Howdy, Stranger!

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

Today just about everybody gets poorer – politicalbetting.com

1234568»

Comments

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343
    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Every forecast I've seen recently, from the New Statesman to ElectoralCalculus, is putting a coalition of Labour, LDs, Greens, Plaid Cymru and SDLP short of a majority. In other words, the SNP would hold the balance of power.

    There are for practical purposes no seats where Lab and LD are in contest for places 1 and 2 in a GE. In every relevant seat bar one or two the contest is Lab or LD (occasionally both) v the Tories. There is no logic whatever in both parties contesting all seats. The voters (ignore the parties themselves) believe it is Tory v Labour or Tory v LD. Never LD v labour.

    By contesting all seats the centre left make it surer the Tories will win.

    The SNP will, obvs, never support the Tories and would generally back a nonTory coalition, who could firm up the SNP support by pledging to support IndyRef2 at any time apart from the present moment or immediate future, thus agreeing with Nichola's extremely effective policy to keep all the jobs she can for the SNP boys and girls in perpetuity.


    There are a few seats where the Tories were 3rd. Cambridge, Streatham and Hornsey and Wood Green had Labour 1st and the LDs 2nd in 2019 for instance, so are basically Labour v LD marginals
    Agree. You can add Sheffield Hallam to that. Few - very few - is the operative word.

    Plus Vauxhall and both Islington seats are Labour v LD seats. Very few maybe but still 10 seats or so in England where the Tories are not in contention and also 1 or 2 in Wales like Ceredigion where the battle is Plaid v LD
    And anyway, those seats make no difference to the argument. None of them are contests between centre right and centre left. But almost every seat in E and W is such a contest, and a fortiori every relevant winnable seat is too. (Scotland is like the past, they do things differently there)

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    edited April 2022

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Every forecast I've seen recently, from the New Statesman to ElectoralCalculus, is putting a coalition of Labour, LDs, Greens, Plaid Cymru and SDLP short of a majority. In other words, the SNP would hold the balance of power.

    There are for practical purposes no seats where Lab and LD are in contest for places 1 and 2 in a GE. In every relevant seat bar one or two the contest is Lab or LD (occasionally both) v the Tories. There is no logic whatever in both parties contesting all seats. The voters (ignore the parties themselves) believe it is Tory v Labour or Tory v LD. Never LD v labour.

    By contesting all seats the centre left make it surer the Tories will win.

    The SNP will, obvs, never support the Tories and would generally back a nonTory coalition, who could firm up the SNP support by pledging to support IndyRef2 at any time apart from the present moment or immediate future, thus agreeing with Nichola's extremely effective policy to keep all the jobs she can for the SNP boys and girls in perpetuity.


    Both LAB and the LDs have to put up candidates in all seats. This is vital to understand. They just don't campaign in seats where the other is best placed to beat the Tory. Just think back to the December by-elections.
    Mike is right in practice - not everyone votes tactically, and both parties feel they need to offer an option to support them, either to mark that they particularly like that party, or possibly because they don't think the "other" party is acceptable.

    However, it should I think be the normal practice that the party which came 2nd to the Tories is tolerated by the other non-Tories when they put out "only we can beat the Tories" bar charts, and parties that came 3rd or 4th limit their campaigns and restrict them to saying "We're wonderful, so vote for us". Then voters can decide with pretty clear information whether to vote for their favourite party or for the party mostly likely to beat the Conservatives.

    There will be a few seats where it's unclear - say Con 40 Lab 30 LD 29 (or vice versa). It's arguable that Labour has improved nationally since last time so they should be seen as close, or that the LibDems have a better chance of winning over Tories. But for simplicity and clarity I hope that both parties will be sensible enough to focus elsewhere if they were third.

    The position of the Greens is more difficult, since there are roughly zero seats that they can realistically expect to gain from the Tories, so why would they want an arrangement? On the whole, they don't, and the "realistic" challenger has to brandish bar charts and hope that Green voters will get the message. A little discreet assistance to the Greens to gain council wards may sometimes help.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    A simple way to understand which seats the Lib Dems are focusing their limited resources is to identify which seats have already got prospective parliamentary candidates selected.

    Helpfully, Mark Pack has a list on his website:

    https://www.markpack.org.uk/167842/liberal-democrat-prospective-parliamentary-candidates/

    It's an interesting list. Only Windsor, Wycombe, Leeds NW and Mid Sussex I would say are completely unwinnable for the LDs at the next GE (although I don't think they have much chance in Cities of London and Westminster or Sheffield Hallam either) but the rest makes sense. I'm also a bit surprised they've replaced Phillip Lee in Wokingham.
    Interesting to see Andrew George still trying to win back St Ives which he lost in 2015. Missed by just 300 in 2017, but Tory lead over 4,000 in 2019. So it is doable but not in the bag. Imagine it's a Brexity sort of place.
    It's the least Brexity place in Cornwall, only 55/45 Leave
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,094
    edited April 2022
    ..
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Every forecast I've seen recently, from the New Statesman to ElectoralCalculus, is putting a coalition of Labour, LDs, Greens, Plaid Cymru and SDLP short of a majority. In other words, the SNP would hold the balance of power.

    There are for practical purposes no seats where Lab and LD are in contest for places 1 and 2 in a GE. In every relevant seat bar one or two the contest is Lab or LD (occasionally both) v the Tories. There is no logic whatever in both parties contesting all seats. The voters (ignore the parties themselves) believe it is Tory v Labour or Tory v LD. Never LD v labour.

    By contesting all seats the centre left make it surer the Tories will win.

    The SNP will, obvs, never support the Tories and would generally back a nonTory coalition, who could firm up the SNP support by pledging to support IndyRef2 at any time apart from the present moment or immediate future, thus agreeing with Nichola's extremely effective policy to keep all the jobs she can for the SNP boys and girls in perpetuity.


    There are a few seats where the Tories were 3rd. Cambridge, Streatham and Hornsey and Wood Green had Labour 1st and the LDs 2nd in 2019 for instance, so are basically Labour v LD marginals
    Agree. You can add Sheffield Hallam to that. Few - very few - is the operative word.

    Plus Vauxhall, Bermondsey and Old Southwark and both Islington seats are Labour v LD seats. Very few maybe but still 10 seats or so in England where the Tories are not in contention and also 1 or 2 in Wales like Ceredigion where the battle is normally Plaid v LD and Arfon where it is Plaid v Labour
    Bristol West is Labour v Green too
  • Gary_BurtonGary_Burton Posts: 737
    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Every forecast I've seen recently, from the New Statesman to ElectoralCalculus, is putting a coalition of Labour, LDs, Greens, Plaid Cymru and SDLP short of a majority. In other words, the SNP would hold the balance of power.

    There are for practical purposes no seats where Lab and LD are in contest for places 1 and 2 in a GE. In every relevant seat bar one or two the contest is Lab or LD (occasionally both) v the Tories. There is no logic whatever in both parties contesting all seats. The voters (ignore the parties themselves) believe it is Tory v Labour or Tory v LD. Never LD v labour.

    By contesting all seats the centre left make it surer the Tories will win.

    The SNP will, obvs, never support the Tories and would generally back a nonTory coalition, who could firm up the SNP support by pledging to support IndyRef2 at any time apart from the present moment or immediate future, thus agreeing with Nichola's extremely effective policy to keep all the jobs she can for the SNP boys and girls in perpetuity.


    Both LAB and the LDs have to put up candidates in all seats. This is vital to understand. They just don't campaign in seats where the other is best placed to beat the Tory. Just think back to the December by-elections.
    Noted; but as Labour have not won an election without the Blair factor since 1974 does it need either a Blair leader who demolishes everything in sight or does the centre left need some new thinking about how to win elections without a genius in charge?

    I think the LDs are irrelevant in most constituencies in TBH and will lose their deposit in most Con-Lab marginals like in 2017. I would only question the wisdom of Labour standing in a handful of places such as Dominic Raab's seat where they lost their deposit last time.

    Personally I think Labour should be more open to deals at a local level with LDs /Greens etc but I can understand why it's more unworkable for them in a GE (particularly with the Greens).
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:
    HY was spot on actually with a post yesterday, you only get 4%+ Labour lead at the moment by stealing from Lib Dems and greens to a degree that looks unreal. I’ll add the fact the combined Lab, ldem, and green total has been dropping quite sharply recently, nearer just 50 now than 57. I’ll also throw in, in this yougov poll, reform + Tory = labour Behind?
    I follow the aggregate Lab/Lib/Green share. It's important because in our polarized politics, with wedge issues and 'values' trumping more traditional debates around tax & spend, people having to choose a side even if they'd rather not, what we could be looking at at the next election is a bit of an American type 'trads v progs' situation, a binary fight where one of the 2 sides will prevail and form the government, Tories outright or Labour in a loose alliance.

    That's the sort of election the Tories have in mind. They'll seek to paint Labour, in an impressionistic way rather than based on official policy positions, as unsafe on traditional values, and other parties on the centre left as enablers of this. This, plus "vote Starmer get Sturgeon" is going to be the Tory pitch. It's unedifying but they have no choice, really, because with their Brexitification, and the man they've embraced as leader, on most substantial issues they've become, not to put too fine a point on it, intellectually vacant.
    I wonder if, when push comes to shove, a lot of 'Conservative' voters will be 'unable' to vote for the current PM & cabinet and simply stay at home.
    I wonder that too. I wonder it very intensely!

    We can get a handle on it from here. Let's see when the GE is upon us how many PB Tories, many of whom by that time will have written squillions of posts saying what a disgrace Johnson is, are nevertheless planning to 'hold their nose' because the prospect of a Labour government relying on SNP support is just *too* horrendous for words.

    See, I'm getting pissed off already.
    *Raises hand*

    I don't want to vote for a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson. It's not his record - which I maintain is ok on the big stuff - I just don't want him as Prime Minister. But in all honesty I didn't want to vote for a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson last time, and still did because the alternative was Corbyn. And actually, Boris has more than exceeded mylow expectations. If Boris was facing a nutter again I would be more likely to vote for him, not less.

    But I'm almost certainly not going to vote Labour. They appear to be going for dully competent, but it's not apparent from this angle that they'd be doing anything better than the Conservatives. And they - and particularly my local MP - were far too pro-lockdown. But yes - while the prospect of PM Starmer is no worse than underwhelming, the prospect of deputy PM Blackford or Sturgeon IS too horrendous for words. I'm not against Scottish independence on principle, but I am against the SNP having a say in the governance of the UK. The SNP have absolutely no interest in a functioning United Kingdom- in fact, it is inimical to what they are trying to achieve - and to invite them to help govern England would be insane. Plus, aside from their constitutional position, they are pretty much diametrically opposite me politically.

    See, Boris is a poor PM, but that is only one of a number of issues which needs weighing up. It's not, for me, unlike you I think, 'literally anyone but Boris' in the same way that the last election was 'literally anyone but Corbyn'.

