Its all usual tw@tter nonsense. Remember all the same horseshit during the G7 in Cornwall. Boris was supposed to be totally sidelined by the world, especially by Biden, when in fact him and Biden were quietly concocting a plan with the Australians to shaft the French over subs.
The reality is a lot behind the scenes grown-ups for each country do loads of leg work. That's really the important thing. All the who in what spot, who shook somebodies elses hand for longest, is just chest beating nonsense.
I think one important issue is that there is a signifcant overlap with the Brussels Media, and the EU desperately needs a critical media, not a servile one, to critique their errors.
Instead they just get (pardon me) ars*licking, and amateur PR operatives.
If it is going to be a worthwhile thing, it has to get a hell of a lot better.
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
What is going on with Johnson's posture at the G7? Not only has he got as fat as fuck recently but he appears to have lost the ability to stand up straight.
What is going on with Johnson's posture at the G7? Not only has he got as fat as fuck recently but he appears to have lost the ability to stand up straight.
What is going on with Johnson's posture at the G7? Not only has he got as fat as fuck recently but he appears to have lost the ability to stand up straight.
Gravity....pulling his overdeveloped "muscular" top half over.
Caught up with the overnight thread, which seemed to morph from my merely comparing the cities of Nottingham and Derby (and the counties of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire) into open season from various PB Bumpkins to pile in on London and cities in general.
I mean, I was with you all on some of the arguments – I too love a bit of countryside, am an avid hiker and mountain biker and live very near the rural edge of London. I too admire Hampshire, and the gorgeous Peak District, and the Lakes, and the handsome city of Nottingham. Agreed.
But when one PBer claimed his nirvana was "suburban Leicester", well ... the threadette lost all sense of reality at that stage. I mean, the point of satire is that it has to be at least vaguely plausible.
Suburban Leicester and suburban north-west London aren't much different to each other.
Yes, they are, because one of them is part of the greatest city in the world, and commands rapid access to all its treasures. And the other is Leicester.
Well I take your point. Give me a choice between a house in Oadby or a house in Pinner and I'd probably choose the latter. I can see the argument for Leicester though. Most importantly - and I don't know who it was who claimed suburban Leicester as his personal nirvana (Foxy?) - but if that's where home is, there is something very powerful about that which overrides any objective criteria. You know where you're at home. It'll be a view which suddenly reveals itself or a road sign you pass which may say something neutral like 'Cheshire' but in your head says something like 'welcome home' while a brass band plays something upbeat and sentimental in the background. So if for you your terroir is Leciestershire, then absolutely I can see why Oadby would be your nirvana.
But there is also a more prosaic reason why Oadby might beat Pinner: which is that you can live in a pretty spacious and comfortable house in Oadby for the price of a small flat in Pinner. In reality, that's what the choice is: would you rather have a small flat in Pinner or a large house in Oadby; or a house in Pinner or a mansion in Oadby? Or equivalently sized houses in each but not have to work any more in Oadby? On that basis, suburban Leicester is starting to look a lot more attractive.
So glad you use that word terroir. It is something I believe in very strongly when I think of England and more specifically of those parts of England I have chosen to live. That combination of geography, climate, soil, tradition, myth and natural environment which all combine to make a place so much more than just a place to live.
Britain has 159 “national character areas”.
Never heard of those before. I do prefer the idea of Terroir though as it makes it a deeply personal thing rather than something imposed from above.
If you are as tremendously geeky as I am (highly likely, as you are on PB), I urge you to find a map of Charles Phythian-Adams’s “Cultural Provinces of England” from his obscure book “Societies, Culture and Kinship”.
To me it explains everything about how England “divides” including much vexed questions about where the Midlands begin and end.
What is going on with Johnson's posture at the G7? Not only has he got as fat as fuck recently but he appears to have lost the ability to stand up straight.
And a magnificent Churchillian stoop it is too.
Normal saddos do air guitar, BJ practices air Winston.
What is going on with Johnson's posture at the G7? Not only has he got as fat as fuck recently but he appears to have lost the ability to stand up straight.
Such a brass neck must weigh a lot and make it hard to hold it up.
Having watched some footage of the Chechan fighters on the Ukrainian side, they seem shall we say rather trigger happy. They seem to fire off weapons like they are playing CoD with an infinite ammo cheat on.
https://threadreaderapp.com/user/kamilkazani (great analysis of the war in my opinion) thinks they are useless as soldiers against a professional army but are a photo opportunity for propaganda and their deserved reputation for cruelty is a psyops factor and also to intimidate Russian troops thinking of deserting.
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
Is it? Any evidence for that claim or your hunch?
The poll is evidence that Starmer is some distance from sealing the deal and that the government - given the current situation remains remarkable resilient in public support. My own view is that with a better leader they'd still be well ahead. I do recall only yesterday OGH reminding us that the least reliable polls were the ones we don't like. The fact that you cannot see it from your bubble of course is really exactly my point.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
Biological weapons are pretty useless in this context. Large scale use of live organisms is not a military tool, and is not controllable. Toxins are little more than biologically-produced chemical weapons and, while on paper way deadlier, costlier to produce by orders of magnitude and would still have to be delivered in 100s of tons quantities to have a real impact on the battlefield.
Chemical weapons, can be militarily effective only in a very limited ways: - in actual fighting, heavier than air CW can be more efficient than conventional methods for clearing out basements in building-to-building urban combat or - to deny territory, when combined with other chemicals to make them sticky and persistent (particularly effective in disrupting logistics by contaminating major hubs, such as ports, rail junctions, crossroad and depots).
Again, CW are not a game-changer in open field modern combat against prepared troops. Of course, they can be used to great effect against unprotected and unforewarned civilian populations.
CW could probably be as effective in Mariupol as they were in Aleppo - alarmingly so. That's a serious worry, which is why the US is warning of 'serious consequences' should they be used.
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
Is it? Any evidence for that claim or your hunch?
The poll is evidence that Starmer is some distance from sealing the deal and that the government - given the current situation remains remarkable resilient in public support. My own view is that with a better leader they'd still be well ahead. I do recall only yesterday OGH reminding us that the least reliable polls were the ones we don't like. The fact that you cannot see it from your bubble of course is really exactly my point.
I don't 'see' anything at all from midterm polls – I think they are a waste of bloody time, whatever they show and I say so repeatedly on here (to deaf ears). I'm amazed PBers afford them so much credence. You are the one who is inferring things from surveys (or survey, singular, in this case), not me. FWIW, I think the Tories are a strong favourite for the next election, but it's just a hunch, and has sod all to do with any polling.
Having watched some footage of the Chechan fighters on the Ukrainian side, they seem shall we say rather trigger happy. They seem to fire off weapons like they are playing CoD with an infinite ammo cheat on.
https://threadreaderapp.com/user/kamilkazani (great analysis of the war in my opinion) thinks they are useless as soldiers against a professional army but are a photo opportunity for propaganda and their deserved reputation for cruelty is a psyops factor and also to intimidate Russian troops thinking of deserting.
A friend of mine used to work in a small group at a large company. Their role was to work out how to cost-reduce and speed up delivery of various weapons systems if there was a major war. He isn't there any more, but I wonder if such plans are being dusted off.
The UK government announced yesterday said they are to send another 6000 NLAWs. They must be working around the clock in Thales factories to make those.
The level quoted for the Army is 20k as stated being delivered in 2009; I have no idea where stock is, but did someone not note job adverts in Belfast?
It doesn’t really matter what the artisans of Beal Feirste do. They aren't going to make any difference when the Ukrainians are expending 1,000 NLAWs per week. I also highly doubt the UK government is going to pick up the considerable bill forever too.
What is going on with Johnson's posture at the G7? Not only has he got as fat as fuck recently but he appears to have lost the ability to stand up straight.
And a magnificent Churchillian stoop it is too.
You are right, the world stage are lucky to have Winston Churchill back in this moment of great need.
He was the only one not to have his button done up for the big photo, may have been better if he had done his button up.
But its what he is delivering what matters. Onto the EU now, where Boris and Biden have German surrender on Russian oil and coal in the bag. Maybe they should take the surrender in a symbolic way, on a tram parked outside a power station.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
"Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences."
This assumes that sending lots of troops gets you something. The lesson of history is that while numbers are useful, an army that doesn't have logistics sorted out simply doesn't work. The initial Russian deployment to Ukraine is their best troops and what they *thought* they could sustain.
The logistics have broken down for their 200K force. Adding more soldiers might well make things worse.
It depends. If they've settled down to defensive positions on most fronts, then they may find it easier to improve the logistics situation, and they might get further only working with one advancing front, into which they'd pour their reinforcements.
9 mins on the untruths and distortions that Russia is spreading about 'Nazis' in Ukraine - including about the role of the Azov regiment of Ukraine’s National Guard. Produced by Mary Fuller, Michael Cox, Priyanka Deladia https://bbc.co.uk/news/world-60525350…
That is a bit of propaganda itself. Essentially saying, no far right / Neo-Nazi, that symbol, nobody thinks its dodgy, none of this doesn't exists in Ukraine anymore. Even up to very recently, mainstream media outlets like Time, Vice have been reporting highlighting this small hardcore minority of far right, including the Avoz, training camps for them, Neo-Nazi festivals, attended by far right activists from across Europe. If there was no war, I imagine they would still be doing so.
Putin is obviously talking nonsense, the whole of the Ukraine isn't in the grips of Nazism or anything close to it. But that report tries to rather white-wash this issue.
It will convince absolutely nobody - and in the sense that the fact that a neo-Nazi paramilitary group is actually in the pay of the Ukrainian Government will be new to many, is likely to achieve the opposite of its purpose. Quite bizarre to see the BBC doing a puff piece for active Nazis 'Jolly good chaps really - ignore that Swastika looking thing! Floods of new members - new caring and sharing image - look, here's one of their storm troopers stroking a kitten!'
Disgraced ex-SNP minister Derek Mackay named by Nicola Sturgeon when she was asked who signed off an ill-fated public ferry deal against expert advice. 2015 contract is now at least £143m over budget and no ferries have been delivered
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
Is it? Any evidence for that claim or your hunch?
The poll is evidence that Starmer is some distance from sealing the deal and that the government - given the current situation remains remarkable resilient in public support. My own view is that with a better leader they'd still be well ahead. I do recall only yesterday OGH reminding us that the least reliable polls were the ones we don't like. The fact that you cannot see it from your bubble of course is really exactly my point.
