaker now under Joe Biden.
(Which when you consider the chaos of his predecessor is quite remarkable.)
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.
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.
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.3 -
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)SouthamObserver 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.
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-125647162 -
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/15028790829875937330 -
Common ground in authoritarian nationalism and kleptocracy is the answer to that one.SouthamObserver said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.SouthamObserver 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.
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.0 -
Have you been to Chesterfield and Mansfield?! They're not chalk and cheese, but, well, I'd rather be in Chesterfield.IanB2 said:
Chesterfield isn't so far away and isn't so different.tlg86 said:
I don’t think that’s true. I couldn’t imagine the Lib Dems winning Mansfield, for example.kjh said:
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.rcs1000 said:
That's true of an awful lot of LD seats, though.StuartDickson 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.
As a party, they have a low (almost non-existent) floor, but a surprisingly high ceiling.1 -
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.MarqueeMark said:
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.SouthamObserver 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.
2 -
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”)OnlyLivingBoy said:
Our response on refugees has been absolutely pathetic and that is a direct result of being outside the EU.MarqueeMark said:
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.SouthamObserver 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.0 -
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.Heathener said:
Totally agree.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.
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.
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?0 -
Angela Merkel's response to refugees is a direct consequence of our being outside the EU.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Our response on refugees has been absolutely pathetic and that is a direct result of being outside the EU.MarqueeMark said:
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.SouthamObserver 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.
And yes, our response has been absolutely pathetic, period.0 -
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.JosiasJessop said:
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'.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Whataboutery, and hypothetical whataboutery at that.JosiasJessop said:
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).DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.JosiasJessop 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
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43775573
Which he does not ask for on other occasions. Sensible people might ask themselves why....0 -
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:
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)SouthamObserver 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.
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
3 -
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).JosiasJessop said:
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).DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.JosiasJessop 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
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-437755731 -
We have, though not doing nothing, but whilst it is in his interests to act Europe should be more capable of acting without him.Heathener said:
I am unconvinced. Actions speak louder than words.rcs1000 said:Heathener said:
Totally agree.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.
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 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.0 -
No, the Hostile Environment policy and bureaucratic misery that we inflict on refugees long preceeded Brexit.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Our response on refugees has been absolutely pathetic and that is a direct result of being outside the EU.MarqueeMark said:
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.SouthamObserver 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.
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.0 -
I genuinely believe the ERG will be marginalised by circumstances and if not then GE24 is lost to the conservativesSouthamObserver said:
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:
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)SouthamObserver 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.
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-125647161 -
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.MarqueeMark said:
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.SouthamObserver 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.4 -
Oh, come one. Firstly, I did follow the link. Secondly, think about what Corbyn said. He wanted 'incontrovertible evidence'.DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
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'.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Whataboutery, and hypothetical whataboutery at that.JosiasJessop said:
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).DecrepiterJohnL said:
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.JosiasJessop 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
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43775573
Which he does not ask for on other occasions. Sensible people might ask themselves why....
A question: do you think Russia was behind the Salisbury attacks? Was the evidence incontrovertible enough for you?2 -
Isn't it more likely that the UK inside the EU would have vetoed a common approach to the treatment of refugees?OnlyLivingBoy said:
Our response on refugees has been absolutely pathetic and that is a direct result of being outside the EU.MarqueeMark said:
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.SouthamObserver 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.
0 -
Urrm, the Second World War post 1940? When most of the continent of Europe was in Axis hands?SouthamObserver said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.SouthamObserver 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.
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.1 -
There is also going to be a very substantial brain drain out of Russia.Foxy said:
No, the Hostile Environment policy and bureaucratic misery that we inflict on refugees long preceeded Brexit.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Our response on refugees has been absolutely pathetic and that is a direct result of being outside the EU.MarqueeMark said:
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.SouthamObserver 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.
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.
0 -
Post-1940, the US did not have an isolationist, America First government. If it had, we would not have made it through to 1945.JosiasJessop said:
Urrm, the Second World War post 1940? When most of the continent of Europe was in Axis hands?SouthamObserver said:
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.JosiasJessop said:
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.SouthamObserver 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.
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.
1