    Actually, I have the luxury of living in a safe seat, so I can vote for who I want, not against who I don't want (though I still voted Con last time because the slightest chance of keeping Corbyn out was worth taking). So I'd like to give the Lib Dems a good look - I liked the approach they took to the pandemic, and if the last two years have shown us anything it's that liberty can't be taken for granted. They're probably winning for me at the moment. Not least because But if they run another campaign like last time which felt like it was designed explicitly to alienate me I expect I'll go off them.

    Obviously I'm not going to vote for the Green Party and barring anyone unexpectedly suitable turning up in Wythenshawe and Sale East probably not any of the other rag, tag and bobtail parties.
    I can't see as Johnson has been getting lots of big calls right and I actually reckon Nicola Sturgeon is more concerned with improving the lives of people in England than he is. For her it's a deeply secondary matter, compared to all things Scotland, but with the limited bandwidth she has left she'd probably be up for it. For him it's not on the radar. It doesn't get a look in. It's 100% about himself.

    But we all vote how we want for the reasons we have. Which is great really. And if you go for LD, having done the Bad Thing last time, it's a good sign as far as I'm concerned. It'll mean Con seats (even if not yours) are going to fall to the LDs in places which don't have it in them to elect a Labour MP. This is on the critical path to GTTO. If that aspect doesn't materialize, the LDs taking a bunch of such seats, we're looking at years more of Johnson and whatever this Tory Party thinks it is after Brexit and under him.
    You should have a bit more humility having supported Corbyn last time. Seriously, imagine Ukraine with a Corbyn PM.
    Hardly something to drench the sheets thinking about. We're bit players in this. The fact of the invasion wasn't influenced by who the British PM is and neither will be how it pans out.
    UK equipment support has been significant and Corbyn would have disrupted NATO decision making but invited Putin for a cuppa.
    Significant but in no way pivotal and I doubt all of that on Corbyn. He messed up on Salisbury but on the whole has a stronger anti-Putin back catalogue than many on the right of politics, inc many Tories. Goes right back to Chechnya. Furthermore, not so in thrall to Russian money as the guys we have in charge now. And he'd have probably been better on refugees too.

    Anyway, none of this is provable either way. The notion that PM Corbyn cf PM Johnson would have made a material negative difference to the Ukraine war is imo just another example of what I call "Having Voted For Johnson Derangement Syndrome".

    HVFJDS for short.

    It's all an attempt to 'manage' the troubled deep interiors caused by being suckered by an arch conman. Self-respect is at stake. Because that's what conmen do - they strip their victims of that.
    I think it is you who is in denial. Corbyn has just signed the Stop the War petition that blames the West for Russia's actions and effectively calls on Ukraine to stop resisting. I voted LD but would reluctantly have voted Tory to stop Corbyn. Corbyn as PM would have been a shocking historical event that you were prepared to risk.
    PM Corbyn would have been a risk, no question. I'd have been a little nervous myself, if I'm honest, although my main problem with him was on absence of grey matter. I liked much of the policy platform and the values and rhetoric. But, c'mon, regardless of that, this notion that his hypothetical election would have made some big difference to this war is a massive massive stretch. It's just a bit of an odd thing to say imo.

    And, ok, of course I'm bantering with the HVFJDS, and it sounds like you didn't, so I withdraw in your case, but as it becomes increasingly clear that we have a PM utterly unfit for office who the Tory Party are going to insist stands again, I have detected a great deal of this "but oh god, Corbyn" displacement activity from what I think are known in these parts as PB Tories.
    Yes. It's odd of the Tories to keep going on and on about Mr Corbyn. He's not even a Labour MP, let alone shadow cabinet member or LotO. It's as if SKS kept going on and on and on about what an evil party the Tories must be to have Mrs May or Mr Cameron in charge, ditto how awful Ms Swinson's policies were.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:
    HY was spot on actually with a post yesterday, you only get 4%+ Labour lead at the moment by stealing from Lib Dems and greens to a degree that looks unreal. I’ll add the fact the combined Lab, ldem, and green total has been dropping quite sharply recently, nearer just 50 now than 57. I’ll also throw in, in this yougov poll, reform + Tory = labour Behind?
    I follow the aggregate Lab/Lib/Green share. It's important because in our polarized politics, with wedge issues and 'values' trumping more traditional debates around tax & spend, people having to choose a side even if they'd rather not, what we could be looking at at the next election is a bit of an American type 'trads v progs' situation, a binary fight where one of the 2 sides will prevail and form the government, Tories outright or Labour in a loose alliance.

    That's the sort of election the Tories have in mind. They'll seek to paint Labour, in an impressionistic way rather than based on official policy positions, as unsafe on traditional values, and other parties on the centre left as enablers of this. This, plus "vote Starmer get Sturgeon" is going to be the Tory pitch. It's unedifying but they have no choice, really, because with their Brexitification, and the man they've embraced as leader, on most substantial issues they've become, not to put too fine a point on it, intellectually vacant.
    I wonder if, when push comes to shove, a lot of 'Conservative' voters will be 'unable' to vote for the current PM & cabinet and simply stay at home.
    I wonder that too. I wonder it very intensely!

    We can get a handle on it from here. Let's see when the GE is upon us how many PB Tories, many of whom by that time will have written squillions of posts saying what a disgrace Johnson is, are nevertheless planning to 'hold their nose' because the prospect of a Labour government relying on SNP support is just *too* horrendous for words.

    See, I'm getting pissed off already.
    *Raises hand*

    I don't want to vote for a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson. It's not his record - which I maintain is ok on the big stuff - I just don't want him as Prime Minister. But in all honesty I didn't want to vote for a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson last time, and still did because the alternative was Corbyn. And actually, Boris has more than exceeded mylow expectations. If Boris was facing a nutter again I would be more likely to vote for him, not less.

    But I'm almost certainly not going to vote Labour. They appear to be going for dully competent, but it's not apparent from this angle that they'd be doing anything better than the Conservatives. And they - and particularly my local MP - were far too pro-lockdown. But yes - while the prospect of PM Starmer is no worse than underwhelming, the prospect of deputy PM Blackford or Sturgeon IS too horrendous for words. I'm not against Scottish independence on principle, but I am against the SNP having a say in the governance of the UK. The SNP have absolutely no interest in a functioning United Kingdom- in fact, it is inimical to what they are trying to achieve - and to invite them to help govern England would be insane. Plus, aside from their constitutional position, they are pretty much diametrically opposite me politically.

    See, Boris is a poor PM, but that is only one of a number of issues which needs weighing up. It's not, for me, unlike you I think, 'literally anyone but Boris' in the same way that the last election was 'literally anyone but Corbyn'.

    Actually, I have the luxury of living in a safe seat, so I can vote for who I want, not against who I don't want (though I still voted Con last time because the slightest chance of keeping Corbyn out was worth taking). So I'd like to give the Lib Dems a good look - I liked the approach they took to the pandemic, and if the last two years have shown us anything it's that liberty can't be taken for granted. They're probably winning for me at the moment. Not least because But if they run another campaign like last time which felt like it was designed explicitly to alienate me I expect I'll go off them.

    Obviously I'm not going to vote for the Green Party and barring anyone unexpectedly suitable turning up in Wythenshawe and Sale East probably not any of the other rag, tag and bobtail parties.
    I can't see as Johnson has been getting lots of big calls right and I actually reckon Nicola Sturgeon is more concerned with improving the lives of people in England than he is. For her it's a deeply secondary matter, compared to all things Scotland, but with the limited bandwidth she has left she'd probably be up for it. For him it's not on the radar. It doesn't get a look in. It's 100% about himself.

    But we all vote how we want for the reasons we have. Which is great really. And if you go for LD, having done the Bad Thing last time, it's a good sign as far as I'm concerned. It'll mean Con seats (even if not yours) are going to fall to the LDs in places which don't have it in them to elect a Labour MP. This is on the critical path to GTTO. If that aspect doesn't materialize, the LDs taking a bunch of such seats, we're looking at years more of Johnson and whatever this Tory Party thinks it is after Brexit and under him.
    You should have a bit more humility having supported Corbyn last time. Seriously, imagine Ukraine with a Corbyn PM.
    Hardly something to drench the sheets thinking about. We're bit players in this. The fact of the invasion wasn't influenced by who the British PM is and neither will be how it pans out.
    UK equipment support has been significant and Corbyn would have disrupted NATO decision making but invited Putin for a cuppa.
    Significant but in no way pivotal and I doubt all of that on Corbyn. He messed up on Salisbury but on the whole has a stronger anti-Putin back catalogue than many on the right of politics, inc many Tories. Goes right back to Chechnya. Furthermore, not so in thrall to Russian money as the guys we have in charge now. And he'd have probably been better on refugees too.

    Anyway, none of this is provable either way. The notion that PM Corbyn cf PM Johnson would have made a material negative difference to the Ukraine war is imo just another example of what I call "Having Voted For Johnson Derangement Syndrome".

    HVFJDS for short.

    It's all an attempt to 'manage' the troubled deep interiors caused by being suckered by an arch conman. Self-respect is at stake. Because that's what conmen do - they strip their victims of that.
    I would generally agree that who is PM would make little difference. And certainly that would be true if we're talking Starmer.

    But, frankly, not of Corbyn. His basic premise is that the wrong side won the Cold War. He is profoundly anti-American and hates NATO.

    To say he "messed up" on Salisbury and just dismiss it is laughable. His approach to that tells you all you need to know about him.
    Corbyn was attacking Putin for his aggressions at the same time as George Bush and Tony Blair were loving up with him and "getting a sense of his soul".
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    Is there a reason why the Ukrainians wouldn't want to say they hit the oil depot in Belgorod? I'm trying to understand why they're giving it the old "neither confirm nor deny" routine.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 2,181

    President Putin was visited by a cancer surgeon 35 times in four years at his Black Sea residence, an investigation has claimed.

    As Putin approaches his 70th birthday, he is attended by a brigade of doctors including Yevgeny Selivanov, an oncology surgeon who specialises in thyroid cancer, according to Proyekt, a Russian investigative journalism group.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cancer-surgeon-visited-putin-35-times-in-four-years-gkflcsvfg

    He is either the world biggest hypochondriac or he might have something wrong with him.
    Well if he does then I hope it kills him quickly and probably painfully.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Every forecast I've seen recently, from the New Statesman to ElectoralCalculus, is putting a coalition of Labour, LDs, Greens, Plaid Cymru and SDLP short of a majority. In other words, the SNP would hold the balance of power.

    There are for practical purposes no seats where Lab and LD are in contest for places 1 and 2 in a GE. In every relevant seat bar one or two the contest is Lab or LD (occasionally both) v the Tories. There is no logic whatever in both parties contesting all seats. The voters (ignore the parties themselves) believe it is Tory v Labour or Tory v LD. Never LD v labour.

    By contesting all seats the centre left make it surer the Tories will win.

    The SNP will, obvs, never support the Tories and would generally back a nonTory coalition, who could firm up the SNP support by pledging to support IndyRef2 at any time apart from the present moment or immediate future, thus agreeing with Nichola's extremely effective policy to keep all the jobs she can for the SNP boys and girls in perpetuity.