Added to which:
Look at the polling in 2008 - consistent Tory lead and one or two showing lead of upwards of 20% lead. Two years later - Tories couldn't scrape a majority. And Labour have a bigger hill to climb now than Cameron ever did.
9 mins on the untruths and distortions that Russia is spreading about 'Nazis' in Ukraine - including about the role of the Azov regiment of Ukraine’s National Guard. Produced by Mary Fuller, Michael Cox, Priyanka Deladia https://bbc.co.uk/news/world-60525350…
That is a bit of propaganda itself. Essentially saying, no far right / Neo-Nazi, that symbol, nobody thinks its dodgy, none of this doesn't exists in Ukraine anymore. Even up to very recently, mainstream media outlets like Time, Vice have been reporting highlighting this small hardcore minority of far right, including the Avoz, training camps for them, Neo-Nazi festivals, attended by far right activists from across Europe. If there was no war, I imagine they would still be doing so.
Putin is obviously talking nonsense, the whole of the Ukraine isn't in the grips of Nazism or anything close to it. But that report tries to rather white-wash this issue.
It will convince absolutely nobody - and in the sense that the fact that a neo-Nazi paramilitary group is actually in the pay of the Ukrainian Government will be new to many, is likely to achieve the opposite of its purpose. Quite bizarre to see the BBC doing a puff piece for active Nazis 'Jolly good chaps really - ignore that Swastika looking thing! Floods of new members - new caring and sharing image - look, here's one of their storm troopers stroking a kitten!'
It's also quite poor propaganda in its presentation - a man sitting behind a desk telling us how it is surely went out with rationing. This should have been framed as an in-depth documentary, by a reporter/correspondent. Perhaps they couldn't get one. As it is, it may as well wave a placard saying 'I'm propaganda!'
Having watched some footage of the Chechan fighters on the Ukrainian side, they seem shall we say rather trigger happy. They seem to fire off weapons like they are playing CoD with an infinite ammo cheat on.
https://threadreaderapp.com/user/kamilkazani (great analysis of the war in my opinion) thinks they are useless as soldiers against a professional army but are a photo opportunity for propaganda and their deserved reputation for cruelty is a psyops factor and also to intimidate Russian troops thinking of deserting.
Sort of like these fabulous boys…..
La Legion Espanola (nickname: Bridegrooms of Death) know how to fight...
Having watched some footage of the Chechan fighters on the Ukrainian side, they seem shall we say rather trigger happy. They seem to fire off weapons like they are playing CoD with an infinite ammo cheat on.
https://threadreaderapp.com/user/kamilkazani (great analysis of the war in my opinion) thinks they are useless as soldiers against a professional army but are a photo opportunity for propaganda and their deserved reputation for cruelty is a psyops factor and also to intimidate Russian troops thinking of deserting.
Having watched some footage of the Chechan fighters on the Ukrainian side, they seem shall we say rather trigger happy. They seem to fire off weapons like they are playing CoD with an infinite ammo cheat on.
https://threadreaderapp.com/user/kamilkazani (great analysis of the war in my opinion) thinks they are useless as soldiers against a professional army but are a photo opportunity for propaganda and their deserved reputation for cruelty is a psyops factor and also to intimidate Russian troops thinking of deserting.
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
Is it? Any evidence for that claim or your hunch?
The poll is evidence that Starmer is some distance from sealing the deal and that the government - given the current situation remains remarkable resilient in public support. My own view is that with a better leader they'd still be well ahead. I do recall only yesterday OGH reminding us that the least reliable polls were the ones we don't like. The fact that you cannot see it from your bubble of course is really exactly my point.
I think the Tories have lost the public's trust but Labour is yet to regain it. In those circumstances either could come out top in the next election but the poor economic outlook between now and the next election makes Labour the clear favourite.
Disgraced ex-SNP minister Derek Mackay named by Nicola Sturgeon when she was asked who signed off an ill-fated public ferry deal against expert advice. 2015 contract is now at least £143m over budget and no ferries have been delivered
Having watched some footage of the Chechan fighters on the Ukrainian side, they seem shall we say rather trigger happy. They seem to fire off weapons like they are playing CoD with an infinite ammo cheat on.
https://threadreaderapp.com/user/kamilkazani (great analysis of the war in my opinion) thinks they are useless as soldiers against a professional army but are a photo opportunity for propaganda and their deserved reputation for cruelty is a psyops factor and also to intimidate Russian troops thinking of deserting.
Sort of like these fabulous boys…..
La Legion Espanola (nickname: Bridegrooms of Death) know how to fight...
They also always have the element of surprise as Nobody expects The Spanish Legion.
Having watched some footage of the Chechan fighters on the Ukrainian side, they seem shall we say rather trigger happy. They seem to fire off weapons like they are playing CoD with an infinite ammo cheat on.
https://threadreaderapp.com/user/kamilkazani (great analysis of the war in my opinion) thinks they are useless as soldiers against a professional army but are a photo opportunity for propaganda and their deserved reputation for cruelty is a psyops factor and also to intimidate Russian troops thinking of deserting.
Sort of like these fabulous boys…..
La Legion Espanola (nickname: Bridegrooms of Death) know how to fight...
This lad was their founder. Didn't get that way from gardening accidents.
Having watched some footage of the Chechan fighters on the Ukrainian side, they seem shall we say rather trigger happy. They seem to fire off weapons like they are playing CoD with an infinite ammo cheat on.
https://threadreaderapp.com/user/kamilkazani (great analysis of the war in my opinion) thinks they are useless as soldiers against a professional army but are a photo opportunity for propaganda and their deserved reputation for cruelty is a psyops factor and also to intimidate Russian troops thinking of deserting.
Sort of like these fabulous boys…..
La Legion Espanola (nickname: Bridegrooms of Death) know how to fight...
This lad was their founder. Didn't get that way from gardening accidents.
Having watched some footage of the Chechan fighters on the Ukrainian side, they seem shall we say rather trigger happy. They seem to fire off weapons like they are playing CoD with an infinite ammo cheat on.
https://threadreaderapp.com/user/kamilkazani (great analysis of the war in my opinion) thinks they are useless as soldiers against a professional army but are a photo opportunity for propaganda and their deserved reputation for cruelty is a psyops factor and also to intimidate Russian troops thinking of deserting.
Sort of like these fabulous boys…..
La Legion Espanola (nickname: Bridegrooms of Death) know how to fight...
This lad was their founder. Didn't get that way from gardening accidents.
Crikey. Not much of the Kylie Minogue backing dancer about him.
Great question to the Chancellor. You say you can't predict what will happen to energy bills in the next six months but you're able to promise an income tax cut in two years' time? https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1506910201458438148
Mishal Husain hit Sunak with that on the Today prog this morning and it landed - the usual smooth response wasn't forthcoming.
Having watched some footage of the Chechan fighters on the Ukrainian side, they seem shall we say rather trigger happy. They seem to fire off weapons like they are playing CoD with an infinite ammo cheat on.
https://threadreaderapp.com/user/kamilkazani (great analysis of the war in my opinion) thinks they are useless as soldiers against a professional army but are a photo opportunity for propaganda and their deserved reputation for cruelty is a psyops factor and also to intimidate Russian troops thinking of deserting.
Sort of like these fabulous boys…..
La Legion Espanola (nickname: Bridegrooms of Death) know how to fight...
This lad was their founder. Didn't get that way from gardening accidents.
Crikey. Not much of the Kylie Minogue backing dancer about him.
Having watched some footage of the Chechan fighters on the Ukrainian side, they seem shall we say rather trigger happy. They seem to fire off weapons like they are playing CoD with an infinite ammo cheat on.
https://threadreaderapp.com/user/kamilkazani (great analysis of the war in my opinion) thinks they are useless as soldiers against a professional army but are a photo opportunity for propaganda and their deserved reputation for cruelty is a psyops factor and also to intimidate Russian troops thinking of deserting.
Sort of like these fabulous boys…..
La Legion Espanola (nickname: Bridegrooms of Death) know how to fight...
This lad was their founder. Didn't get that way from gardening accidents.
Crikey. Not much of the Kylie Minogue backing dancer about him.
Other err.... Nationalists in Spain considered him to be a little bit over the top with his enthusiasm for the cause...
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
Is it? Any evidence for that claim or your hunch?
The poll is evidence that Starmer is some distance from sealing the deal and that the government - given the current situation remains remarkable resilient in public support. My own view is that with a better leader they'd still be well ahead. I do recall only yesterday OGH reminding us that the least reliable polls were the ones we don't like. The fact that you cannot see it from your bubble of course is really exactly my point.
I think the Tories have lost the public's trust but Labour is yet to regain it. In those circumstances either could come out top in the next election but the poor economic outlook between now and the next election makes Labour the clear favourite.
It thoroughly depends on what economic solutions and policies Labour (finally) work out. Bit of a vacuum at the moment on that front methinks. If it's all "windfall taxes" and "get the rich bastards" guff and nonsense they usually pump out and little to do with structural reform of public services to finally make them spend money properly then, as has been proven, the British public aren't as stupid as some in the Labour party think they are.
Come on, from the endless bashing of Sunak on here it must be easy to square the circle of income vs expenditure during an energy crisis and European war. What is Labour's comprehensive plan? Where's the meat? Or are we just going to have to look at Starmer with his standard "I've just pissed myself" smile and listen to half-baked generalist platitudes and general waffle about "fairness".
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
Is it? Any evidence for that claim or your hunch?
The poll is evidence that Starmer is some distance from sealing the deal and that the government - given the current situation remains remarkable resilient in public support. My own view is that with a better leader they'd still be well ahead. I do recall only yesterday OGH reminding us that the least reliable polls were the ones we don't like. The fact that you cannot see it from your bubble of course is really exactly my point.
I think the Tories have lost the public's trust but Labour is yet to regain it. In those circumstances either could come out top in the next election but the poor economic outlook between now and the next election makes Labour the clear favourite.
“ I think the Tories have lost the public's trust but Labour is yet to regain it. “
Truth is it’s not a similar pattern across all the country. Labour edging ahead in national polls disguises the fact they are piling on extra votes in metropolitan areas like London, where they already have the seats, taking those with massive majorities completely hollow on election night if they don’t get above 265 seats. This is because as the Tories have all those midlands seats already in the bag now, in mid term nadir, then they definitely have them at the end of election campaign. Starmer is coming from too low a base in MPs whilst making not enough ground up in places like the midlands, just not far enough ahead to become PM on any of the polls.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
"Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences."
