Before Brexit groups of school children could come on a joint permit and didn’t need a passport . The government refused to continue with this . Would any leaver have a problem with the old scheme continuing ? Did Leavers vote for this .
I very much doubt it . No 10 seems obsessed with putting up hurdles to any sort of cultural exchanges.
Just petty and vindictive .
Brexit was always going to have a long lead time of no gain and some pain. I doubt anyone anticipated quite what would break, but equally some things that people predicted would be bad are fine.
It really is too early to tell whether there is much gain to be had. (Of course there will be some in specific areas)
The tourists will still come, and if the school-children need a passport then perhaps it'll be seen as a greater adventure. Who knows. Too early to tell as I said above.
Is anyone still pretending that Brexit will result in anything beneficial? Even Boris doesn't seem to bother any more.
We now elect and dismiss those who rule over us. That was always the primary and overwhelming gain of brexit.
It has happened. It is done. Rejoice
And we did before, our parliament.
Oh, are you one of those who voted for Baroness Mone?
I'm not relying on it and I want the Tories to do badly, I think their Barnet prediction is entirely credible in every way but other stuff not. I suppose the Tories are likely to retain a handful of seats on Richmond and Kingston in places like Barnes and Coombe respectively for instance and I guess the LDs will probably hold Sutton but I don’t know if their majority will rise or fall.
The Conservatives have never been wiped off either Kingston or Richmond - both Boroughs have solid Conservative Wards - though the Tories were once down to 3 or 4 in Richmond, I don't think they've been lower than 10 in Kingston.
As for Sutton, I could see the LDs losing their majority but how the seats will change with the new boundaries is much harder to call.
I just think Pollcat's predictions are in a sense too extreme and in another sense not extreme enough.
With Deltapoll showing the Conservatives at 20% in London, you do wonder if we will see some surprises but I have to say the Conservatives winning a seat in Barking & Dagenham would be right up there.
The Tories voteshare was up in Dagenham in 2019, even if it was down across London as a whole
There are a couple of things going on at once- the shift of Brexity/older WWC voters into the Conservative column, and the demographic change where outer East London is becoming more like London and less like Essex.
If I had to guess, this will be fine for the Conservatives in 2022, but not in 2026.
On tonight's poll it is possible there could be no Conservative seats left in London between Chelsea and Fulham and the fringes of Essex and Kent.
Which, when you consider how much of the new development in East London is fairly upscale, Docklands/City focused, is pretty shocking.
Labour majority of 36 plugging those numbers into Electoral Calculus.
Wait till the cost of living crisis REALLY kicks in.
We're almost at 1997 levels of support now.
But without the 55 Scottish seats, it’s a harder mountain to climb.
Indeed. That Deltapoll is fantastic for Labour, especially for Scottish Labour (at 29% compared to 18.6% at the last UK GE). However, Baxter gives the following seat distribution, based on the new boundaries:
I'm not relying on it and I want the Tories to do badly, I think their Barnet prediction is entirely credible in every way but other stuff not. I suppose the Tories are likely to retain a handful of seats on Richmond and Kingston in places like Barnes and Coombe respectively for instance and I guess the LDs will probably hold Sutton but I don’t know if their majority will rise or fall.
The Conservatives have never been wiped off either Kingston or Richmond - both Boroughs have solid Conservative Wards - though the Tories were once down to 3 or 4 in Richmond, I don't think they've been lower than 10 in Kingston.
As for Sutton, I could see the LDs losing their majority but how the seats will change with the new boundaries is much harder to call.
I just think Pollcat's predictions are in a sense too extreme and in another sense not extreme enough.
With Deltapoll showing the Conservatives at 20% in London, you do wonder if we will see some surprises but I have to say the Conservatives winning a seat in Barking & Dagenham would be right up there.
The Tories voteshare was up in Dagenham in 2019, even if it was down across London as a whole
There are a couple of things going on at once- the shift of Brexity/older WWC voters into the Conservative column, and the demographic change where outer East London is becoming more like London and less like Essex.
If I had to guess, this will be fine for the Conservatives in 2022, but not in 2026.