    Both LAB and the LDs have to put up candidates in all seats. This is vital to understand. They just don't campaign in seats where the other is best placed to beat the Tory. Just think back to the December by-elections.
    Noted; but as Labour have not won an election without the Blair factor since 1974 does it need either a Blair leader who demolishes everything in sight or does the centre left need some new thinking about how to win elections without a genius in charge?

    I think the LDs are irrelevant in most constituencies in TBH and will lose their deposit in most Con-Lab marginals like in 2017. I would only question the wisdom of Labour standing in a handful of places such as Dominic Raab's seat where they lost their deposit last time.

    Personally I think Labour should be more open to deals at a local level with LDs /Greens etc but I can understand why it's more unworkable for them in a GE (particularly with the Greens).
    If the LDs are in the 12-14% range at the next GE, then they will lose relatively few deposits outside Scotland/Wales.

    Of course, if they're in single digits (which is far from impossible) then it will be a different story.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Every forecast I've seen recently, from the New Statesman to ElectoralCalculus, is putting a coalition of Labour, LDs, Greens, Plaid Cymru and SDLP short of a majority. In other words, the SNP would hold the balance of power.

    Yes but if Labour win most seats in a hung parliament and unless the SNP vote with the Tories, Starmer could become PM and get most bills through
    True but it's a bit of an indictment of the so-called popularity of a potential "rainbow coalition" that they don't seem to be able to win a majority even though it consists of about 5 parties (not including the SNP).
    The ludicrous gerrymandered boundaries might have something to do with it...
    I think that is rather exagerrated. The boundaries seem to provoke the same level of localised ire at the BCE proposals as any others.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Now Yezhov an election campaign to run, now Yez hoven't .
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Germany to allow the Czech Republic to send old East German tanks to Ukraine.

    https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1509919047785369600

    image
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:
    HY was spot on actually with a post yesterday, you only get 4%+ Labour lead at the moment by stealing from Lib Dems and greens to a degree that looks unreal. I’ll add the fact the combined Lab, ldem, and green total has been dropping quite sharply recently, nearer just 50 now than 57. I’ll also throw in, in this yougov poll, reform + Tory = labour Behind?
    I follow the aggregate Lab/Lib/Green share. It's important because in our polarized politics, with wedge issues and 'values' trumping more traditional debates around tax & spend, people having to choose a side even if they'd rather not, what we could be looking at at the next election is a bit of an American type 'trads v progs' situation, a binary fight where one of the 2 sides will prevail and form the government, Tories outright or Labour in a loose alliance.

    That's the sort of election the Tories have in mind. They'll seek to paint Labour, in an impressionistic way rather than based on official policy positions, as unsafe on traditional values, and other parties on the centre left as enablers of this. This, plus "vote Starmer get Sturgeon" is going to be the Tory pitch. It's unedifying but they have no choice, really, because with their Brexitification, and the man they've embraced as leader, on most substantial issues they've become, not to put too fine a point on it, intellectually vacant.
    I wonder if, when push comes to shove, a lot of 'Conservative' voters will be 'unable' to vote for the current PM & cabinet and simply stay at home.
    I wonder that too. I wonder it very intensely!

    We can get a handle on it from here. Let's see when the GE is upon us how many PB Tories, many of whom by that time will have written squillions of posts saying what a disgrace Johnson is, are nevertheless planning to 'hold their nose' because the prospect of a Labour government relying on SNP support is just *too* horrendous for words.

    See, I'm getting pissed off already.
    *Raises hand*

    I don't want to vote for a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson. It's not his record - which I maintain is ok on the big stuff - I just don't want him as Prime Minister. But in all honesty I didn't want to vote for a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson last time, and still did because the alternative was Corbyn. And actually, Boris has more than exceeded mylow expectations. If Boris was facing a nutter again I would be more likely to vote for him, not less.

    But I'm almost certainly not going to vote Labour. They appear to be going for dully competent, but it's not apparent from this angle that they'd be doing anything better than the Conservatives. And they - and particularly my local MP - were far too pro-lockdown. But yes - while the prospect of PM Starmer is no worse than underwhelming, the prospect of deputy PM Blackford or Sturgeon IS too horrendous for words. I'm not against Scottish independence on principle, but I am against the SNP having a say in the governance of the UK. The SNP have absolutely no interest in a functioning United Kingdom- in fact, it is inimical to what they are trying to achieve - and to invite them to help govern England would be insane. Plus, aside from their constitutional position, they are pretty much diametrically opposite me politically.

    See, Boris is a poor PM, but that is only one of a number of issues which needs weighing up. It's not, for me, unlike you I think, 'literally anyone but Boris' in the same way that the last election was 'literally anyone but Corbyn'.

    Actually, I have the luxury of living in a safe seat, so I can vote for who I want, not against who I don't want (though I still voted Con last time because the slightest chance of keeping Corbyn out was worth taking). So I'd like to give the Lib Dems a good look - I liked the approach they took to the pandemic, and if the last two years have shown us anything it's that liberty can't be taken for granted. They're probably winning for me at the moment. Not least because But if they run another campaign like last time which felt like it was designed explicitly to alienate me I expect I'll go off them.

    Obviously I'm not going to vote for the Green Party and barring anyone unexpectedly suitable turning up in Wythenshawe and Sale East probably not any of the other rag, tag and bobtail parties.
    I can't see as Johnson has been getting lots of big calls right and I actually reckon Nicola Sturgeon is more concerned with improving the lives of people in England than he is. For her it's a deeply secondary matter, compared to all things Scotland, but with the limited bandwidth she has left she'd probably be up for it. For him it's not on the radar. It doesn't get a look in. It's 100% about himself.

    But we all vote how we want for the reasons we have. Which is great really. And if you go for LD, having done the Bad Thing last time, it's a good sign as far as I'm concerned. It'll mean Con seats (even if not yours) are going to fall to the LDs in places which don't have it in them to elect a Labour MP. This is on the critical path to GTTO. If that aspect doesn't materialize, the LDs taking a bunch of such seats, we're looking at years more of Johnson and whatever this Tory Party thinks it is after Brexit and under him.
    You should have a bit more humility having supported Corbyn last time. Seriously, imagine Ukraine with a Corbyn PM.
    Hardly something to drench the sheets thinking about. We're bit players in this. The fact of the invasion wasn't influenced by who the British PM is and neither will be how it pans out.
    UK equipment support has been significant and Corbyn would have disrupted NATO decision making but invited Putin for a cuppa.
    Significant but in no way pivotal and I doubt all of that on Corbyn. He messed up on Salisbury but on the whole has a stronger anti-Putin back catalogue than many on the right of politics, inc many Tories. Goes right back to Chechnya. Furthermore, not so in thrall to Russian money as the guys we have in charge now. And he'd have probably been better on refugees too.

    Anyway, none of this is provable either way. The notion that PM Corbyn cf PM Johnson would have made a material negative difference to the Ukraine war is imo just another example of what I call "Having Voted For Johnson Derangement Syndrome".

    HVFJDS for short.

    It's all an attempt to 'manage' the troubled deep interiors caused by being suckered by an arch conman. Self-respect is at stake. Because that's what conmen do - they strip their victims of that.
    I would generally agree that who is PM would make little difference. And certainly that would be true if we're talking Starmer.

    But, frankly, not of Corbyn. His basic premise is that the wrong side won the Cold War. He is profoundly anti-American and hates NATO.

    To say he "messed up" on Salisbury and just dismiss it is laughable. His approach to that tells you all you need to know about him.
    Corbyn was attacking Putin for his aggressions at the same time as George Bush and Tony Blair were loving up with him and "getting a sense of his soul".
    And yet when an actual incident occurred, or war occurred, his instinctual reactions spoke all too clearly even if he then modulated them.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:
    That is insouciant. It reminds me of a kid I knew (when I was one) who around Nov 5th time would pop a banger in his mouth, light it like a cigarette, and let it fizz for a couple of seconds, before taking it out and throwing it so it went BANG in the air. The horrible thing you visualize never happened thankfully. Hopefully the same with these guys.
    If those are anti-tank mines, then the pressure to set them off *should be* considerable.
    Yep. And bangers fizz for 5 seconds so you're safe as houses if you don't hold it in your mouth for more than, say, 2.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328

    Is there a reason why the Ukrainians wouldn't want to say they hit the oil depot in Belgorod? I'm trying to understand why they're giving it the old "neither confirm nor deny" routine.

    Mess with the Russians' heads? But it does seem a little silly, given the video evidence of missiles being shot at the depot from helicopters which then head back to Ukraine.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:
    HY was spot on actually with a post yesterday, you only get 4%+ Labour lead at the moment by stealing from Lib Dems and greens to a degree that looks unreal. I’ll add the fact the combined Lab, ldem, and green total has been dropping quite sharply recently, nearer just 50 now than 57. I’ll also throw in, in this yougov poll, reform + Tory = labour Behind?
    I follow the aggregate Lab/Lib/Green share. It's important because in our polarized politics, with wedge issues and 'values' trumping more traditional debates around tax & spend, people having to choose a side even if they'd rather not, what we could be looking at at the next election is a bit of an American type 'trads v progs' situation, a binary fight where one of the 2 sides will prevail and form the government, Tories outright or Labour in a loose alliance.

    That's the sort of election the Tories have in mind. They'll seek to paint Labour, in an impressionistic way rather than based on official policy positions, as unsafe on traditional values, and other parties on the centre left as enablers of this. This, plus "vote Starmer get Sturgeon" is going to be the Tory pitch. It's unedifying but they have no choice, really, because with their Brexitification, and the man they've embraced as leader, on most substantial issues they've become, not to put too fine a point on it, intellectually vacant.
    I wonder if, when push comes to shove, a lot of 'Conservative' voters will be 'unable' to vote for the current PM & cabinet and simply stay at home.
    I wonder that too. I wonder it very intensely!

    We can get a handle on it from here. Let's see when the GE is upon us how many PB Tories, many of whom by that time will have written squillions of posts saying what a disgrace Johnson is, are nevertheless planning to 'hold their nose' because the prospect of a Labour government relying on SNP support is just *too* horrendous for words.

    See, I'm getting pissed off already.
    *Raises hand*

    I don't want to vote for a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson. It's not his record - which I maintain is ok on the big stuff - I just don't want him as Prime Minister. But in all honesty I didn't want to vote for a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson last time, and still did because the alternative was Corbyn. And actually, Boris has more than exceeded mylow expectations. If Boris was facing a nutter again I would be more likely to vote for him, not less.

    But I'm almost certainly not going to vote Labour. They appear to be going for dully competent, but it's not apparent from this angle that they'd be doing anything better than the Conservatives. And they - and particularly my local MP - were far too pro-lockdown. But yes - while the prospect of PM Starmer is no worse than underwhelming, the prospect of deputy PM Blackford or Sturgeon IS too horrendous for words. I'm not against Scottish independence on principle, but I am against the SNP having a say in the governance of the UK. The SNP have absolutely no interest in a functioning United Kingdom- in fact, it is inimical to what they are trying to achieve - and to invite them to help govern England would be insane. Plus, aside from their constitutional position, they are pretty much diametrically opposite me politically.