This assumes that sending lots of troops gets you something. The lesson of history is that while numbers are useful, an army that doesn't have logistics sorted out simply doesn't work. The initial Russian deployment to Ukraine is their best troops and what they *thought* they could sustain.
The logistics have broken down for their 200K force. Adding more soldiers might well make things worse.
It depends. If they've settled down to defensive positions on most fronts, then they may find it easier to improve the logistics situation, and they might get further only working with one advancing front, into which they'd pour their reinforcements.
Where are they going to get the extra logistical capability from?
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
"Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences."
This assumes that sending lots of troops gets you something. The lesson of history is that while numbers are useful, an army that doesn't have logistics sorted out simply doesn't work. The initial Russian deployment to Ukraine is their best troops and what they *thought* they could sustain.
The logistics have broken down for their 200K force. Adding more soldiers might well make things worse.
It depends. If they've settled down to defensive positions on most fronts, then they may find it easier to improve the logistics situation, and they might get further only working with one advancing front, into which they'd pour their reinforcements.
Where are they going to get the extra logistical capability from?
A friend of mine used to work in a small group at a large company. Their role was to work out how to cost-reduce and speed up delivery of various weapons systems if there was a major war. He isn't there any more, but I wonder if such plans are being dusted off.
The UK government announced yesterday said they are to send another 6000 NLAWs. They must be working around the clock in Thales factories to make those.
The level quoted for the Army is 20k as stated being delivered in 2009; I have no idea where stock is, but did someone not note job adverts in Belfast?
It doesn’t really matter what the artisans of Beal Feirste do. They aren't going to make any difference when the Ukrainians are expending 1,000 NLAWs per week. I also highly doubt the UK government is going to pick up the considerable bill forever too.
One question that wasn't answered in the article was the current production rate, or what the surge production rate would be.
You also have to take into account the success rate of engagement (some air of missiles per armoured vehicle disabled number) and compare and contrast with Russian armour numbers because I’d be amazed if ATGMs ran out before the armour did, if the West doesn’t want them to.
A friend of mine used to work in a small group at a large company. Their role was to work out how to cost-reduce and speed up delivery of various weapons systems if there was a major war. He isn't there any more, but I wonder if such plans are being dusted off.
The UK government announced yesterday said they are to send another 6000 NLAWs. They must be working around the clock in Thales factories to make those.
The level quoted for the Army is 20k as stated being delivered in 2009; I have no idea where stock is, but did someone not note job adverts in Belfast?
It doesn’t really matter what the artisans of Beal Feirste do. They aren't going to make any difference when the Ukrainians are expending 1,000 NLAWs per week. I also highly doubt the UK government is going to pick up the considerable bill forever too.
One question that wasn't answered in the article was the current production rate, or what the surge production rate would be.
You also have to take into account the success rate of engagement (some air of missiles per armoured vehicle disabled number) and compare and contrast with Russian armour numbers because I’d be amazed if ATGMs ran out before the armour did, if the West doesn’t want them to.
Big uptick in battle tanks taken out in last two days, according to Oryx: from 260 to 280. Remember, this is the number of kills with photographic proof, not actual kills.
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
Is it? Any evidence for that claim or your hunch?
The poll is evidence that Starmer is some distance from sealing the deal and that the government - given the current situation remains remarkable resilient in public support. My own view is that with a better leader they'd still be well ahead. I do recall only yesterday OGH reminding us that the least reliable polls were the ones we don't like. The fact that you cannot see it from your bubble of course is really exactly my point.
I think the Tories have lost the public's trust but Labour is yet to regain it. In those circumstances either could come out top in the next election but the poor economic outlook between now and the next election makes Labour the clear favourite.
As you say we can conclude one thing, which is that Starmer isn’t in the Blair/Cameron position (yet). If he’s capable of delivering it, this coming party conference is the time for Labour to have him do the “without notes” “personal story” speech. Similarly, Boris needs to do some form of mea culpa.
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
Is it? Any evidence for that claim or your hunch?
The poll is evidence that Starmer is some distance from sealing the deal and that the government - given the current situation remains remarkable resilient in public support. My own view is that with a better leader they'd still be well ahead. I do recall only yesterday OGH reminding us that the least reliable polls were the ones we don't like. The fact that you cannot see it from your bubble of course is really exactly my point.
I think the Tories have lost the public's trust but Labour is yet to regain it. In those circumstances either could come out top in the next election but the poor economic outlook between now and the next election makes Labour the clear favourite.
“ I think the Tories have lost the public's trust but Labour is yet to regain it. “
Truth is it’s not a similar pattern across all the country. Labour edging ahead in national polls disguises the fact they are piling on extra votes in metropolitan areas like London, where they already have the seats, taking those with massive majorities completely hollow on election night if they don’t get above 265 seats. This is because as the Tories have all those midlands seats already in the bag now, in mid term nadir, then they definitely have them at the end of election campaign. Starmer is coming from too low a base in MPs whilst making not enough ground up in places like the midlands, just not far enough ahead to become PM on any of the polls.
You may well be correct, but with dire economic news just on the horizon, I can see enough midland seats falling for a NOM Parliament. The only way I see a Johnson second term is if he is seen to beat Putin in Ukraine, which to be fair, is not as unrealistic as it might have appeared in the middle of February.
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
Although older people use the internet to look up information and read news, I think they're far less likely to post comments regarding their political views on sites like Twitter. That could be one explanation.
A friend of mine used to work in a small group at a large company. Their role was to work out how to cost-reduce and speed up delivery of various weapons systems if there was a major war. He isn't there any more, but I wonder if such plans are being dusted off.
The UK government announced yesterday said they are to send another 6000 NLAWs. They must be working around the clock in Thales factories to make those.
The level quoted for the Army is 20k as stated being delivered in 2009; I have no idea where stock is, but did someone not note job adverts in Belfast?
It doesn’t really matter what the artisans of Beal Feirste do. They aren't going to make any difference when the Ukrainians are expending 1,000 NLAWs per week. I also highly doubt the UK government is going to pick up the considerable bill forever too.
One question that wasn't answered in the article was the current production rate, or what the surge production rate would be.
You also have to take into account the success rate of engagement (some air of missiles per armoured vehicle disabled number) and compare and contrast with Russian armour numbers because I’d be amazed if ATGMs ran out before the armour did, if the West doesn’t want them to.
Big uptick in battle tanks taken out in last two days, according to Oryx: from 260 to 280. Remember, this is the number of kills with photographic proof, not actual kills.
The intelligence agencies will know the real numbers and so, as ever with war, this will be what tells in the end. Once Russia is bringing forward the T55s we will have a sense of how it’s gone.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
"Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences."
This assumes that sending lots of troops gets you something. The lesson of history is that while numbers are useful, an army that doesn't have logistics sorted out simply doesn't work. The initial Russian deployment to Ukraine is their best troops and what they *thought* they could sustain.
The logistics have broken down for their 200K force. Adding more soldiers might well make things worse.
It depends. If they've settled down to defensive positions on most fronts, then they may find it easier to improve the logistics situation, and they might get further only working with one advancing front, into which they'd pour their reinforcements.
Where are they going to get the extra logistical capability from?
Their friends?
Reminds me of a Beatles song. Think the lyrics go something like this. Big hit with conscripts.
What would you think if Invaded Ukraine? Would you stand up and March in with me? Lend me your troops and I'll bring them back dead And I'll try not to start world war 3
Oh, I will fight with a little help from my friends Mmm, I get fried with a little help from my friends Ooh, I'm gonna die with a little help from my friends
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
"Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences."
This assumes that sending lots of troops gets you something. The lesson of history is that while numbers are useful, an army that doesn't have logistics sorted out simply doesn't work. The initial Russian deployment to Ukraine is their best troops and what they *thought* they could sustain.
The logistics have broken down for their 200K force. Adding more soldiers might well make things worse.
It depends. If they've settled down to defensive positions on most fronts, then they may find it easier to improve the logistics situation, and they might get further only working with one advancing front, into which they'd pour their reinforcements.
Where are they going to get the extra logistical capability from?
As Josias/Dura mentioned the railways are an option, and one that will serve a static entrenched army better than one blundering around.
I'm suggesting that they can use their existing, degraded, capacity more effectively by not trying to advance simultaneously on multiple axes.
Great question to the Chancellor. You say you can't predict what will happen to energy bills in the next six months but you're able to promise an income tax cut in two years' time? https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1506910201458438148
Mishal Husain hit Sunak with that on the Today prog this morning and it landed - the usual smooth response wasn't forthcoming.
There can be no smooth response, His budget was built on a "massive pyramid of piffle". We'll put up fuel duty next year - no you won't. We'll cut income tax by a penny in 2 years - you can't possibly know the state of the economy then nor if you will be office nor if it can be done. He can proffer tax cuts in 2 years with certainty but what happens to fuel bills in 2 months which drives the economic factors to deliver said tax cuts he can't speculate over.
What a prat. The only thing in this sorry affair which makes him look good is sending Simon Clarke onto a media round to try and defend this. Simon can't believe he got a promotion into cabinet and will say anything with sincerity to stay there.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
"Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences."
This assumes that sending lots of troops gets you something. The lesson of history is that while numbers are useful, an army that doesn't have logistics sorted out simply doesn't work. The initial Russian deployment to Ukraine is their best troops and what they *thought* they could sustain.
The logistics have broken down for their 200K force. Adding more soldiers might well make things worse.
It depends. If they've settled down to defensive positions on most fronts, then they may find it easier to improve the logistics situation, and they might get further only working with one advancing front, into which they'd pour their reinforcements.
Where are they going to get the extra logistical capability from?
As Josias/Dura mentioned the railways are an option, and one that will serve a static entrenched army better than one blundering around.
I'm suggesting that they can use their existing, degraded, capacity more effectively by not trying to advance simultaneously on multiple axes.
I am very far from convinced you can reliably sustain an army using railways in 2022 without air supremacy.
Edit - I also now have an image of a bunch of irregulars going the full TE Lawrence on them.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
"Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences."
This assumes that sending lots of troops gets you something. The lesson of history is that while numbers are useful, an army that doesn't have logistics sorted out simply doesn't work. The initial Russian deployment to Ukraine is their best troops and what they *thought* they could sustain.
The logistics have broken down for their 200K force. Adding more soldiers might well make things worse.
It depends. If they've settled down to defensive positions on most fronts, then they may find it easier to improve the logistics situation, and they might get further only working with one advancing front, into which they'd pour their reinforcements.