On tonight's poll it is possible there could be no Conservative seats left in London between Chelsea and Fulham and the fringes of Essex and Kent.
But in happier news, the archbishop of Canterbury says you Tories are all going to hell for your Rwanda wheeze.
Tremendous poll for Scottish and Welsh Labour. Scottish and Welsh Conservatives in meltdown territory.
London Lab 50% Con 20% LD 8% Grn 7%
Rest of South Con 43% Lab 37% LD 11% Grn 6%
Midlands Con 47% Lab 37% LD 7% Grn 5%
North Lab 54% Con 24% LD 12% Grn 6%
Scotland SNP 49% Lab 29% Con 15% LD 5% Grn 2%
Wales Lab 56% PC 19% Con 13% Grn 6% LD 3%
(Deltapoll/Mail on Sunday; Sample Size: 1,550; Fieldwork: 13th - 14th April 2022)
Jesus, the South is disappearing but the Midlands still holding firm?
Is Scottish Labour having a comeback? Is 10+ seats on the cards?
The Midlands have the lowest propensity to actually cast a vote. Differential turnout could turn this into a Tory rout.
And no, 10+ SLab seats is not on the cards. Yet.
Even if the SLab revival is part driven by DavidL like tactical Tory unionists in the Central Belt? Need to see what an MRP comes up with.
10-12 is what happens if everything falls into place for Labour, and it's a sizeable swing to get there. Forget Brown's 41 sympathy vote, we're not going back there anytime soon, every SLab seat clawed back has to be viewed as a win in its own right, just as Ruthie's army is how May clung on in '17, if 7+ get SKS over the line in 2024, that'll be just dandy.
I don't necessarily expect Labour to get more than 15-20 seats in Scotland ever again (but even that could just about be sufficient for a majority at Westminster) but I can see how they might get up to 10 on a good day and win seats like Airdrie and Shotts for example where their vote went up in last years by election. That would probably involve a combination of massive abstention among SNP voters like 2017 and a unionist tactical squeeze as there is currently limited evidence of much SNP-Lab direct switching.
(Deltapoll/Mail on Sunday; Sample Size: 1,550; Fieldwork: 13th - 14th April 2022)
Ah, here we see the magic effect of the Rwanda proposals on those working-class Northern seats...
or not.
It would be helpful to know the comparative figures for 2019 for each region - is there an overview somewhere? The "Rest of South" is a bit problematic for tactical voting, as on those figures there will certainly be seats that Labour could win that appear to have the LibDems as main challengers because of tactical voting last time.
It's hard to believe how awful the Conservative figures in Wales are. They got 36.1% last time, so they've more than halved.
Come on now Nick, you’re better than that. Look at the polling dates.
? The dates are 13th-14th, i.e. Wednesday and Thursday. The proposals were leaked to the Tory press on Wednesday and formally announced on Thursday.
I'm not relying on it and I want the Tories to do badly, I think their Barnet prediction is entirely credible in every way but other stuff not. I suppose the Tories are likely to retain a handful of seats on Richmond and Kingston in places like Barnes and Coombe respectively for instance and I guess the LDs will probably hold Sutton but I don’t know if their majority will rise or fall.
The Conservatives have never been wiped off either Kingston or Richmond - both Boroughs have solid Conservative Wards - though the Tories were once down to 3 or 4 in Richmond, I don't think they've been lower than 10 in Kingston.
As for Sutton, I could see the LDs losing their majority but how the seats will change with the new boundaries is much harder to call.
I just think Pollcat's predictions are in a sense too extreme and in another sense not extreme enough.
With Deltapoll showing the Conservatives at 20% in London, you do wonder if we will see some surprises but I have to say the Conservatives winning a seat in Barking & Dagenham would be right up there.
The Tories voteshare was up in Dagenham in 2019, even if it was down across London as a whole
There are a couple of things going on at once- the shift of Brexity/older WWC voters into the Conservative column, and the demographic change where outer East London is becoming more like London and less like Essex.
If I had to guess, this will be fine for the Conservatives in 2022, but not in 2026.
On tonight's poll it is possible there could be no Conservative seats left in London between Chelsea and Fulham and the fringes of Essex and Kent.