    See, Boris is a poor PM, but that is only one of a number of issues which needs weighing up. It's not, for me, unlike you I think, 'literally anyone but Boris' in the same way that the last election was 'literally anyone but Corbyn'.

    Actually, I have the luxury of living in a safe seat, so I can vote for who I want, not against who I don't want (though I still voted Con last time because the slightest chance of keeping Corbyn out was worth taking). So I'd like to give the Lib Dems a good look - I liked the approach they took to the pandemic, and if the last two years have shown us anything it's that liberty can't be taken for granted. They're probably winning for me at the moment. Not least because But if they run another campaign like last time which felt like it was designed explicitly to alienate me I expect I'll go off them.

    Obviously I'm not going to vote for the Green Party and barring anyone unexpectedly suitable turning up in Wythenshawe and Sale East probably not any of the other rag, tag and bobtail parties.
    I can't see as Johnson has been getting lots of big calls right and I actually reckon Nicola Sturgeon is more concerned with improving the lives of people in England than he is. For her it's a deeply secondary matter, compared to all things Scotland, but with the limited bandwidth she has left she'd probably be up for it. For him it's not on the radar. It doesn't get a look in. It's 100% about himself.

    But we all vote how we want for the reasons we have. Which is great really. And if you go for LD, having done the Bad Thing last time, it's a good sign as far as I'm concerned. It'll mean Con seats (even if not yours) are going to fall to the LDs in places which don't have it in them to elect a Labour MP. This is on the critical path to GTTO. If that aspect doesn't materialize, the LDs taking a bunch of such seats, we're looking at years more of Johnson and whatever this Tory Party thinks it is after Brexit and under him.
    You should have a bit more humility having supported Corbyn last time. Seriously, imagine Ukraine with a Corbyn PM.
    Hardly something to drench the sheets thinking about. We're bit players in this. The fact of the invasion wasn't influenced by who the British PM is and neither will be how it pans out.
    UK equipment support has been significant and Corbyn would have disrupted NATO decision making but invited Putin for a cuppa.
    Significant but in no way pivotal and I doubt all of that on Corbyn. He messed up on Salisbury but on the whole has a stronger anti-Putin back catalogue than many on the right of politics, inc many Tories. Goes right back to Chechnya. Furthermore, not so in thrall to Russian money as the guys we have in charge now. And he'd have probably been better on refugees too.

    Anyway, none of this is provable either way. The notion that PM Corbyn cf PM Johnson would have made a material negative difference to the Ukraine war is imo just another example of what I call "Having Voted For Johnson Derangement Syndrome".

    HVFJDS for short.

    It's all an attempt to 'manage' the troubled deep interiors caused by being suckered by an arch conman. Self-respect is at stake. Because that's what conmen do - they strip their victims of that.
    I would generally agree that who is PM would make little difference. And certainly that would be true if we're talking Starmer.

    But, frankly, not of Corbyn. His basic premise is that the wrong side won the Cold War. He is profoundly anti-American and hates NATO.

    To say he "messed up" on Salisbury and just dismiss it is laughable. His approach to that tells you all you need to know about him.
    Corbyn was attacking Putin for his aggressions at the same time as George Bush and Tony Blair were loving up with him and "getting a sense of his soul".
    But that's the point - Corbyn's actions were dictated by those of the US/UK. Anything they do is bad, and so he is opposed. So when they change their policy he does too - in the opposite direction.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    TimT said:

    Is there a reason why the Ukrainians wouldn't want to say they hit the oil depot in Belgorod? I'm trying to understand why they're giving it the old "neither confirm nor deny" routine.

    Mess with the Russians' heads? But it does seem a little silly, given the video evidence of missiles being shot at the depot from helicopters which then head back to Ukraine.
    On reflection, maybe it is a little cleverer than that. Maybe they are trying to taunt the Russians into proving that it was a Ukrainian attack, theirby proving their own incompetence and vulnerability to the world and to the Russian people.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    rcs1000 said:

    A simple way to understand which seats the Lib Dems are focusing their limited resources is to identify which seats have already got prospective parliamentary candidates selected.

    Helpfully, Mark Pack has a list on his website:

    https://www.markpack.org.uk/167842/liberal-democrat-prospective-parliamentary-candidates/

    It's an interesting list. Only Windsor, Wycombe, Leeds NW and Mid Sussex I would say are completely unwinnable for the LDs at the next GE (although I don't think they have much chance in Cities of London and Westminster or Sheffield Hallam either) but the rest makes sense. I'm also a bit surprised they've replaced Phillip Lee in Wokingham.
    Interesting to see Andrew George still trying to win back St Ives which he lost in 2015. Missed by just 300 in 2017, but Tory lead over 4,000 in 2019. So it is doable but not in the bag. Imagine it's a Brexity sort of place.
    It's the least Brexity place in Cornwall, only 55/45 Leave
    Was going to say it has the only Pizza Express in Cornwall, but it seems it has shut down and there are 3 others. But it's a little piece of Fulham, not really cornish
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,094
    edited April 2022
    Am I right that BJ just reverse-ferreted his reverse-ferret so that he is now going to re-allow preemptively disallowed conversion therapy?

    Lordy.

    My excellent Latin lessons taught me future perfect ("will have") tense, but what is this. Past-future conditional (if it happens) subjunctive?


  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,454
    TimT said:

    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    TimT said:

    Nigelb said:

    The sanest (and one of the best informed) voices on the pandemic origins.

    https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1509904189853368323
    With all due respect for fact that different people have differing motives and sincerity, I think we need both more investigation of COVID-19 origins and more careful thought about safety of work with potential pandemic pathogens....

    I say this as someone who studies viral mutations and knows that virology (through vaccines) has probably saved more lives than any other biomedical field of study (except perhaps antibiotics)....

    But if you think there is even a 1% chance that a lab accident caused a pandemic that's taken ~18 million lives (and given all the unknowns in China, I think chance is substantially higher), that should cause some serious introspection by all scientists....

    I strongly disagree that more investigation of COVID origins is either warranted or helpful.

    Seeking origins cannot be divorced at this point from pinning blame or avoiding being blamed. It can only result in the pushing of alternative truths and division within the scientific community based on national and other loyalties.

    What is needed, and has already happened, is to consider ALL the ways in which COVID could have originated, and analyze how we can protect ourselves against each and every one of them going forward, or at least mitigate them to the extent possible.

    I have said this from the very moment the US started pushing for the Wuhan investigation in a way that was antagonistic. And what did that WHO effort achieve of value? I'd argue is was worse than useless as it pushed China and its supporters into a defensive crouch, rather than a learning one.
    Which is why I support Jesse Bloom's stance - he is trying to find a middle way, IMO.
    He appears to have quite a lot on common with your views.

    I think it's unrealistic to expect people to stop enquiring about Covid origins, which is why such an effort needs responsible voices.
    I'm sorry, this is ridiculous. Those same "responsible" voices have been casting doubt on anyone suggesting a lab leak and calling those who spoke out publicly all kinds of horrible things including being racist.

    This feels like another attempt by the scientific establishment to protect their Chinese funding arrangements.
    I have nothing to protect vis a vis Chinese funding. No connection whatsoever. I do have a strong, lifelong interest in protecting the UK, the West and the world against future biological threats. What serves learning now to prevent and mitigate future threats is the sole thing that motivates me. And it is my considered opinion that further efforts to 'get to the truth' will not only not do that, but will further damage our ability to learn and prepare.

    No doubt there are some who have egg on their faces for whom wrapping this all up would be convenient. But that still would not make pushing more investigations either right or useful.
    Propaganda on both sides will be too strong. Much of the west will never trust any report that says it was not from the lab, and Chinese people and those wary of the West will never trust any report that says it was from the lab.

    People already have their beliefs, and it is unprovable so how will those beliefs ever be shifted?

    Far more effective to work out how to reduce future similar events, or indeed not so similar if we can predict them, and their severity.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    A simple way to understand which seats the Lib Dems are focusing their limited resources is to identify which seats have already got prospective parliamentary candidates selected.

    Helpfully, Mark Pack has a list on his website:

    https://www.markpack.org.uk/167842/liberal-democrat-prospective-parliamentary-candidates/

    It's an interesting list. Only Windsor, Wycombe, Leeds NW and Mid Sussex I would say are completely unwinnable for the LDs at the next GE (although I don't think they have much chance in Cities of London and Westminster or Sheffield Hallam either) but the rest makes sense. I'm also a bit surprised they've replaced Phillip Lee in Wokingham.
    Interesting to see Andrew George still trying to win back St Ives which he lost in 2015. Missed by just 300 in 2017, but Tory lead over 4,000 in 2019. So it is doable but not in the bag. Imagine it's a Brexity sort of place.
    It's the least Brexity place in Cornwall, only 55/45 Leave
    Was going to say it has the only Pizza Express in Cornwall, but it seems it has shut down and there are 3 others. But it's a little piece of Fulham, not really cornish
    And I also had the best/cheapest haircut I've ever had there.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149

    Germany to allow the Czech Republic to send old East German tanks to Ukraine.

    https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1509919047785369600

    image

    Not tanks. APCs or IFVs (depending on the details).
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    A simple way to understand which seats the Lib Dems are focusing their limited resources is to identify which seats have already got prospective parliamentary candidates selected.

    Helpfully, Mark Pack has a list on his website:

    https://www.markpack.org.uk/167842/liberal-democrat-prospective-parliamentary-candidates/

    It's an interesting list. Only Windsor, Wycombe, Leeds NW and Mid Sussex I would say are completely unwinnable for the LDs at the next GE (although I don't think they have much chance in Cities of London and Westminster or Sheffield Hallam either) but the rest makes sense. I'm also a bit surprised they've replaced Phillip Lee in Wokingham.
    Interesting to see Andrew George still trying to win back St Ives which he lost in 2015. Missed by just 300 in 2017, but Tory lead over 4,000 in 2019. So it is doable but not in the bag. Imagine it's a Brexity sort of place.
    It's the least Brexity place in Cornwall, only 55/45 Leave
    Was going to say it has the only Pizza Express in Cornwall, but it seems it has shut down and there are 3 others. But it's a little piece of Fulham, not really cornish
    And I also had the best/cheapest haircut I've ever had there.
    Alas, the cheapest haircut I ever had (Barbados outside the cricket ground) was evidently (for about 5 weeks or so) not my best. :(
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    TimT said:

    Is there a reason why the Ukrainians wouldn't want to say they hit the oil depot in Belgorod? I'm trying to understand why they're giving it the old "neither confirm nor deny" routine.