Where are they going to get the extra logistical capability from?
As Josias/Dura mentioned the railways are an option, and one that will serve a static entrenched army better than one blundering around.
I'm suggesting that they can use their existing, degraded, capacity more effectively by not trying to advance simultaneously on multiple axes.
Pulling back to near their railheads is one thing - trying to extend the railway network into Ukraine, for military purposes, should be interesting.
A friend of mine used to work in a small group at a large company. Their role was to work out how to cost-reduce and speed up delivery of various weapons systems if there was a major war. He isn't there any more, but I wonder if such plans are being dusted off.
The UK government announced yesterday said they are to send another 6000 NLAWs. They must be working around the clock in Thales factories to make those.
The level quoted for the Army is 20k as stated being delivered in 2009; I have no idea where stock is, but did someone not note job adverts in Belfast?
It doesn’t really matter what the artisans of Beal Feirste do. They aren't going to make any difference when the Ukrainians are expending 1,000 NLAWs per week. I also highly doubt the UK government is going to pick up the considerable bill forever too.
One question that wasn't answered in the article was the current production rate, or what the surge production rate would be.
You also have to take into account the success rate of engagement (some air of missiles per armoured vehicle disabled number) and compare and contrast with Russian armour numbers because I’d be amazed if ATGMs ran out before the armour did, if the West doesn’t want them to.
Big uptick in battle tanks taken out in last two days, according to Oryx: from 260 to 280. Remember, this is the number of kills with photographic proof, not actual kills.
The intelligence agencies will know the real numbers and so, as ever with war, this will be what tells in the end. Once Russia is bringing forward the T55s we will have a sense of how it’s gone.
Interesting tweet on how easy it is to spot the Russians with IR as they need to keep their vehicles running for heat:
A friend of mine used to work in a small group at a large company. Their role was to work out how to cost-reduce and speed up delivery of various weapons systems if there was a major war. He isn't there any more, but I wonder if such plans are being dusted off.
The UK government announced yesterday said they are to send another 6000 NLAWs. They must be working around the clock in Thales factories to make those.
The level quoted for the Army is 20k as stated being delivered in 2009; I have no idea where stock is, but did someone not note job adverts in Belfast?
It doesn’t really matter what the artisans of Beal Feirste do. They aren't going to make any difference when the Ukrainians are expending 1,000 NLAWs per week. I also highly doubt the UK government is going to pick up the considerable bill forever too.
One question that wasn't answered in the article was the current production rate, or what the surge production rate would be.
You also have to take into account the success rate of engagement (some air of missiles per armoured vehicle disabled number) and compare and contrast with Russian armour numbers because I’d be amazed if ATGMs ran out before the armour did, if the West doesn’t want them to.
Every one effective for Ukraine is one that we no longer need, as the only realistic target is a Russian tank, and if they have one fewer tank we need one fewer missile for our own use.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
"Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences."
This assumes that sending lots of troops gets you something. The lesson of history is that while numbers are useful, an army that doesn't have logistics sorted out simply doesn't work. The initial Russian deployment to Ukraine is their best troops and what they *thought* they could sustain.
The logistics have broken down for their 200K force. Adding more soldiers might well make things worse.
It depends. If they've settled down to defensive positions on most fronts, then they may find it easier to improve the logistics situation, and they might get further only working with one advancing front, into which they'd pour their reinforcements.
Where are they going to get the extra logistical capability from?
As Josias/Dura mentioned the railways are an option, and one that will serve a static entrenched army better than one blundering around.
I'm suggesting that they can use their existing, degraded, capacity more effectively by not trying to advance simultaneously on multiple axes.
I am very far from convinced you can reliably sustain an army using railways in 2022 without air supremacy.
Edit - I also now have an image of a bunch of irregulars going the full TE Lawrence on them.
Even a Javelin/NLAW is going to make a mess of a train - and if it is attacked at speed, the wagons coming off behind are going to trash their load - and the tracks for hundreds of yards.
Not sure what 25,000 railway soldiers are going to do to prevent that.
A friend of mine used to work in a small group at a large company. Their role was to work out how to cost-reduce and speed up delivery of various weapons systems if there was a major war. He isn't there any more, but I wonder if such plans are being dusted off.
The UK government announced yesterday said they are to send another 6000 NLAWs. They must be working around the clock in Thales factories to make those.
The level quoted for the Army is 20k as stated being delivered in 2009; I have no idea where stock is, but did someone not note job adverts in Belfast?
It doesn’t really matter what the artisans of Beal Feirste do. They aren't going to make any difference when the Ukrainians are expending 1,000 NLAWs per week. I also highly doubt the UK government is going to pick up the considerable bill forever too.
One question that wasn't answered in the article was the current production rate, or what the surge production rate would be.
You also have to take into account the success rate of engagement (some air of missiles per armoured vehicle disabled number) and compare and contrast with Russian armour numbers because I’d be amazed if ATGMs ran out before the armour did, if the West doesn’t want them to.
Big uptick in battle tanks taken out in last two days, according to Oryx: from 260 to 280. Remember, this is the number of kills with photographic proof, not actual kills.
The intelligence agencies will know the real numbers and so, as ever with war, this will be what tells in the end. Once Russia is bringing forward the T55s we will have a sense of how it’s gone.
Interesting tweet on how easy it is to spot the Russians with IR as they need to keep their vehicles running for heat:
Interesting. Sat in a London beer garden in the sunshine, I had forgotten how cold it still is there. Grim on the front line I suspect, and just as grim as a civilian with your windows blown in and no heating.
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
Is it? Any evidence for that claim or your hunch?
The poll is evidence that Starmer is some distance from sealing the deal and that the government - given the current situation remains remarkable resilient in public support. My own view is that with a better leader they'd still be well ahead. I do recall only yesterday OGH reminding us that the least reliable polls were the ones we don't like. The fact that you cannot see it from your bubble of course is really exactly my point.
I think the Tories have lost the public's trust but Labour is yet to regain it. In those circumstances either could come out top in the next election but the poor economic outlook between now and the next election makes Labour the clear favourite.
As you say we can conclude one thing, which is that Starmer isn’t in the Blair/Cameron position (yet). If he’s capable of delivering it, this coming party conference is the time for Labour to have him do the “without notes” “personal story” speech. Similarly, Boris needs to do some form of mea culpa.
Absolutely! Starmer needs to demonstrate and communicate with the public that he knows what it's like to be a normal working person, connect with the traditional working-class vote that he is a man of the people. Educated at the local comp, getting an everyday persons job. Struggling to pay the bills. Unlike the evil Tories. Perhaps his bio would help?
Flute and violin playing Grammar school boy (so another Labour leader benefitting from selective education despite not thinking it's ok for anyone else). Oh and then progressing to an editor of a radical left-wing rag. Then a lawyer etc.
Other than that, well, one can see what a working-class hero he is.
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
Is it? Any evidence for that claim or your hunch?
The poll is evidence that Starmer is some distance from sealing the deal and that the government - given the current situation remains remarkable resilient in public support. My own view is that with a better leader they'd still be well ahead. I do recall only yesterday OGH reminding us that the least reliable polls were the ones we don't like. The fact that you cannot see it from your bubble of course is really exactly my point.
I think the Tories have lost the public's trust but Labour is yet to regain it. In those circumstances either could come out top in the next election but the poor economic outlook between now and the next election makes Labour the clear favourite.
As you say we can conclude one thing, which is that Starmer isn’t in the Blair/Cameron position (yet). If he’s capable of delivering it, this coming party conference is the time for Labour to have him do the “without notes” “personal story” speech. Similarly, Boris needs to do some form of mea culpa.
The mea culpa would need to be "Sorry for being how I am, a pathological liar with no sense of public service" so in all fairness it's too much to expect.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
"Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences."
This assumes that sending lots of troops gets you something. The lesson of history is that while numbers are useful, an army that doesn't have logistics sorted out simply doesn't work. The initial Russian deployment to Ukraine is their best troops and what they *thought* they could sustain.
The logistics have broken down for their 200K force. Adding more soldiers might well make things worse.
It depends. If they've settled down to defensive positions on most fronts, then they may find it easier to improve the logistics situation, and they might get further only working with one advancing front, into which they'd pour their reinforcements.
Where are they going to get the extra logistical capability from?
As Josias/Dura mentioned the railways are an option, and one that will serve a static entrenched army better than one blundering around.
I'm suggesting that they can use their existing, degraded, capacity more effectively by not trying to advance simultaneously on multiple axes.
I am very far from convinced you can reliably sustain an army using railways in 2022 without air supremacy.
Edit - I also now have an image of a bunch of irregulars going the full TE Lawrence on them.
Even a Javelin/NLAW is going to make a mess of a train - and if it is attacked at speed, the wagons coming off behind are going to trash their load - and the tracks for hundreds of yards.
Not sure what 25,000 railway soldiers are going to do to prevent that.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
"Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences."
This assumes that sending lots of troops gets you something. The lesson of history is that while numbers are useful, an army that doesn't have logistics sorted out simply doesn't work. The initial Russian deployment to Ukraine is their best troops and what they *thought* they could sustain.
The logistics have broken down for their 200K force. Adding more soldiers might well make things worse.
It depends. If they've settled down to defensive positions on most fronts, then they may find it easier to improve the logistics situation, and they might get further only working with one advancing front, into which they'd pour their reinforcements.
Where are they going to get the extra logistical capability from?
Their friends?
Reminds me of a Beatles song. Think the lyrics go something like this. Big hit with conscripts.
What would you think if Invaded Ukraine? Would you stand up and March in with me? Lend me your troops and I'll bring them back dead And I'll try not to start world war 3
Oh, I will fight with a little help from my friends Mmm, I get fried with a little help from my friends Ooh, I'm gonna die with a little help from my friends
LOL 👍🏻
Your seven lines alone better than 2 series of spitting image
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
Is it? Any evidence for that claim or your hunch?
The poll is evidence that Starmer is some distance from sealing the deal and that the government - given the current situation remains remarkable resilient in public support. My own view is that with a better leader they'd still be well ahead. I do recall only yesterday OGH reminding us that the least reliable polls were the ones we don't like. The fact that you cannot see it from your bubble of course is really exactly my point.
I think the Tories have lost the public's trust but Labour is yet to regain it. In those circumstances either could come out top in the next election but the poor economic outlook between now and the next election makes Labour the clear favourite.