Which, when you consider how much of the new development in East London is fairly upscale, Docklands/City focused, is pretty shocking.
Yes but post Brexit upscale young graduates are as anti Tory as the poor.
The Tory core vote is pensioners and the skilled working class, hence the Midlands is now more favourable to the Conservatives than London
Labour majority of 36 plugging those numbers into Electoral Calculus.
Wait till the cost of living crisis REALLY kicks in.
We're almost at 1997 levels of support now.
But without the 55 Scottish seats, it’s a harder mountain to climb.
Indeed. That Deltapoll is fantastic for Labour, especially for Scottish Labour (at 29% compared to 18.6% at the last UK GE). However, Baxter gives the following seat distribution, based on the new boundaries:
Then Labour splits, Corbynites would walk out and start their own party
The reason they don't split (and so few left during the Corbyn era) is because no-one is going to give up being "Labour". It's always been more than one party, going back to the 1920s, fighting tooth and nail.
(Deltapoll/Mail on Sunday; Sample Size: 1,550; Fieldwork: 13th - 14th April 2022)
Ah, here we see the magic effect of the Rwanda proposals on those working-class Northern seats...
or not.
It would be helpful to know the comparative figures for 2019 for each region - is there an overview somewhere? The "Rest of South" is a bit problematic for tactical voting, as on those figures there will certainly be seats that Labour could win that appear to have the LibDems as main challengers because of tactical voting last time.
It's hard to believe how awful the Conservative figures in Wales are. They got 36.1% last time, so they've more than halved.
Come on now Nick, you’re better than that. Look at the polling dates.
? The dates are 13th-14th, i.e. Wednesday and Thursday. The proposals were leaked to the Tory press on Wednesday and formally announced on Thursday.
Apologies. I glimpsed the changes from 11th and thought it meant April. I’d still suggest too early to impact though.
back to the Sinking of the Russian Flagship Moskova.
It seems that the Russian Orthodox Church had placed one of there relocks on the ship, a fragment from the cross that Jesus was crucified on. That has presumably gone down with the Ship.
(Please can we not argue about weather it was really a fragment of the cross, HYDF will say one thing and everybody else the other and we will be here all night, so please lets not go down that road. However the significant thing here is the Russian Orthodox Church pronated that it was. and this shoes:
1) The ridiculously close relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Russian State and armed forces. Whatever ones opinion of the separation of church and state, Russia today is at an absolute extreme end of this spectrum.
2) The Russians really did not expect this ship to be sunk.
I would not call myself a Christian at all anymore but that is sick and offensive. What were they thinking?
Free advertising. Cue the shock and publicity, and they get far more exposure than they ever would.
Not sure they would have tried it with a Mohammed related advert though.
Indeed.
It is somewhat offensive but I have seen worse.
Fortunately for the author Christians will not issue a Fatwa of death against him for insulting their main prophet though, so he has to go into hiding
Why do you find it offensive though?
It acknowledges the fundamental truth of our shared beliefs - that the crucifixion was not the end for the Risen Christ.
They may claim - in a jokey fashion - that it was down to human failing rather than God’s mystery, but that’s a relatively minor transgression in the scheme of things
I dont find it offensive and its rather witty but the point is well made that the authors of it would not have done the same to a depiction of Mohammed etc .I personally wish we could live in a country where you can "tease" religion and its icons but it should be the same for all and clearly we live in a country where you can make jokes about Jesus and his death but not other historical leaders
Can’t argue with that. I think there are signs that parts of Islam is throwing off the shackles a bit and becoming more westernised. The ability to laugh at your own religion or indeed have others do it should be a mark of civilisation. You are totally right that they wouldn’t dream of doing it about Mohamed.
Had they done it about Mohammed they would have to have gone into hiding as they would almost certainly have had death threats
I would have thought most Muslims would just have been confused by why Mohammed was running away from a cross.
I agree with the PB-ers who say the Ukrainian invasion looks an awful lot like genocide
It is an attempt to cancel a country. To remove it from history, to eradicate its identity. Is that not genocide?
I understand this is a solemn question, as it then entails quite fierce commitments by us
quite - it will mean WW3 (and the death of 99% of people in the UK) if countries take the law on it literally so lets be careful about it shall we?