    Mess with the Russians' heads? But it does seem a little silly, given the video evidence of missiles being shot at the depot from helicopters which then head back to Ukraine.
    Dezinformatsia, fun for its own sake. Plus scope for debate over legitimate military targets which it probably is, but better not to get into

    Who really benefit is the local Rosneft officials who know the depot contained about 10% of what it was meant to cos they had sold the rest on the side
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    New Thread

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    edited April 2022
    TimT said:

    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    TimT said:

    Nigelb said:

    The sanest (and one of the best informed) voices on the pandemic origins.

    https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1509904189853368323
    With all due respect for fact that different people have differing motives and sincerity, I think we need both more investigation of COVID-19 origins and more careful thought about safety of work with potential pandemic pathogens....

    I say this as someone who studies viral mutations and knows that virology (through vaccines) has probably saved more lives than any other biomedical field of study (except perhaps antibiotics)....

    But if you think there is even a 1% chance that a lab accident caused a pandemic that's taken ~18 million lives (and given all the unknowns in China, I think chance is substantially higher), that should cause some serious introspection by all scientists....

    I strongly disagree that more investigation of COVID origins is either warranted or helpful.

    Seeking origins cannot be divorced at this point from pinning blame or avoiding being blamed. It can only result in the pushing of alternative truths and division within the scientific community based on national and other loyalties.

    What is needed, and has already happened, is to consider ALL the ways in which COVID could have originated, and analyze how we can protect ourselves against each and every one of them going forward, or at least mitigate them to the extent possible.

    I have said this from the very moment the US started pushing for the Wuhan investigation in a way that was antagonistic. And what did that WHO effort achieve of value? I'd argue is was worse than useless as it pushed China and its supporters into a defensive crouch, rather than a learning one.
    Which is why I support Jesse Bloom's stance - he is trying to find a middle way, IMO.
    He appears to have quite a lot on common with your views.

    I think it's unrealistic to expect people to stop enquiring about Covid origins, which is why such an effort needs responsible voices.
    I'm sorry, this is ridiculous. Those same "responsible" voices have been casting doubt on anyone suggesting a lab leak and calling those who spoke out publicly all kinds of horrible things including being racist.

    This feels like another attempt by the scientific establishment to protect their Chinese funding arrangements.
    I have nothing to protect vis a vis Chinese funding. No connection whatsoever. I do have a strong, lifelong interest in protecting the UK, the West and the world against future biological threats. What serves learning now to prevent and mitigate future threats is the sole thing that motivates me. And it is my considered opinion that further efforts to 'get to the truth' will not only not do that, but will further damage our ability to learn and prepare.

    No doubt there are some who have egg on their faces for whom wrapping this all up would be convenient. But that still would not make pushing more investigations either right or useful.
    "Get to the truth" is not a great way of describing it, given the likelihood of the pandemic origins remaining uncertain. But it's only realistic to think that some scientists will want to continue to investigate, and I'd rather they be be open minded and highly qualified like Bloom.

    There is a problem with much of the 'lab leak' advocacy in that most of it starts from a conclusion for which it then looks evidence. And it started out with politics, rather than science, which led to an overreaction from the other side.
    Frankly, I don't read much of the journalism about it any more, as most of it is bad faith.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:
    HY was spot on actually with a post yesterday, you only get 4%+ Labour lead at the moment by stealing from Lib Dems and greens to a degree that looks unreal. I’ll add the fact the combined Lab, ldem, and green total has been dropping quite sharply recently, nearer just 50 now than 57. I’ll also throw in, in this yougov poll, reform + Tory = labour Behind?
    I follow the aggregate Lab/Lib/Green share. It's important because in our polarized politics, with wedge issues and 'values' trumping more traditional debates around tax & spend, people having to choose a side even if they'd rather not, what we could be looking at at the next election is a bit of an American type 'trads v progs' situation, a binary fight where one of the 2 sides will prevail and form the government, Tories outright or Labour in a loose alliance.

    That's the sort of election the Tories have in mind. They'll seek to paint Labour, in an impressionistic way rather than based on official policy positions, as unsafe on traditional values, and other parties on the centre left as enablers of this. This, plus "vote Starmer get Sturgeon" is going to be the Tory pitch. It's unedifying but they have no choice, really, because with their Brexitification, and the man they've embraced as leader, on most substantial issues they've become, not to put too fine a point on it, intellectually vacant.
    I wonder if, when push comes to shove, a lot of 'Conservative' voters will be 'unable' to vote for the current PM & cabinet and simply stay at home.
    I wonder that too. I wonder it very intensely!

    We can get a handle on it from here. Let's see when the GE is upon us how many PB Tories, many of whom by that time will have written squillions of posts saying what a disgrace Johnson is, are nevertheless planning to 'hold their nose' because the prospect of a Labour government relying on SNP support is just *too* horrendous for words.

    See, I'm getting pissed off already.
    *Raises hand*

    I don't want to vote for a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson. It's not his record - which I maintain is ok on the big stuff - I just don't want him as Prime Minister. But in all honesty I didn't want to vote for a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson last time, and still did because the alternative was Corbyn. And actually, Boris has more than exceeded mylow expectations. If Boris was facing a nutter again I would be more likely to vote for him, not less.

    But I'm almost certainly not going to vote Labour. They appear to be going for dully competent, but it's not apparent from this angle that they'd be doing anything better than the Conservatives. And they - and particularly my local MP - were far too pro-lockdown. But yes - while the prospect of PM Starmer is no worse than underwhelming, the prospect of deputy PM Blackford or Sturgeon IS too horrendous for words. I'm not against Scottish independence on principle, but I am against the SNP having a say in the governance of the UK. The SNP have absolutely no interest in a functioning United Kingdom- in fact, it is inimical to what they are trying to achieve - and to invite them to help govern England would be insane. Plus, aside from their constitutional position, they are pretty much diametrically opposite me politically.

    See, Boris is a poor PM, but that is only one of a number of issues which needs weighing up. It's not, for me, unlike you I think, 'literally anyone but Boris' in the same way that the last election was 'literally anyone but Corbyn'.

    Actually, I have the luxury of living in a safe seat, so I can vote for who I want, not against who I don't want (though I still voted Con last time because the slightest chance of keeping Corbyn out was worth taking). So I'd like to give the Lib Dems a good look - I liked the approach they took to the pandemic, and if the last two years have shown us anything it's that liberty can't be taken for granted. They're probably winning for me at the moment. Not least because But if they run another campaign like last time which felt like it was designed explicitly to alienate me I expect I'll go off them.

    Obviously I'm not going to vote for the Green Party and barring anyone unexpectedly suitable turning up in Wythenshawe and Sale East probably not any of the other rag, tag and bobtail parties.
    I can't see as Johnson has been getting lots of big calls right and I actually reckon Nicola Sturgeon is more concerned with improving the lives of people in England than he is. For her it's a deeply secondary matter, compared to all things Scotland, but with the limited bandwidth she has left she'd probably be up for it. For him it's not on the radar. It doesn't get a look in. It's 100% about himself.

    But we all vote how we want for the reasons we have. Which is great really. And if you go for LD, having done the Bad Thing last time, it's a good sign as far as I'm concerned. It'll mean Con seats (even if not yours) are going to fall to the LDs in places which don't have it in them to elect a Labour MP. This is on the critical path to GTTO. If that aspect doesn't materialize, the LDs taking a bunch of such seats, we're looking at years more of Johnson and whatever this Tory Party thinks it is after Brexit and under him.
    You should have a bit more humility having supported Corbyn last time. Seriously, imagine Ukraine with a Corbyn PM.
    Hardly something to drench the sheets thinking about. We're bit players in this. The fact of the invasion wasn't influenced by who the British PM is and neither will be how it pans out.
    UK equipment support has been significant and Corbyn would have disrupted NATO decision making but invited Putin for a cuppa.
    Significant but in no way pivotal and I doubt all of that on Corbyn. He messed up on Salisbury but on the whole has a stronger anti-Putin back catalogue than many on the right of politics, inc many Tories. Goes right back to Chechnya. Furthermore, not so in thrall to Russian money as the guys we have in charge now. And he'd have probably been better on refugees too.

    Anyway, none of this is provable either way. The notion that PM Corbyn cf PM Johnson would have made a material negative difference to the Ukraine war is imo just another example of what I call "Having Voted For Johnson Derangement Syndrome".

    HVFJDS for short.

    It's all an attempt to 'manage' the troubled deep interiors caused by being suckered by an arch conman. Self-respect is at stake. Because that's what conmen do - they strip their victims of that.
    I would generally agree that who is PM would make little difference. And certainly that would be true if we're talking Starmer.

    But, frankly, not of Corbyn. His basic premise is that the wrong side won the Cold War. He is profoundly anti-American and hates NATO.

    To say he "messed up" on Salisbury and just dismiss it is laughable. His approach to that tells you all you need to know about him.
    Corbyn was attacking Putin for his aggressions at the same time as George Bush and Tony Blair were loving up with him and "getting a sense of his soul".
    It's strange that Corbyn had Putin's number over the war in Chechnya, but then helped promote Putin's line on NATO when it came to Georgia and Ukraine. Remember Stop The War's position on Crimea:

    image
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    Pro_Rata said:

    That is simply in response to the jibe, "Big_G won't be posting this" isn't it!
    In truth I have been out in town and have been waiting to post it when I came back, but of course @CorrectHorseBattery prompted me to check it and post it

    I am not as partisan as some may think
    Just post it for completeness, it won’t change other results or overall picture this one one result.
    As I said it was my intention to do so, but hardly possible when I was in M & S looking for a weekend treat to cook for my special lady
    Don't worry, we won't tell the wife!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    MattW said:

    Am I right that BJ just reverse-ferreted his reverse-ferret so that he is now going to re-allow preemptively disallowed conversion therapy?

    Lordy.

    I’ve just heard the line “on reflection the PM decided he was passionate about the issue” as an explanation for making 2 U turns in 30 minutes on #conversiontherapy. Reminds me of time advised a No 10 spinner to put a sign above the desk reading “Don’t insult their intelligence”
    https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1509777940917149696
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Labour Councillor in Wandsworth suspended after telling Rishi Sunak to 'go back to India'

    https://twitter.com/toryboypierce/status/1509914711676047368?s=20&t=e_qU2QS1Y-EPs5tw27IH7Q
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:
    HY was spot on actually with a post yesterday, you only get 4%+ Labour lead at the moment by stealing from Lib Dems and greens to a degree that looks unreal. I’ll add the fact the combined Lab, ldem, and green total has been dropping quite sharply recently, nearer just 50 now than 57. I’ll also throw in, in this yougov poll, reform + Tory = labour Behind?
    I follow the aggregate Lab/Lib/Green share. It's important because in our polarized politics, with wedge issues and 'values' trumping more traditional debates around tax & spend, people having to choose a side even if they'd rather not, what we could be looking at at the next election is a bit of an American type 'trads v progs' situation, a binary fight where one of the 2 sides will prevail and form the government, Tories outright or Labour in a loose alliance.