“ I think the Tories have lost the public's trust but Labour is yet to regain it. “
Truth is it’s not a similar pattern across all the country. Labour edging ahead in national polls disguises the fact they are piling on extra votes in metropolitan areas like London, where they already have the seats, taking those with massive majorities completely hollow on election night if they don’t get above 265 seats. This is because as the Tories have all those midlands seats already in the bag now, in mid term nadir, then they definitely have them at the end of election campaign. Starmer is coming from too low a base in MPs whilst making not enough ground up in places like the midlands, just not far enough ahead to become PM on any of the polls.
I'm always wary of regional analysis as on the night it usually turns out that the pattern is different from what we expected. But as HYUFD has said, there has been a very clear, substantial swing to Labour in the Red Wall seats in poll after poll, and those alone go most of the way to depriving the Conservatives of a majority. You're right that the Conservatives are doing better in the Midlands, but that's probably not going to be enough.
I suppose the difficult issue with Rishi's wealth is that he married it. Had he been a self-made man he could have highlighted his success as a strength.
That's not 100% true. He had 10 years doing pretty well working in the city. It seems highly unlikely he didn't make a significant amount of money himself out of that career.
It is just that he married into mega wealth.
Where as Call Me Dave, Mrs Cameron was the monied one and the much more successful one prior to him being PM. Didn't really hold him back.
A decade at Goldman, unless he got to partner level, will mean he got to a level of wealth to own a nice flat in London outright, or to have a relatively small mortgage on a slightly less nice house. Unless he was truly exceptional, I very much doubt he made anything near £10m from his time there (before tax), because he started relatively junior.
He did three years at Goldman, then worked in hedge funds for another 7. Superficially, it is possible that he made a lot of money by way of his own raw talent, but it is equally possible that he was a dud and the latter part of his career was a front. Or it could be a mixture of the two. We don't know.
From memory don't we know that Rishi did make decent money from the hedge fund but I see to remember @Cyclefree commenting that things were not 100% kosher.
He presumably made good money at Goldmans and at The Childrens Investment Fund, the hedge fund where he worked after GS.
My comment was related to TCIF's behaviour, not Sunak personally.
9 mins on the untruths and distortions that Russia is spreading about 'Nazis' in Ukraine - including about the role of the Azov regiment of Ukraine’s National Guard. Produced by Mary Fuller, Michael Cox, Priyanka Deladia https://bbc.co.uk/news/world-60525350…
That is a bit of propaganda itself. Essentially saying, no far right / Neo-Nazi, that symbol, nobody thinks its dodgy, none of this doesn't exists in Ukraine anymore. Even up to very recently, mainstream media outlets like Time, Vice have been reporting highlighting this small hardcore minority of far right, including the Avoz, training camps for them, Neo-Nazi festivals, attended by far right activists from across Europe. If there was no war, I imagine they would still be doing so.
Putin is obviously talking nonsense, the whole of the Ukraine isn't in the grips of Nazism or anything close to it. But that report tries to rather white-wash this issue.
That report didn't say no far right. It was an optimistic appraisal of how big an influence and how much Azoz may have changed but it didn't say what you've just claimed.
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
No, it's relevant because it says what you want to see.
PB is pretty aligned with all polling saying this budget is a disaster.
And as one of the first who said we'd get sustained Labour leads, looks I was more in tune than you.
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
Is it? Any evidence for that claim or your hunch?
The poll is evidence that Starmer is some distance from sealing the deal and that the government - given the current situation remains remarkable resilient in public support. My own view is that with a better leader they'd still be well ahead. I do recall only yesterday OGH reminding us that the least reliable polls were the ones we don't like. The fact that you cannot see it from your bubble of course is really exactly my point.
I think the Tories have lost the public's trust but Labour is yet to regain it. In those circumstances either could come out top in the next election but the poor economic outlook between now and the next election makes Labour the clear favourite.
As you say we can conclude one thing, which is that Starmer isn’t in the Blair/Cameron position (yet). If he’s capable of delivering it, this coming party conference is the time for Labour to have him do the “without notes” “personal story” speech. Similarly, Boris needs to do some form of mea culpa.
The mea culpa would need to be "Sorry for being how I am, a pathological liar with no sense of public service" so in all fairness it's too much to expect.
I think his niche always was and always will be “I’m a shit but if you were me you’d do these things too”.
What is going on with Johnson's posture at the G7? Not only has he got as fat as fuck recently but he appears to have lost the ability to stand up straight.
Even the mighty Atlas could not bear the weight of the heavens forever without hurting his back.
Great question to the Chancellor. You say you can't predict what will happen to energy bills in the next six months but you're able to promise an income tax cut in two years' time? https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1506910201458438148
Mishal Husain hit Sunak with that on the Today prog this morning and it landed - the usual smooth response wasn't forthcoming.
There can be no smooth response, His budget was built on a "massive pyramid of piffle". We'll put up fuel duty next year - no you won't. We'll cut income tax by a penny in 2 years - you can't possibly know the state of the economy then nor if you will be office nor if it can be done. He can proffer tax cuts in 2 years with certainty but what happens to fuel bills in 2 months which drives the economic factors to deliver said tax cuts he can't speculate over.
What a prat. The only thing in this sorry affair which makes him look good is sending Simon Clarke onto a media round to try and defend this. Simon can't believe he got a promotion into cabinet and will say anything with sincerity to stay there.
I do hope that in Sunak we don't have another politician driven mainly by personal brand management and PR. He's clearly a smart guy but it's hard to detect a mission other than succeeding Johnson.
I suppose the difficult issue with Rishi's wealth is that he married it. Had he been a self-made man he could have highlighted his success as a strength.
That's not 100% true. He had 10 years doing pretty well working in the city. It seems highly unlikely he didn't make a significant amount of money himself out of that career.
It is just that he married into mega wealth.
Where as Call Me Dave, Mrs Cameron was the monied one and the much more successful one prior to him being PM. Didn't really hold him back.
A decade at Goldman, unless he got to partner level, will mean he got to a level of wealth to own a nice flat in London outright, or to have a relatively small mortgage on a slightly less nice house. Unless he was truly exceptional, I very much doubt he made anything near £10m from his time there (before tax), because he started relatively junior.
He did three years at Goldman, then worked in hedge funds for another 7. Superficially, it is possible that he made a lot of money by way of his own raw talent, but it is equally possible that he was a dud and the latter part of his career was a front. Or it could be a mixture of the two. We don't know.
From memory don't we know that Rishi did make decent money from the hedge fund but I see to remember @Cyclefree commenting that things were not 100% kosher.
He presumably made good money at Goldmans and at The Childrens Investment Fund, the hedge fund where he worked after GS.
My comment was related to TCIF's behaviour, not Sunak personally.
For some reason I'd be immediately suspicious of a fund called The Children's Investment Fund.
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
No, it's relevant because it says what you want to see.
PB is pretty aligned with all polling saying this budget is a disaster.
And as one of the first who said we'd get sustained Labour leads, looks I was more in tune than you.
And right up to 21.59 on December 12 2019 you were "confidently" predicting an "earthquake" or some such thing as you'd been on Twitter. And you getting exhaustingly priapic over every poll suggesting a hung parliament in the preceding months.
The Tories may very lose the next Election but then again they may increase their majority. You have no idea.
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
Is it? Any evidence for that claim or your hunch?
The poll is evidence that Starmer is some distance from sealing the deal and that the government - given the current situation remains remarkable resilient in public support. My own view is that with a better leader they'd still be well ahead. I do recall only yesterday OGH reminding us that the least reliable polls were the ones we don't like. The fact that you cannot see it from your bubble of course is really exactly my point.
I think the Tories have lost the public's trust but Labour is yet to regain it. In those circumstances either could come out top in the next election but the poor economic outlook between now and the next election makes Labour the clear favourite.
As you say we can conclude one thing, which is that Starmer isn’t in the Blair/Cameron position (yet). If he’s capable of delivering it, this coming party conference is the time for Labour to have him do the “without notes” “personal story” speech. Similarly, Boris needs to do some form of mea culpa.
The mea culpa would need to be "Sorry for being how I am, a pathological liar with no sense of public service" so in all fairness it's too much to expect.
I think his niche always was and always will be “I’m a shit but if you were me you’d do these things too”.
Which I guess is true. People like him behave like him.
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
No, it's relevant because it says what you want to see.
PB is pretty aligned with all polling saying this budget is a disaster.
And as one of the first who said we'd get sustained Labour leads, looks I was more in tune than you.
And right up to 21.59 on December 12 2019 you were "confidently" predicting an "earthquake" or some such thing as you'd been on Twitter.
Period of Putin doubling down, combined with increased Western disunity over both how much and what military aid to give Ukraine, and what to do about energy sanctions on Russia.
Massive continued suffering in Ukraine, but no buckling, even as new Russian reinforcements arrive and barrage of population areas intensifies.
Followed by: Ukrainians get hands on counter battery equipment, better AA kit, anti-ship kit and drones. After a stutter, Ukrainians again make slow progress at retaking land, and diminishing Russia's air and artillery capacity.
At which point, either:
- massive Western pressure on Ukraine to accept 'compromise' (i.e. give up land and rights) in order to reach an end to the war. - Putin escalates to WW III. Everyone loses, but some more so than others. China wins.
In reality, no-one knows. There are too many ways things could go from now, any prediction is a crap shoot.
The question that I am interested in, is what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war? It seems that the conventional Russian military capacity is taking an absolute hammering. Difficult to see how it could be rolled out to invade another country.
The Russians should be forced back to their own borders, forced to pay reparations, and the people involved should be tried for war crimes. No other outcome should be considered.
"what exactly are Putin's options to escalate the conflict aside from nuclear war?"
Chemical or biological weapons. Less bogeymanish and known to the general public, and easier to deny (look at the denialism over Assad's culpability for their use in Syria). In addition, the west does not have a set reaction to their use, or have similar weapons to immediately respond with AIUI.
Hence the use of chemical or biological weapons are something we cannot respond to in kind, and a nuclear retaliation would be OTT. And used right, they can be very useful.
Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences.
In tandem with this, expect a big attempt to split the sanctions regime against him - Germany seems an unsteady domino in that regard. The longer this goes on, the stronger sanctions should get. Sadly, they'll get weaker.
"Or alternatively Putin may go for a full mobilisation and war footing, and send hundreds of thousands of young Russians into Ukraine, killing many of them, but simply overwhelming the Ukrainian defences."