    That's the sort of election the Tories have in mind. They'll seek to paint Labour, in an impressionistic way rather than based on official policy positions, as unsafe on traditional values, and other parties on the centre left as enablers of this. This, plus "vote Starmer get Sturgeon" is going to be the Tory pitch. It's unedifying but they have no choice, really, because with their Brexitification, and the man they've embraced as leader, on most substantial issues they've become, not to put too fine a point on it, intellectually vacant.
    I wonder if, when push comes to shove, a lot of 'Conservative' voters will be 'unable' to vote for the current PM & cabinet and simply stay at home.
    I wonder that too. I wonder it very intensely!

    We can get a handle on it from here. Let's see when the GE is upon us how many PB Tories, many of whom by that time will have written squillions of posts saying what a disgrace Johnson is, are nevertheless planning to 'hold their nose' because the prospect of a Labour government relying on SNP support is just *too* horrendous for words.

    See, I'm getting pissed off already.
    *Raises hand*

    I don't want to vote for a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson. It's not his record - which I maintain is ok on the big stuff - I just don't want him as Prime Minister. But in all honesty I didn't want to vote for a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson last time, and still did because the alternative was Corbyn. And actually, Boris has more than exceeded mylow expectations. If Boris was facing a nutter again I would be more likely to vote for him, not less.

    But I'm almost certainly not going to vote Labour. They appear to be going for dully competent, but it's not apparent from this angle that they'd be doing anything better than the Conservatives. And they - and particularly my local MP - were far too pro-lockdown. But yes - while the prospect of PM Starmer is no worse than underwhelming, the prospect of deputy PM Blackford or Sturgeon IS too horrendous for words. I'm not against Scottish independence on principle, but I am against the SNP having a say in the governance of the UK. The SNP have absolutely no interest in a functioning United Kingdom- in fact, it is inimical to what they are trying to achieve - and to invite them to help govern England would be insane. Plus, aside from their constitutional position, they are pretty much diametrically opposite me politically.

    See, Boris is a poor PM, but that is only one of a number of issues which needs weighing up. It's not, for me, unlike you I think, 'literally anyone but Boris' in the same way that the last election was 'literally anyone but Corbyn'.

    Actually, I have the luxury of living in a safe seat, so I can vote for who I want, not against who I don't want (though I still voted Con last time because the slightest chance of keeping Corbyn out was worth taking). So I'd like to give the Lib Dems a good look - I liked the approach they took to the pandemic, and if the last two years have shown us anything it's that liberty can't be taken for granted. They're probably winning for me at the moment. Not least because But if they run another campaign like last time which felt like it was designed explicitly to alienate me I expect I'll go off them.

    Obviously I'm not going to vote for the Green Party and barring anyone unexpectedly suitable turning up in Wythenshawe and Sale East probably not any of the other rag, tag and bobtail parties.
    I can't see as Johnson has been getting lots of big calls right and I actually reckon Nicola Sturgeon is more concerned with improving the lives of people in England than he is. For her it's a deeply secondary matter, compared to all things Scotland, but with the limited bandwidth she has left she'd probably be up for it. For him it's not on the radar. It doesn't get a look in. It's 100% about himself.

    But we all vote how we want for the reasons we have. Which is great really. And if you go for LD, having done the Bad Thing last time, it's a good sign as far as I'm concerned. It'll mean Con seats (even if not yours) are going to fall to the LDs in places which don't have it in them to elect a Labour MP. This is on the critical path to GTTO. If that aspect doesn't materialize, the LDs taking a bunch of such seats, we're looking at years more of Johnson and whatever this Tory Party thinks it is after Brexit and under him.
    You should have a bit more humility having supported Corbyn last time. Seriously, imagine Ukraine with a Corbyn PM.
    Hardly something to drench the sheets thinking about. We're bit players in this. The fact of the invasion wasn't influenced by who the British PM is and neither will be how it pans out.
    UK equipment support has been significant and Corbyn would have disrupted NATO decision making but invited Putin for a cuppa.
    Significant but in no way pivotal and I doubt all of that on Corbyn. He messed up on Salisbury but on the whole has a stronger anti-Putin back catalogue than many on the right of politics, inc many Tories. Goes right back to Chechnya. Furthermore, not so in thrall to Russian money as the guys we have in charge now. And he'd have probably been better on refugees too.

    Anyway, none of this is provable either way. The notion that PM Corbyn cf PM Johnson would have made a material negative difference to the Ukraine war is imo just another example of what I call "Having Voted For Johnson Derangement Syndrome".

    HVFJDS for short.

    It's all an attempt to 'manage' the troubled deep interiors caused by being suckered by an arch conman. Self-respect is at stake. Because that's what conmen do - they strip their victims of that.
    I think it is you who is in denial. Corbyn has just signed the Stop the War petition that blames the West for Russia's actions and effectively calls on Ukraine to stop resisting. I voted LD but would reluctantly have voted Tory to stop Corbyn. Corbyn as PM would have been a shocking historical event that you were prepared to risk.
    PM Corbyn would have been a risk, no question. I'd have been a little nervous myself, if I'm honest, although my main problem with him was on absence of grey matter. I liked much of the policy platform and the values and rhetoric. But, c'mon, regardless of that, this notion that his hypothetical election would have made some big difference to this war is a massive massive stretch. It's just a bit of an odd thing to say imo.

    And, ok, of course I'm bantering with the HVFJDS, and it sounds like you didn't, so I withdraw in your case, but as it becomes increasingly clear that we have a PM utterly unfit for office who the Tory Party are going to insist stands again, I have detected a great deal of this "but oh god, Corbyn" displacement activity from what I think are known in these parts as PB Tories.
    Yes. It's odd of the Tories to keep going on and on about Mr Corbyn. He's not even a Labour MP, let alone shadow cabinet member or LotO. It's as if SKS kept going on and on and on about what an evil party the Tories must be to have Mrs May or Mr Cameron in charge, ditto how awful Ms Swinson's policies were.
    No - Labour had an extreme left leader a very few years ago in whose shadow cabinet Starmer served at a high level without demurring at any time. He accepted the full package failing to stand up for Jewish MPs when the atmosphere for some was extremely unpleasant. Starmer gets no free pass for the pretence that he's a born again moderate.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    edited April 2022

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:
    HY was spot on actually with a post yesterday, you only get 4%+ Labour lead at the moment by stealing from Lib Dems and greens to a degree that looks unreal. I’ll add the fact the combined Lab, ldem, and green total has been dropping quite sharply recently, nearer just 50 now than 57. I’ll also throw in, in this yougov poll, reform + Tory = labour Behind?
    I follow the aggregate Lab/Lib/Green share. It's important because in our polarized politics, with wedge issues and 'values' trumping more traditional debates around tax & spend, people having to choose a side even if they'd rather not, what we could be looking at at the next election is a bit of an American type 'trads v progs' situation, a binary fight where one of the 2 sides will prevail and form the government, Tories outright or Labour in a loose alliance.

    That's the sort of election the Tories have in mind. They'll seek to paint Labour, in an impressionistic way rather than based on official policy positions, as unsafe on traditional values, and other parties on the centre left as enablers of this. This, plus "vote Starmer get Sturgeon" is going to be the Tory pitch. It's unedifying but they have no choice, really, because with their Brexitification, and the man they've embraced as leader, on most substantial issues they've become, not to put too fine a point on it, intellectually vacant.
    I wonder if, when push comes to shove, a lot of 'Conservative' voters will be 'unable' to vote for the current PM & cabinet and simply stay at home.
    I wonder that too. I wonder it very intensely!

    We can get a handle on it from here. Let's see when the GE is upon us how many PB Tories, many of whom by that time will have written squillions of posts saying what a disgrace Johnson is, are nevertheless planning to 'hold their nose' because the prospect of a Labour government relying on SNP support is just *too* horrendous for words.

    See, I'm getting pissed off already.
    *Raises hand*

    I don't want to vote for a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson. It's not his record - which I maintain is ok on the big stuff - I just don't want him as Prime Minister. But in all honesty I didn't want to vote for a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson last time, and still did because the alternative was Corbyn. And actually, Boris has more than exceeded mylow expectations. If Boris was facing a nutter again I would be more likely to vote for him, not less.

    But I'm almost certainly not going to vote Labour. They appear to be going for dully competent, but it's not apparent from this angle that they'd be doing anything better than the Conservatives. And they - and particularly my local MP - were far too pro-lockdown. But yes - while the prospect of PM Starmer is no worse than underwhelming, the prospect of deputy PM Blackford or Sturgeon IS too horrendous for words. I'm not against Scottish independence on principle, but I am against the SNP having a say in the governance of the UK. The SNP have absolutely no interest in a functioning United Kingdom- in fact, it is inimical to what they are trying to achieve - and to invite them to help govern England would be insane. Plus, aside from their constitutional position, they are pretty much diametrically opposite me politically.

    See, Boris is a poor PM, but that is only one of a number of issues which needs weighing up. It's not, for me, unlike you I think, 'literally anyone but Boris' in the same way that the last election was 'literally anyone but Corbyn'.

    Actually, I have the luxury of living in a safe seat, so I can vote for who I want, not against who I don't want (though I still voted Con last time because the slightest chance of keeping Corbyn out was worth taking). So I'd like to give the Lib Dems a good look - I liked the approach they took to the pandemic, and if the last two years have shown us anything it's that liberty can't be taken for granted. They're probably winning for me at the moment. Not least because But if they run another campaign like last time which felt like it was designed explicitly to alienate me I expect I'll go off them.

    Obviously I'm not going to vote for the Green Party and barring anyone unexpectedly suitable turning up in Wythenshawe and Sale East probably not any of the other rag, tag and bobtail parties.
    I can't see as Johnson has been getting lots of big calls right and I actually reckon Nicola Sturgeon is more concerned with improving the lives of people in England than he is. For her it's a deeply secondary matter, compared to all things Scotland, but with the limited bandwidth she has left she'd probably be up for it. For him it's not on the radar. It doesn't get a look in. It's 100% about himself.

    But we all vote how we want for the reasons we have. Which is great really. And if you go for LD, having done the Bad Thing last time, it's a good sign as far as I'm concerned. It'll mean Con seats (even if not yours) are going to fall to the LDs in places which don't have it in them to elect a Labour MP. This is on the critical path to GTTO. If that aspect doesn't materialize, the LDs taking a bunch of such seats, we're looking at years more of Johnson and whatever this Tory Party thinks it is after Brexit and under him.
    You should have a bit more humility having supported Corbyn last time. Seriously, imagine Ukraine with a Corbyn PM.
    Hardly something to drench the sheets thinking about. We're bit players in this. The fact of the invasion wasn't influenced by who the British PM is and neither will be how it pans out.
    UK equipment support has been significant and Corbyn would have disrupted NATO decision making but invited Putin for a cuppa.
    Significant but in no way pivotal and I doubt all of that on Corbyn. He messed up on Salisbury but on the whole has a stronger anti-Putin back catalogue than many on the right of politics, inc many Tories. Goes right back to Chechnya. Furthermore, not so in thrall to Russian money as the guys we have in charge now. And he'd have probably been better on refugees too.