This assumes that sending lots of troops gets you something. The lesson of history is that while numbers are useful, an army that doesn't have logistics sorted out simply doesn't work. The initial Russian deployment to Ukraine is their best troops and what they *thought* they could sustain.
The logistics have broken down for their 200K force. Adding more soldiers might well make things worse.
It depends. If they've settled down to defensive positions on most fronts, then they may find it easier to improve the logistics situation, and they might get further only working with one advancing front, into which they'd pour their reinforcements.
Where are they going to get the extra logistical capability from?
Their friends?
Reminds me of a Beatles song. Think the lyrics go something like this. Big hit with conscripts.
What would you think if Invaded Ukraine? Would you stand up and March in with me? Lend me your troops and I'll bring them back dead And I'll try not to start world war 3
Oh, I will fight with a little help from my friends Mmm, I get fried with a little help from my friends Ooh, I'm gonna die with a little help from my friends
LOL 👍🏻
Your seven lines alone better than 2 series of spitting image
Thought it better with image and couple of tweaks.
Soooo stuck in my head already
What would you think if I invaded Ukraine - Would you stand up and March in with me? Lend me your sons and I'll bring them back dead, And I'll try not to start world war 3
Oh, I will fight with a little help from my friends, Mmm, I get fried with a little help from my friends, Ooh, I'm gonna die with a little help from my friends…
I suppose the difficult issue with Rishi's wealth is that he married it. Had he been a self-made man he could have highlighted his success as a strength.
That's not 100% true. He had 10 years doing pretty well working in the city. It seems highly unlikely he didn't make a significant amount of money himself out of that career.
It is just that he married into mega wealth.
Where as Call Me Dave, Mrs Cameron was the monied one and the much more successful one prior to him being PM. Didn't really hold him back.
A decade at Goldman, unless he got to partner level, will mean he got to a level of wealth to own a nice flat in London outright, or to have a relatively small mortgage on a slightly less nice house. Unless he was truly exceptional, I very much doubt he made anything near £10m from his time there (before tax), because he started relatively junior.
He did three years at Goldman, then worked in hedge funds for another 7. Superficially, it is possible that he made a lot of money by way of his own raw talent, but it is equally possible that he was a dud and the latter part of his career was a front. Or it could be a mixture of the two. We don't know.
From memory don't we know that Rishi did make decent money from the hedge fund but I see to remember @Cyclefree commenting that things were not 100% kosher.
He presumably made good money at Goldmans and at The Childrens Investment Fund, the hedge fund where he worked after GS.
My comment was related to TCIF's behaviour, not Sunak personally.
Did you listen to that recent Lowball Tapes podcast? Some things there I hadn't realized, I must say.
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
No, it's relevant because it says what you want to see.
PB is pretty aligned with all polling saying this budget is a disaster.
And as one of the first who said we'd get sustained Labour leads, looks I was more in tune than you.
And right up to 21.59 on December 12 2019 you were "confidently" predicting an "earthquake" or some such thing as you'd been on Twitter.
No I wasnt
WTF are you talking about I was out canvassing and could see Corbyns position on a 2nd Referendum meant they had no chance.
Have you ever even door knocked?
I was talking to CHB...you have always been consistent. I always remember your comments after the first televised debate with Corbyn. (And I have door-knocked)
LOL. Let me make a WAG: the driver/commander thought: "Oh, that's just a little pond. We'll drive across it." A few seconds later, the water gets in the snorkel/exhaust and drowns the engine. "Right then comrades! We march back to Russia!"
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
No, it's relevant because it says what you want to see.
PB is pretty aligned with all polling saying this budget is a disaster.
And as one of the first who said we'd get sustained Labour leads, looks I was more in tune than you.
And right up to 21.59 on December 12 2019 you were "confidently" predicting an "earthquake" or some such thing as you'd been on Twitter.
No I wasnt
WTF are you talking about I was out canvassing and could see Corbyns position on a 2nd Referendum meant they had no chance.
Have you ever even door knocked?
I was talking to CHB...you have always been consistent. I always remember your comments after the first televised debate with Corbyn. (And I have door-knocked)
Yes sorry deleted I thought CHB was accusing me of "earthquake"
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
Is it? Any evidence for that claim or your hunch?
The poll is evidence that Starmer is some distance from sealing the deal and that the government - given the current situation remains remarkable resilient in public support. My own view is that with a better leader they'd still be well ahead. I do recall only yesterday OGH reminding us that the least reliable polls were the ones we don't like. The fact that you cannot see it from your bubble of course is really exactly my point.
I think the Tories have lost the public's trust but Labour is yet to regain it. In those circumstances either could come out top in the next election but the poor economic outlook between now and the next election makes Labour the clear favourite.
As you say we can conclude one thing, which is that Starmer isn’t in the Blair/Cameron position (yet). If he’s capable of delivering it, this coming party conference is the time for Labour to have him do the “without notes” “personal story” speech. Similarly, Boris needs to do some form of mea culpa.
Absolutely! Starmer needs to demonstrate and communicate with the public that he knows what it's like to be a normal working person, connect with the traditional working-class vote that he is a man of the people. Educated at the local comp, getting an everyday persons job. Struggling to pay the bills. Unlike the evil Tories. Perhaps his bio would help?
Flute and violin playing Grammar school boy (so another Labour leader benefitting from selective education despite not thinking it's ok for anyone else). Oh and then progressing to an editor of a radical left-wing rag. Then a lawyer etc.
Other than that, well, one can see what a working-class hero he is.
He's a million times more working class than the facetious lump of hyper entitlement and privilege he's up against.
I suppose the difficult issue with Rishi's wealth is that he married it. Had he been a self-made man he could have highlighted his success as a strength.
That's not 100% true. He had 10 years doing pretty well working in the city. It seems highly unlikely he didn't make a significant amount of money himself out of that career.
It is just that he married into mega wealth.
Where as Call Me Dave, Mrs Cameron was the monied one and the much more successful one prior to him being PM. Didn't really hold him back.
A decade at Goldman, unless he got to partner level, will mean he got to a level of wealth to own a nice flat in London outright, or to have a relatively small mortgage on a slightly less nice house. Unless he was truly exceptional, I very much doubt he made anything near £10m from his time there (before tax), because he started relatively junior.
He did three years at Goldman, then worked in hedge funds for another 7. Superficially, it is possible that he made a lot of money by way of his own raw talent, but it is equally possible that he was a dud and the latter part of his career was a front. Or it could be a mixture of the two. We don't know.
From memory don't we know that Rishi did make decent money from the hedge fund but I see to remember @Cyclefree commenting that things were not 100% kosher.
He presumably made good money at Goldmans and at The Childrens Investment Fund, the hedge fund where he worked after GS.
My comment was related to TCIF's behaviour, not Sunak personally.
He had a huge payday at TCIF but I imagine he also did very well as a founding partner of Theleme Partners after he left TCIF.
I wonder if his time doing holiday jobs as a waiter at a family friend’s Indian restaurant influenced his push on “Eat out to Help out”?
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
Is it? Any evidence for that claim or your hunch?
The poll is evidence that Starmer is some distance from sealing the deal and that the government - given the current situation remains remarkable resilient in public support. My own view is that with a better leader they'd still be well ahead. I do recall only yesterday OGH reminding us that the least reliable polls were the ones we don't like. The fact that you cannot see it from your bubble of course is really exactly my point.
I think the Tories have lost the public's trust but Labour is yet to regain it. In those circumstances either could come out top in the next election but the poor economic outlook between now and the next election makes Labour the clear favourite.
As you say we can conclude one thing, which is that Starmer isn’t in the Blair/Cameron position (yet). If he’s capable of delivering it, this coming party conference is the time for Labour to have him do the “without notes” “personal story” speech. Similarly, Boris needs to do some form of mea culpa.
Absolutely! Starmer needs to demonstrate and communicate with the public that he knows what it's like to be a normal working person, connect with the traditional working-class vote that he is a man of the people. Educated at the local comp, getting an everyday persons job. Struggling to pay the bills. Unlike the evil Tories. Perhaps his bio would help?
Flute and violin playing Grammar school boy (so another Labour leader benefitting from selective education despite not thinking it's ok for anyone else). Oh and then progressing to an editor of a radical left-wing rag. Then a lawyer etc.
Other than that, well, one can see what a working-class hero he is.
He's a million times more working class than the facetious lump of hyper entitlement and privilege he's up against.
There's not a working class bone in his body. He's never struggled in his life. Not that I give a flying-caboodle about "class" anyway.
Pretty uninspiring polling for the Tories, with a minimal war-related bounce and I don't expect a huge reaction from the polls to yesterday's budget.
If the Partygate polls were a low point and these polls are a high point, we're looking at a single figure labour lead of around 5% tops. However, if we compare this to polls at a similar stage of other Governments, I'm not sure Labour is doing enough.
Take 2007-9 ahead of the 2010 election where there was a change of Government. March-December 2008 had Tory leads typically in the 10-20% region. Even after the Brown bounce in early 2007, polling reverted to an average Tory lead of around 8% from November 2007-Feb 2008 although there were 2 polls showing labour 1% ahead. Here the Tories only got in as the largest party in a hung parliament.
In 2012-14, Labour dominated. Early 2012 up to March was close, but April-December 2012 all polls showed Labour ahead, average lead 8%. 2013 Labour continued their domination and their average advantage went up to 10%. In 2014 the gap narrowed with mostly single figure labour leads and the occasional Tory lead. The Tories won a small majority at the next election.
The run-up to 1992 was more complex due to the Major Bounce in 1991. The end of Thatcher in 1990 saw Labour leads of 15-20% and post the Major Bounce, the majority of polls favoured Labour, with the occasional Tory lead or tie - average Labour lead similar to what we have now. Again, the Tories scraped in.
To me this has the feeling of a 2015 or a 1992, a small Tory majority next time. Of course much can change, but at present there's little in the polling to sway me from my view that this site as a whole overestimates Starmer and underestimates Boris, and massively overestimates the possibility that Boris will be knifed by his own Party. Small Tory majority still the most likely result - but happy with my 9/1 on Starmer as next PM, and with my bets that Boris survives to 2023, 2024 or longer.