    Anyway, none of this is provable either way. The notion that PM Corbyn cf PM Johnson would have made a material negative difference to the Ukraine war is imo just another example of what I call "Having Voted For Johnson Derangement Syndrome".

    HVFJDS for short.

    It's all an attempt to 'manage' the troubled deep interiors caused by being suckered by an arch conman. Self-respect is at stake. Because that's what conmen do - they strip their victims of that.
    I would generally agree that who is PM would make little difference. And certainly that would be true if we're talking Starmer.

    But, frankly, not of Corbyn. His basic premise is that the wrong side won the Cold War. He is profoundly anti-American and hates NATO.

    To say he "messed up" on Salisbury and just dismiss it is laughable. His approach to that tells you all you need to know about him.
    Corbyn was attacking Putin for his aggressions at the same time as George Bush and Tony Blair were loving up with him and "getting a sense of his soul".
    But that's the point - Corbyn's actions were dictated by those of the US/UK. Anything they do is bad, and so he is opposed. So when they change their policy he does too - in the opposite direction.
    It's not quite as knee jerk as that. It does depend to an extent on what is on the table to be supported or opposed. Eg if Bush/Blair had made it clear they had no intention of pursuing an illegal war of unprovoked aggression in Iraq in which many civilians were bound to killed, there's no way that Jeremy Corbyn would have been pushing the other way and arguing that they should.

    But, anyway, Corbyn Corbyn Corbyn - point 1, he's in the trashcan, and point 2, the main point I'm making, is it's simply not a very strong proposition, based on logic and known facts and context and perspective, to be making out that if GE19 had gone his way, then this Ukraine war would be going Putin's way. It just doesn't scan. The British PM isn't a key player in this.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:
    HY was spot on actually with a post yesterday, you only get 4%+ Labour lead at the moment by stealing from Lib Dems and greens to a degree that looks unreal. I’ll add the fact the combined Lab, ldem, and green total has been dropping quite sharply recently, nearer just 50 now than 57. I’ll also throw in, in this yougov poll, reform + Tory = labour Behind?
    I follow the aggregate Lab/Lib/Green share. It's important because in our polarized politics, with wedge issues and 'values' trumping more traditional debates around tax & spend, people having to choose a side even if they'd rather not, what we could be looking at at the next election is a bit of an American type 'trads v progs' situation, a binary fight where one of the 2 sides will prevail and form the government, Tories outright or Labour in a loose alliance.

    That's the sort of election the Tories have in mind. They'll seek to paint Labour, in an impressionistic way rather than based on official policy positions, as unsafe on traditional values, and other parties on the centre left as enablers of this. This, plus "vote Starmer get Sturgeon" is going to be the Tory pitch. It's unedifying but they have no choice, really, because with their Brexitification, and the man they've embraced as leader, on most substantial issues they've become, not to put too fine a point on it, intellectually vacant.
    I wonder if, when push comes to shove, a lot of 'Conservative' voters will be 'unable' to vote for the current PM & cabinet and simply stay at home.
    I wonder that too. I wonder it very intensely!

    We can get a handle on it from here. Let's see when the GE is upon us how many PB Tories, many of whom by that time will have written squillions of posts saying what a disgrace Johnson is, are nevertheless planning to 'hold their nose' because the prospect of a Labour government relying on SNP support is just *too* horrendous for words.

    See, I'm getting pissed off already.
    *Raises hand*

    I don't want to vote for a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson. It's not his record - which I maintain is ok on the big stuff - I just don't want him as Prime Minister. But in all honesty I didn't want to vote for a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson last time, and still did because the alternative was Corbyn. And actually, Boris has more than exceeded mylow expectations. If Boris was facing a nutter again I would be more likely to vote for him, not less.

    But I'm almost certainly not going to vote Labour. They appear to be going for dully competent, but it's not apparent from this angle that they'd be doing anything better than the Conservatives. And they - and particularly my local MP - were far too pro-lockdown. But yes - while the prospect of PM Starmer is no worse than underwhelming, the prospect of deputy PM Blackford or Sturgeon IS too horrendous for words. I'm not against Scottish independence on principle, but I am against the SNP having a say in the governance of the UK. The SNP have absolutely no interest in a functioning United Kingdom- in fact, it is inimical to what they are trying to achieve - and to invite them to help govern England would be insane. Plus, aside from their constitutional position, they are pretty much diametrically opposite me politically.

    See, Boris is a poor PM, but that is only one of a number of issues which needs weighing up. It's not, for me, unlike you I think, 'literally anyone but Boris' in the same way that the last election was 'literally anyone but Corbyn'.

    Actually, I have the luxury of living in a safe seat, so I can vote for who I want, not against who I don't want (though I still voted Con last time because the slightest chance of keeping Corbyn out was worth taking). So I'd like to give the Lib Dems a good look - I liked the approach they took to the pandemic, and if the last two years have shown us anything it's that liberty can't be taken for granted. They're probably winning for me at the moment. Not least because But if they run another campaign like last time which felt like it was designed explicitly to alienate me I expect I'll go off them.

    Obviously I'm not going to vote for the Green Party and barring anyone unexpectedly suitable turning up in Wythenshawe and Sale East probably not any of the other rag, tag and bobtail parties.
    I can't see as Johnson has been getting lots of big calls right and I actually reckon Nicola Sturgeon is more concerned with improving the lives of people in England than he is. For her it's a deeply secondary matter, compared to all things Scotland, but with the limited bandwidth she has left she'd probably be up for it. For him it's not on the radar. It doesn't get a look in. It's 100% about himself.

    But we all vote how we want for the reasons we have. Which is great really. And if you go for LD, having done the Bad Thing last time, it's a good sign as far as I'm concerned. It'll mean Con seats (even if not yours) are going to fall to the LDs in places which don't have it in them to elect a Labour MP. This is on the critical path to GTTO. If that aspect doesn't materialize, the LDs taking a bunch of such seats, we're looking at years more of Johnson and whatever this Tory Party thinks it is after Brexit and under him.
    You should have a bit more humility having supported Corbyn last time. Seriously, imagine Ukraine with a Corbyn PM.
    Hardly something to drench the sheets thinking about. We're bit players in this. The fact of the invasion wasn't influenced by who the British PM is and neither will be how it pans out.
    UK equipment support has been significant and Corbyn would have disrupted NATO decision making but invited Putin for a cuppa.
    Significant but in no way pivotal and I doubt all of that on Corbyn. He messed up on Salisbury but on the whole has a stronger anti-Putin back catalogue than many on the right of politics, inc many Tories. Goes right back to Chechnya. Furthermore, not so in thrall to Russian money as the guys we have in charge now. And he'd have probably been better on refugees too.

    Anyway, none of this is provable either way. The notion that PM Corbyn cf PM Johnson would have made a material negative difference to the Ukraine war is imo just another example of what I call "Having Voted For Johnson Derangement Syndrome".

    HVFJDS for short.

    It's all an attempt to 'manage' the troubled deep interiors caused by being suckered by an arch conman. Self-respect is at stake. Because that's what conmen do - they strip their victims of that.
    I would generally agree that who is PM would make little difference. And certainly that would be true if we're talking Starmer.

    But, frankly, not of Corbyn. His basic premise is that the wrong side won the Cold War. He is profoundly anti-American and hates NATO.

    To say he "messed up" on Salisbury and just dismiss it is laughable. His approach to that tells you all you need to know about him.
    Corbyn was attacking Putin for his aggressions at the same time as George Bush and Tony Blair were loving up with him and "getting a sense of his soul".
    But that's the point - Corbyn's actions were dictated by those of the US/UK. Anything they do is bad, and so he is opposed. So when they change their policy he does too - in the opposite direction.
    It's not quite as knee jerk as that. It does depend to an extent on what is on the table to be supported or opposed. Eg if Bush/Blair had made it clear they had no intention of pursuing an illegal war of unprovoked aggression in Iraq in which many civilians were bound to killed, there's no way that Jeremy Corbyn would have been pushing the other way and arguing that they should.

    But, anyway, Corbyn Corbyn Corbyn - point 1, he's in the trashcan, and point 2, the main point I'm making, is it's simply not a very strong proposition, based on logic and known facts and context and perspective, to be making out that if GE19 had gone his way, then this Ukraine war would be going Putin's way. It just doesn't scan. The British PM isn't a key player in this.
    Tell Zelenskyy the British PM isn't a key player. Reportedly they are in constant contact, text messages being exchanged, etc.

    I'm no fan of Johnson, and you can make a case that a lot would have happened with any halfway sane PM, but the difference between Corbyn and any other British PM or LotO on this is immense, and would have been very consequential.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:
    HY was spot on actually with a post yesterday, you only get 4%+ Labour lead at the moment by stealing from Lib Dems and greens to a degree that looks unreal. I’ll add the fact the combined Lab, ldem, and green total has been dropping quite sharply recently, nearer just 50 now than 57. I’ll also throw in, in this yougov poll, reform + Tory = labour Behind?
    I follow the aggregate Lab/Lib/Green share. It's important because in our polarized politics, with wedge issues and 'values' trumping more traditional debates around tax & spend, people having to choose a side even if they'd rather not, what we could be looking at at the next election is a bit of an American type 'trads v progs' situation, a binary fight where one of the 2 sides will prevail and form the government, Tories outright or Labour in a loose alliance.

    That's the sort of election the Tories have in mind. They'll seek to paint Labour, in an impressionistic way rather than based on official policy positions, as unsafe on traditional values, and other parties on the centre left as enablers of this. This, plus "vote Starmer get Sturgeon" is going to be the Tory pitch. It's unedifying but they have no choice, really, because with their Brexitification, and the man they've embraced as leader, on most substantial issues they've become, not to put too fine a point on it, intellectually vacant.
    I wonder if, when push comes to shove, a lot of 'Conservative' voters will be 'unable' to vote for the current PM & cabinet and simply stay at home.
    I wonder that too. I wonder it very intensely!

    We can get a handle on it from here. Let's see when the GE is upon us how many PB Tories, many of whom by that time will have written squillions of posts saying what a disgrace Johnson is, are nevertheless planning to 'hold their nose' because the prospect of a Labour government relying on SNP support is just *too* horrendous for words.

    See, I'm getting pissed off already.
    *Raises hand*

    I don't want to vote for a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson. It's not his record - which I maintain is ok on the big stuff - I just don't want him as Prime Minister. But in all honesty I didn't want to vote for a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson last time, and still did because the alternative was Corbyn. And actually, Boris has more than exceeded mylow expectations. If Boris was facing a nutter again I would be more likely to vote for him, not less.

    But I'm almost certainly not going to vote Labour. They appear to be going for dully competent, but it's not apparent from this angle that they'd be doing anything better than the Conservatives. And they - and particularly my local MP - were far too pro-lockdown. But yes - while the prospect of PM Starmer is no worse than underwhelming, the prospect of deputy PM Blackford or Sturgeon IS too horrendous for words. I'm not against Scottish independence on principle, but I am against the SNP having a say in the governance of the UK. The SNP have absolutely no interest in a functioning United Kingdom- in fact, it is inimical to what they are trying to achieve - and to invite them to help govern England would be insane. Plus, aside from their constitutional position, they are pretty much diametrically opposite me politically.

    See, Boris is a poor PM, but that is only one of a number of issues which needs weighing up. It's not, for me, unlike you I think, 'literally anyone but Boris' in the same way that the last election was 'literally anyone but Corbyn'.

    Actually, I have the luxury of living in a safe seat, so I can vote for who I want, not against who I don't want (though I still voted Con last time because the slightest chance of keeping Corbyn out was worth taking). So I'd like to give the Lib Dems a good look - I liked the approach they took to the pandemic, and if the last two years have shown us anything it's that liberty can't be taken for granted. They're probably winning for me at the moment. Not least because But if they run another campaign like last time which felt like it was designed explicitly to alienate me I expect I'll go off them.

    Obviously I'm not going to vote for the Green Party and barring anyone unexpectedly suitable turning up in Wythenshawe and Sale East probably not any of the other rag, tag and bobtail parties.
    I can't see as Johnson has been getting lots of big calls right and I actually reckon Nicola Sturgeon is more concerned with improving the lives of people in England than he is. For her it's a deeply secondary matter, compared to all things Scotland, but with the limited bandwidth she has left she'd probably be up for it. For him it's not on the radar. It doesn't get a look in. It's 100% about himself.

    But we all vote how we want for the reasons we have. Which is great really. And if you go for LD, having done the Bad Thing last time, it's a good sign as far as I'm concerned. It'll mean Con seats (even if not yours) are going to fall to the LDs in places which don't have it in them to elect a Labour MP. This is on the critical path to GTTO. If that aspect doesn't materialize, the LDs taking a bunch of such seats, we're looking at years more of Johnson and whatever this Tory Party thinks it is after Brexit and under him.
    You should have a bit more humility having supported Corbyn last time. Seriously, imagine Ukraine with a Corbyn PM.
    Hardly something to drench the sheets thinking about. We're bit players in this. The fact of the invasion wasn't influenced by who the British PM is and neither will be how it pans out.
    UK equipment support has been significant and Corbyn would have disrupted NATO decision making but invited Putin for a cuppa.
    Significant but in no way pivotal and I doubt all of that on Corbyn. He messed up on Salisbury but on the whole has a stronger anti-Putin back catalogue than many on the right of politics, inc many Tories. Goes right back to Chechnya. Furthermore, not so in thrall to Russian money as the guys we have in charge now. And he'd have probably been better on refugees too.

    Anyway, none of this is provable either way. The notion that PM Corbyn cf PM Johnson would have made a material negative difference to the Ukraine war is imo just another example of what I call "Having Voted For Johnson Derangement Syndrome".

    HVFJDS for short.

    It's all an attempt to 'manage' the troubled deep interiors caused by being suckered by an arch conman. Self-respect is at stake. Because that's what conmen do - they strip their victims of that.
    I would generally agree that who is PM would make little difference. And certainly that would be true if we're talking Starmer.

    But, frankly, not of Corbyn. His basic premise is that the wrong side won the Cold War. He is profoundly anti-American and hates NATO.

    To say he "messed up" on Salisbury and just dismiss it is laughable. His approach to that tells you all you need to know about him.
    Corbyn was attacking Putin for his aggressions at the same time as George Bush and Tony Blair were loving up with him and "getting a sense of his soul".
    And yet when an actual incident occurred, or war occurred, his instinctual reactions spoke all too clearly even if he then modulated them.
    Well his instinctual reactions were spot on as regards Iraq. Also in some other foreign policy situations over the years. In general he's chock-a-block with old school anti-US imperialism. Having a PM with that (strong) perspective would have been a first and there might have been consequences. It would have been a risk, no doubt about it. But would it have had a material impact on how this Russian invasion of Ukraine pans out? Not really. Or let's just say probably not. I find it a bit odd to be thinking it would. Maybe a sign of how much JC spooked people, and therefore why he lost.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 431
    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:
    HY was spot on actually with a post yesterday, you only get 4%+ Labour lead at the moment by stealing from Lib Dems and greens to a degree that looks unreal. I’ll add the fact the combined Lab, ldem, and green total has been dropping quite sharply recently, nearer just 50 now than 57. I’ll also throw in, in this yougov poll, reform + Tory = labour Behind?
    I follow the aggregate Lab/Lib/Green share. It's important because in our polarized politics, with wedge issues and 'values' trumping more traditional debates around tax & spend, people having to choose a side even if they'd rather not, what we could be looking at at the next election is a bit of an American type 'trads v progs' situation, a binary fight where one of the 2 sides will prevail and form the government, Tories outright or Labour in a loose alliance.

    That's the sort of election the Tories have in mind. They'll seek to paint Labour, in an impressionistic way rather than based on official policy positions, as unsafe on traditional values, and other parties on the centre left as enablers of this. This, plus "vote Starmer get Sturgeon" is going to be the Tory pitch. It's unedifying but they have no choice, really, because with their Brexitification, and the man they've embraced as leader, on most substantial issues they've become, not to put too fine a point on it, intellectually vacant.
    I wonder if, when push comes to shove, a lot of 'Conservative' voters will be 'unable' to vote for the current PM & cabinet and simply stay at home.
    I wonder that too. I wonder it very intensely!

    We can get a handle on it from here. Let's see when the GE is upon us how many PB Tories, many of whom by that time will have written squillions of posts saying what a disgrace Johnson is, are nevertheless planning to 'hold their nose' because the prospect of a Labour government relying on SNP support is just *too* horrendous for words.

    See, I'm getting pissed off already.
    *Raises hand*

    I don't want to vote for a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson. It's not his record - which I maintain is ok on the big stuff - I just don't want him as Prime Minister. But in all honesty I didn't want to vote for a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson last time, and still did because the alternative was Corbyn. And actually, Boris has more than exceeded mylow expectations. If Boris was facing a nutter again I would be more likely to vote for him, not less.

    But I'm almost certainly not going to vote Labour. They appear to be going for dully competent, but it's not apparent from this angle that they'd be doing anything better than the Conservatives. And they - and particularly my local MP - were far too pro-lockdown. But yes - while the prospect of PM Starmer is no worse than underwhelming, the prospect of deputy PM Blackford or Sturgeon IS too horrendous for words. I'm not against Scottish independence on principle, but I am against the SNP having a say in the governance of the UK. The SNP have absolutely no interest in a functioning United Kingdom- in fact, it is inimical to what they are trying to achieve - and to invite them to help govern England would be insane. Plus, aside from their constitutional position, they are pretty much diametrically opposite me politically.

    See, Boris is a poor PM, but that is only one of a number of issues which needs weighing up. It's not, for me, unlike you I think, 'literally anyone but Boris' in the same way that the last election was 'literally anyone but Corbyn'.

    Actually, I have the luxury of living in a safe seat, so I can vote for who I want, not against who I don't want (though I still voted Con last time because the slightest chance of keeping Corbyn out was worth taking). So I'd like to give the Lib Dems a good look - I liked the approach they took to the pandemic, and if the last two years have shown us anything it's that liberty can't be taken for granted. They're probably winning for me at the moment. Not least because But if they run another campaign like last time which felt like it was designed explicitly to alienate me I expect I'll go off them.

    Obviously I'm not going to vote for the Green Party and barring anyone unexpectedly suitable turning up in Wythenshawe and Sale East probably not any of the other rag, tag and bobtail parties.
    I can't see as Johnson has been getting lots of big calls right and I actually reckon Nicola Sturgeon is more concerned with improving the lives of people in England than he is. For her it's a deeply secondary matter, compared to all things Scotland, but with the limited bandwidth she has left she'd probably be up for it. For him it's not on the radar. It doesn't get a look in. It's 100% about himself.

    But we all vote how we want for the reasons we have. Which is great really. And if you go for LD, having done the Bad Thing last time, it's a good sign as far as I'm concerned. It'll mean Con seats (even if not yours) are going to fall to the LDs in places which don't have it in them to elect a Labour MP. This is on the critical path to GTTO. If that aspect doesn't materialize, the LDs taking a bunch of such seats, we're looking at years more of Johnson and whatever this Tory Party thinks it is after Brexit and under him.
    You should have a bit more humility having supported Corbyn last time. Seriously, imagine Ukraine with a Corbyn PM.
    Hardly something to drench the sheets thinking about. We're bit players in this. The fact of the invasion wasn't influenced by who the British PM is and neither will be how it pans out.
    UK equipment support has been significant and Corbyn would have disrupted NATO decision making but invited Putin for a cuppa.
    Significant but in no way pivotal and I doubt all of that on Corbyn. He messed up on Salisbury but on the whole has a stronger anti-Putin back catalogue than many on the right of politics, inc many Tories. Goes right back to Chechnya. Furthermore, not so in thrall to Russian money as the guys we have in charge now. And he'd have probably been better on refugees too.

    Anyway, none of this is provable either way. The notion that PM Corbyn cf PM Johnson would have made a material negative difference to the Ukraine war is imo just another example of what I call "Having Voted For Johnson Derangement Syndrome".

    HVFJDS for short.

    It's all an attempt to 'manage' the troubled deep interiors caused by being suckered by an arch conman. Self-respect is at stake. Because that's what conmen do - they strip their victims of that.
    I would generally agree that who is PM would make little difference. And certainly that would be true if we're talking Starmer.

    But, frankly, not of Corbyn. His basic premise is that the wrong side won the Cold War. He is profoundly anti-American and hates NATO.

    To say he "messed up" on Salisbury and just dismiss it is laughable. His approach to that tells you all you need to know about him.
    Corbyn was attacking Putin for his aggressions at the same time as George Bush and Tony Blair were loving up with him and "getting a sense of his soul".
    And yet when an actual incident occurred, or war occurred, his instinctual reactions spoke all too clearly even if he then modulated them.
    Well his instinctual reactions were spot on as regards Iraq. Also in some other foreign policy situations over the years. In general he's chock-a-block with old school anti-US imperialism. Having a PM with that (strong) perspective would have been a first and there might have been consequences. It would have been a risk, no doubt about it. But would it have had a material impact on how this Russian invasion of Ukraine pans out? Not really. Or let's just say probably not. I find it a bit odd to be thinking it would. Maybe a sign of how much JC spooked people, and therefore why he lost.
    Yeah, Corbyn got Salisbury very badly wrong, but that came from pedantry about due process and an antipathy towards the jingoism that follows such incidents. Given his response to human right abuses, it's absurd to paint him as someone who was more likely than Johnson to let Putin off the hook over Ukraine. But Salisbury gave people an attack angle, and some of them have started to believe their own propaganda.

    (Btw, could say almost say a very analogous thing on the anti-Semitism issue, and the fact that this happened at least twice does show what his weakness was as a leader.)
This discussion has been closed.