9 mins on the untruths and distortions that Russia is spreading about 'Nazis' in Ukraine - including about the role of the Azov regiment of Ukraine’s National Guard. Produced by Mary Fuller, Michael Cox, Priyanka Deladia https://bbc.co.uk/news/world-60525350…
That is a bit of propaganda itself. Essentially saying, no far right / Neo-Nazi, that symbol, nobody thinks its dodgy, none of this doesn't exists in Ukraine anymore. Even up to very recently, mainstream media outlets like Time, Vice have been reporting highlighting this small hardcore minority of far right, including the Avoz, training camps for them, Neo-Nazi festivals, attended by far right activists from across Europe. If there was no war, I imagine they would still be doing so.
Putin is obviously talking nonsense, the whole of the Ukraine isn't in the grips of Nazism or anything close to it. But that report tries to rather white-wash this issue.
That report didn't say no far right. It was an optimistic appraisal of how big an influence and how much Azoz may have changed but it didn't say what you've just claimed.
I was being a little bit hyperbolic. But it really does try to downplay things, you really don't have to look hard to see photo from the past few weeks with far-right symbols still being prominently displayed by Azov members and as I say, it really isn't ancient history when particularly left leaning media outlets were visiting the Ukraine and highlighting some uncomfortable truths.
The BBC slot is clearly designed to try and go viral to "bust" Putin myths. And it is obviously a total load of horseshit that Ukraine is under the control of Hitler acolytes. I just think it tries too hard to the extent it is whitewashing this issue.
Weirdly the same BBC put out articles a couple of weeks ago saying football "Ultras" are all Far-Right. And highlighting how widespread it is in Poland, and they hassling non-white refugees. Which I believe they had to correct.
What’s this with selective video clips. Johnson had already spoken to Biden and Macron at the NATO meet and Macron as G7 host was escorting Biden to someone he hadn’t met yet! If “spotting slights” was an industry U.K. twitter would be world leading (if largely inaccurate!)
The poll could be an outlier but even so it does show for the umpteenth time the disconnect between the 'chatterers' view of the government and the public. To read on PB and Twitter is so different to where the public are.
Is it? Any evidence for that claim or your hunch?
The poll is evidence that Starmer is some distance from sealing the deal and that the government - given the current situation remains remarkable resilient in public support. My own view is that with a better leader they'd still be well ahead. I do recall only yesterday OGH reminding us that the least reliable polls were the ones we don't like. The fact that you cannot see it from your bubble of course is really exactly my point.
I think the Tories have lost the public's trust but Labour is yet to regain it. In those circumstances either could come out top in the next election but the poor economic outlook between now and the next election makes Labour the clear favourite.
As you say we can conclude one thing, which is that Starmer isn’t in the Blair/Cameron position (yet). If he’s capable of delivering it, this coming party conference is the time for Labour to have him do the “without notes” “personal story” speech. Similarly, Boris needs to do some form of mea culpa.
Absolutely! Starmer needs to demonstrate and communicate with the public that he knows what it's like to be a normal working person, connect with the traditional working-class vote that he is a man of the people. Educated at the local comp, getting an everyday persons job. Struggling to pay the bills. Unlike the evil Tories. Perhaps his bio would help?
Flute and violin playing Grammar school boy (so another Labour leader benefitting from selective education despite not thinking it's ok for anyone else). Oh and then progressing to an editor of a radical left-wing rag. Then a lawyer etc.
Other than that, well, one can see what a working-class hero he is.
He's a million times more working class than the facetious lump of hyper entitlement and privilege he's up against.
There's not a working class bone in his body. He's never struggled in his life. Not that I give a flying-caboodle about "class" anyway.
He's from a fairly ordinary background which, like I say, compared to the alternative is salt of the earth.
If you don't give a toss about class I guess it's no issue either way. Just your comment was all about class so I thought you did.
Despite the on the face of it bad Poll for Starmer, I see yesterdays tone deaf budget as a turning point for Labour
Even Starmer has a chance of beating a Tory party that shrugs its shoulders as people cry out for emergency help with the cost of living crisis.
"Any other leader would be 20pts ahead" mind, as they used to say when Corbyn was ahead.
This is pathetic, Corbyn lost an actual election in a landslide
From BJO that is pretty much the best endorsement ("Even Starmer has a chance of beating (the) Tory party") you are likely to get for Starmer. You can now mark BJO down as a "maybe"!
What’s this with selective video clips. Johnson had already spoken to Biden and Macron at the NATO meet and Macron as G7 host was escorting Biden to someone he hadn’t met yet! If “spotting slights” was an industry U.K. twitter would be world leading (if largely inaccurate!)
I suppose the difficult issue with Rishi's wealth is that he married it. Had he been a self-made man he could have highlighted his success as a strength.
That's not 100% true. He had 10 years doing pretty well working in the city. It seems highly unlikely he didn't make a significant amount of money himself out of that career.
It is just that he married into mega wealth.
Where as Call Me Dave, Mrs Cameron was the monied one and the much more successful one prior to him being PM. Didn't really hold him back.
A decade at Goldman, unless he got to partner level, will mean he got to a level of wealth to own a nice flat in London outright, or to have a relatively small mortgage on a slightly less nice house. Unless he was truly exceptional, I very much doubt he made anything near £10m from his time there (before tax), because he started relatively junior.
He did three years at Goldman, then worked in hedge funds for another 7. Superficially, it is possible that he made a lot of money by way of his own raw talent, but it is equally possible that he was a dud and the latter part of his career was a front. Or it could be a mixture of the two. We don't know.
From memory don't we know that Rishi did make decent money from the hedge fund but I see to remember @Cyclefree commenting that things were not 100% kosher.
He presumably made good money at Goldmans and at The Childrens Investment Fund, the hedge fund where he worked after GS.
My comment was related to TCIF's behaviour, not Sunak personally.
Did you listen to that recent Lowball Tapes podcast? Some things there I hadn't realized, I must say.
None of it came as a surprise. But it relied too much on some very questionable statements made by Tom Hayes. I know stuff about him that I cannot reveal publicly here. Safe to say that when I hear his disingenuous nonsense (to put it at its absolute mildest) about how he was an innocent sacrificed by higher ups I want to throw things at the radio and TV. The truth about him is very different indeed. He was rightly convicted.
What annoys me about these programmes is how lazy the journalism is. The journalists rarely do any sort of digging around to get different views or, indeed, to get a view from the people who they know - or ought to - will have relevant information.
What’s this with selective video clips. Johnson had already spoken to Biden and Macron at the NATO meet and Macron as G7 host was escorting Biden to someone he hadn’t met yet! If “spotting slights” was an industry U.K. twitter would be world leading (if largely inaccurate!)
It's really annoyed me today, the gloating smirking about Johnson being snubbed at the summit. I can't stand the man, but the Twitter noise is just childish playground antics and benefits nobody but Putin.
I suppose the difficult issue with Rishi's wealth is that he married it. Had he been a self-made man he could have highlighted his success as a strength.
That's not 100% true. He had 10 years doing pretty well working in the city. It seems highly unlikely he didn't make a significant amount of money himself out of that career.
It is just that he married into mega wealth.
Where as Call Me Dave, Mrs Cameron was the monied one and the much more successful one prior to him being PM. Didn't really hold him back.
A decade at Goldman, unless he got to partner level, will mean he got to a level of wealth to own a nice flat in London outright, or to have a relatively small mortgage on a slightly less nice house. Unless he was truly exceptional, I very much doubt he made anything near £10m from his time there (before tax), because he started relatively junior.
He did three years at Goldman, then worked in hedge funds for another 7. Superficially, it is possible that he made a lot of money by way of his own raw talent, but it is equally possible that he was a dud and the latter part of his career was a front. Or it could be a mixture of the two. We don't know.
From memory don't we know that Rishi did make decent money from the hedge fund but I see to remember @Cyclefree commenting that things were not 100% kosher.
He presumably made good money at Goldmans and at The Childrens Investment Fund, the hedge fund where he worked after GS.
My comment was related to TCIF's behaviour, not Sunak personally.
Did you listen to that recent Lowball Tapes podcast? Some things there I hadn't realized, I must say.
None of it came as a surprise. But it relied too much on some very questionable statements made by Tom Hayes. I know stuff about him that I cannot reveal publicly here. Safe to say that when I hear his disingenuous nonsense (to put it at its absolute mildest) about how he was an innocent sacrificed by higher ups I want to throw things at the radio and TV. The truth about him is very different indeed. He was rightly convicted.
What annoys me about these programmes is how lazy the journalism is. The journalists rarely do any sort of digging around to get different views or, indeed, to get a view from the people who they know - or ought to - will have relevant information.
What’s this with selective video clips. Johnson had already spoken to Biden and Macron at the NATO meet and Macron as G7 host was escorting Biden to someone he hadn’t met yet! If “spotting slights” was an industry U.K. twitter would be world leading (if largely inaccurate!)
+1
It's rather like the games that photographers play - I can get a shot of *anyone* looking brilliant/ stupid/ murderous/ gormless/ anything.
LOL. Let me make a WAG: the driver/commander thought: "Oh, that's just a little pond. We'll drive across it." A few seconds later, the water gets in the snorkel/exhaust and drowns the engine. "Right then comrades! We march back to Russia!"
A chap I knew who bought and sold military vehicles, loved his Centurion based AVRE. One of his side businesses was corporate days out for tank driving. He said that the it was utterly demented what some people could achieve with a tracked vehicle.
With the Centurion, he simply attached a chain and dragged it back to the workshop.
What’s this with selective video clips. Johnson had already spoken to Biden and Macron at the NATO meet and Macron as G7 host was escorting Biden to someone he hadn’t met yet! If “spotting slights” was an industry U.K. twitter would be world leading (if largely inaccurate!)
+1
It's rather like the games that photographers play - I can get a shot of *anyone* looking brilliant/ stupid/ murderous/ gormless/ anything.
Just give me 50 frames a second for long enough a bacon butty.
9 mins on the untruths and distortions that Russia is spreading about 'Nazis' in Ukraine - including about the role of the Azov regiment of Ukraine’s National Guard. Produced by Mary Fuller, Michael Cox, Priyanka Deladia https://bbc.co.uk/news/world-60525350…
That is a bit of propaganda itself. Essentially saying, no far right / Neo-Nazi, that symbol, nobody thinks its dodgy, none of this doesn't exists in Ukraine anymore. Even up to very recently, mainstream media outlets like Time, Vice have been reporting highlighting this small hardcore minority of far right, including the Avoz, training camps for them, Neo-Nazi festivals, attended by far right activists from across Europe. If there was no war, I imagine they would still be doing so.
Putin is obviously talking nonsense, the whole of the Ukraine isn't in the grips of Nazism or anything close to it. But that report tries to rather white-wash this issue.
That report didn't say no far right. It was an optimistic appraisal of how big an influence and how much Azoz may have changed but it didn't say what you've just claimed.
I was being a little bit hyperbolic. But it really does try to downplay things, you really don't have to look hard to see photo from the past few weeks with far-right symbols still being prominently displayed by Azov members and as I say, it really isn't ancient history when particularly left leaning media outlets were visiting the Ukraine and highlighting some uncomfortable truths.
The BBC slot is clearly designed to try and go viral to "bust" Putin myths. And it is obviously a total load of horseshit that Ukraine is under the control of Hitler acolytes. I just think it tries too hard to the extent it is whitewashing this issue.
Weirdly the same BBC put out articles a couple of weeks ago saying football "Ultras" are all Far-Right. And highlighting how widespread it is in Poland, and they hassling non-white refugees. Which I believe they had to correct.
I might disagree with the 1% of people in Ukraine who vote for Azov but I defend their right to stand for election and to have their say.
LLG on this poll is 54%. At the low end of the 53-57% long term range but certainly not an outlier. It looks like the Lib Dems are somewhat overstated to the detriment of Labour in this one. And REFUK is at the low end, though I expect it has probably declined anyway from its highs around 6-7% a couple of months back. But they were going to come home anyway, just as about half of those 6% of greens will come home too.
Another recent poll had LLG at 48% which was above the recent range.
I expect to see some more Tory-Labour switching following the budget, probably bypassing both LDs and Greens. Would say 12% is probably a ceiling for the yellows in this parliament.
Pretty uninspiring polling for the Tories, with a minimal war-related bounce and I don't expect a huge reaction from the polls to yesterday's budget.
If the Partygate polls were a low point and these polls are a high point, we're looking at a single figure labour lead of around 5% tops. However, if we compare this to polls at a similar stage of other Governments, I'm not sure Labour is doing enough.
Take 2007-9 ahead of the 2010 election where there was a change of Government. March-December 2008 had Tory leads typically in the 10-20% region. Even after the Brown bounce in early 2007, polling reverted to an average Tory lead of around 8% from November 2007-Feb 2008 although there were 2 polls showing labour 1% ahead. Here the Tories only got in as the largest party in a hung parliament.
In 2012-14, Labour dominated. Early 2012 up to March was close, but April-December 2012 all polls showed Labour ahead, average lead 8%. 2013 Labour continued their domination and their average advantage went up to 10%. In 2014 the gap narrowed with mostly single figure labour leads and the occasional Tory lead. The Tories won a small majority at the next election.
The run-up to 1992 was more complex due to the Major Bounce in 1991. The end of Thatcher in 1990 saw Labour leads of 15-20% and post the Major Bounce, the majority of polls favoured Labour, with the occasional Tory lead or tie - average Labour lead similar to what we have now. Again, the Tories scraped in.
To me this has the feeling of a 2015 or a 1992, a small Tory majority next time. Of course much can change, but at present there's little in the polling to sway me from my view that this site as a whole overestimates Starmer and underestimates Boris, and massively overestimates the possibility that Boris will be knifed by his own Party. Small Tory majority still the most likely result - but happy with my 9/1 on Starmer as next PM, and with my bets that Boris survives to 2023, 2024 or longer.
I agree your Starmer Next PM bet. I have him at that price too. Great value. He should be favourite. Should be under 5. Don't agree a Con majority is more likely than NOM though. Remember the start point here was a 'new' Brexit BoJo government with a 12% margin. Since then there's been 2 'rally round' national emergencies which have squeezed out the Opposition. That the Cons now trail is imo bad news for them. The traditional 'swingback' can't be counted on.
Comments
Instead they just get (pardon me) ars*licking, and amateur PR operatives.
If it is going to be a worthwhile thing, it has to get a hell of a lot better.
If he’s behind he might decide rolling the dice is worth it.
Or he might actually be the coward he seems to be.
One question that wasn't answered in the article was the current production rate, or what the surge production rate would be.
He was the only one not to have his button done up for the big photo, may have been better if he had done his button up.
But its what he is delivering what matters. Onto the EU now, where Boris and Biden have German surrender on Russian oil and coal in the bag. Maybe they should take the surrender in a symbolic way, on a tram parked outside a power station.
Nicola has "no recollection" of said big boy.
Look at the polling in 2008 - consistent Tory lead and one or two showing lead of upwards of 20% lead. Two years later - Tories couldn't scrape a majority. And Labour have a bigger hill to climb now than Cameron ever did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2010_United_Kingdom_general_election
Mid-term polls are meaningless in predicting an Election two years out.
EDIT: Spanish Legion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Legion
Big Dog did it and hid in a fridge.
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1506997848348446722/photo/1
Come on, from the endless bashing of Sunak on here it must be easy to square the circle of income vs expenditure during an energy crisis and European war. What is Labour's comprehensive plan? Where's the meat? Or are we just going to have to look at Starmer with his standard "I've just pissed myself" smile and listen to half-baked generalist platitudes and general waffle about "fairness".
Truth is it’s not a similar pattern across all the country. Labour edging ahead in national polls disguises the fact they are piling on extra votes in metropolitan areas like London, where they already have the seats, taking those with massive majorities completely hollow on election night if they don’t get above 265 seats. This is because as the Tories have all those midlands seats already in the bag now, in mid term nadir, then they definitely have them at the end of election campaign. Starmer is coming from too low a base in MPs whilst making not enough ground up in places like the midlands, just not far enough ahead to become PM on any of the polls.
What would you think if Invaded Ukraine?
Would you stand up and March in with me?
Lend me your troops and I'll bring them back dead
And I'll try not to start world war 3
Oh, I will fight with a little help from my friends
Mmm, I get fried with a little help from my friends
Ooh, I'm gonna die with a little help from my friends
I'm suggesting that they can use their existing, degraded, capacity more effectively by not trying to advance simultaneously on multiple axes.
What a prat. The only thing in this sorry affair which makes him look good is sending Simon Clarke onto a media round to try and defend this. Simon can't believe he got a promotion into cabinet and will say anything with sincerity to stay there.
Edit - I also now have an image of a bunch of irregulars going the full TE Lawrence on them.
https://twitter.com/LostWeapons/status/1506774971749584898
Not sure what 25,000 railway soldiers are going to do to prevent that.
Flute and violin playing Grammar school boy (so another Labour leader benefitting from selective education despite not thinking it's ok for anyone else). Oh and then progressing to an editor of a radical left-wing rag. Then a lawyer etc.
Other than that, well, one can see what a working-class hero he is.
Your seven lines alone better than 2 series of spitting image
Oh dear, @Leon will be devastated
My comment was related to TCIF's behaviour, not Sunak personally.
PB is pretty aligned with all polling saying this budget is a disaster.
And as one of the first who said we'd get sustained Labour leads, looks I was more in tune than you.
Despite the on the face of it bad Poll for Starmer, I see yesterdays tone deaf budget as a turning point for Labour
Even Starmer has a chance of beating a Tory party that shrugs its shoulders as people cry out for emergency help with the cost of living crisis.
"Any other leader would be 20pts ahead" mind, as they used to say when Corbyn was ahead.
The Tories may very lose the next Election but then again they may increase their majority. You have no idea.
https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1507001983374266377?s=20&t=BxX84YQZ0YH3Ic7D19_SIQ
Soooo stuck in my head already
What would you think if I invaded Ukraine -
Would you stand up and March in with me?
Lend me your sons and I'll bring them back dead,
And I'll try not to start world war 3
Oh, I will fight with a little help from my friends,
Mmm, I get fried with a little help from my friends,
Ooh, I'm gonna die with a little help from my friends…
I wonder if his time doing holiday jobs as a waiter at a family friend’s Indian restaurant influenced his push on “Eat out to Help out”?
https://smarkets.com/event/42632630/politics/uk/opinion-polling/2022/03/31/00-00/conservative-poll-lead-in-march
If the Partygate polls were a low point and these polls are a high point, we're looking at a single figure labour lead of around 5% tops. However, if we compare this to polls at a similar stage of other Governments, I'm not sure Labour is doing enough.
Take 2007-9 ahead of the 2010 election where there was a change of Government. March-December 2008 had Tory leads typically in the 10-20% region. Even after the Brown bounce in early 2007, polling reverted to an average Tory lead of around 8% from November 2007-Feb 2008 although there were 2 polls showing labour 1% ahead. Here the Tories only got in as the largest party in a hung parliament.
In 2012-14, Labour dominated. Early 2012 up to March was close, but April-December 2012 all polls showed Labour ahead, average lead 8%. 2013 Labour continued their domination and their average advantage went up to 10%. In 2014 the gap narrowed with mostly single figure labour leads and the occasional Tory lead. The Tories won a small majority at the next election.
The run-up to 1992 was more complex due to the Major Bounce in 1991. The end of Thatcher in 1990 saw Labour leads of 15-20% and post the Major Bounce, the majority of polls favoured Labour, with the occasional Tory lead or tie - average Labour lead similar to what we have now. Again, the Tories scraped in.
To me this has the feeling of a 2015 or a 1992, a small Tory majority next time. Of course much can change, but at present there's little in the polling to sway me from my view that this site as a whole overestimates Starmer and underestimates Boris, and massively overestimates the possibility that Boris will be knifed by his own Party. Small Tory majority still the most likely result - but happy with my 9/1 on Starmer as next PM, and with my bets that Boris survives to 2023, 2024 or longer.
The BBC slot is clearly designed to try and go viral to "bust" Putin myths. And it is obviously a total load of horseshit that Ukraine is under the control of Hitler acolytes. I just think it tries too hard to the extent it is whitewashing this issue.
Weirdly the same BBC put out articles a couple of weeks ago saying football "Ultras" are all Far-Right. And highlighting how widespread it is in Poland, and they hassling non-white refugees. Which I believe they had to correct.
If you don't give a toss about class I guess it's no issue either way. Just your comment was all about class so I thought you did.
What annoys me about these programmes is how lazy the journalism is. The journalists rarely do any sort of digging around to get different views or, indeed, to get a view from the people who they know - or ought to - will have relevant information.
Just give me 50 frames a second for long enough.
With the Centurion, he simply attached a chain and dragged it back to the workshop.
Another recent poll had LLG at 48% which was above the recent range.
I expect to see some more Tory-Labour switching following the budget, probably bypassing both LDs and Greens. Would say 12% is probably a ceiling for the yellows in this parliament.