Let’s just sacrifice all Ukrainians over your care for the definition, shall we?
well you want WW3 then and nuclear war?
I do not believe for a moment that Russians will commit suicide to “win” Ukraine.
oh good I am not prepared to take the risk personally of your hunch
Are you prepared to sacrifice the Poles too on your hunch that they will?
Poles they are NATO are they not so I doubt Russia will attack.
So the Ukrainians aren’t worth it because of a piece of paper?
the continued supply of weapons is killing people not the other way around and prolonging things
Why can’t they just surrender and get it over with? Is that your line? Have you seen great the Russians have been so far in occupied areas? Would you fucking surrender? For gods sake, take a look at yourself.
no, if ukrainian its a hard decision - but I am not and supplying weapons is only prolonging the war and killing people. At some point it has to stop . You really dont want endless years of active war stalemate there. there are a lot of people on here who are used to winning in a virtuous way. Sometimes life cannot be like that and you have to be more pragmatic. Weigh up the bigger risk , weigh up the bigger evil (of an endless unwinnable war that will destroy at least one country )- the sinking of that ship was probably a mistake despite the gooshing it led to amongst militiary battle types on here and elsewhere. What is going to be needed is a localised conflict in the east of Ukraine and then a face saving settlement for both sides - what else can there be ?
If we imagine the Russians don't actually lose, but there's a ceasefire etc where they keep most of the territory they're currently occupying, why would we expect that to stick? They've been embarrassed, and the strategic reasons for the invasion are still there and then some. They couldn't go any further than they did because they have trouble getting supplies too far from their own territory, and their army was worn down and exhausted. So in a few years time they build their army back up, fix some of their military problems and build infrastructure right up to their new border. And then the war starts again.
I'm not relying on it and I want the Tories to do badly, I think their Barnet prediction is entirely credible in every way but other stuff not. I suppose the Tories are likely to retain a handful of seats on Richmond and Kingston in places like Barnes and Coombe respectively for instance and I guess the LDs will probably hold Sutton but I don’t know if their majority will rise or fall.
The Conservatives have never been wiped off either Kingston or Richmond - both Boroughs have solid Conservative Wards - though the Tories were once down to 3 or 4 in Richmond, I don't think they've been lower than 10 in Kingston.
As for Sutton, I could see the LDs losing their majority but how the seats will change with the new boundaries is much harder to call.
I just think Pollcat's predictions are in a sense too extreme and in another sense not extreme enough.
With Deltapoll showing the Conservatives at 20% in London, you do wonder if we will see some surprises but I have to say the Conservatives winning a seat in Barking & Dagenham would be right up there.
I think the Conservatives got as low as three in Richmond in the 80s/90s.
https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1515394868595539968 BREAKING: India reportedly cancels plans to buy 48 Mi-17 V5 helicopters from Russia… … This plan is being linked to India's push to transition towards domestic-made military equipment and is not framed as a rejection of Russia. But the timing of this move, if confirmed, is striking given U.S. pressure over India's Russia ties.
Could it be partly because the Indians have noticed how easily the Ukrainian shot done Russian Helicopters?
Ok probably not, but
I'm absolutely convinced that the Indians (and the Chinese, and a bunch of others) have noticed how Anglo-Swedish NLAWs, British Starstreak and French Martlets have absolutely massacred Russian kit.
They have taken out the Russian flagship of the Black Sea fleet, hundreds of tanks, and many helicopters and planes.
The idea that is not reverberating through the operators of Russian kit around the world is for the birds.
I doubt China is too concerned. The real Russian deficiency is in modern electronic systems, which is not so much a problem for them - not indeed is the economic wherewithal to retire and replace their obsolete kit.
But you’re right that there are also plenty of alternate suppliers now, even if they’re not quite so cheap. And people will certainly be thinking quality is at least as important as quantity.
Agreed: the really interesting thing is that it's not really about the weapons delivery platforms, but missiles, etc. that sit on top of them. And if you lack an advanced electronics and sensor industry, you simply can't compete.
back to the Sinking of the Russian Flagship Moskova.
It seems that the Russian Orthodox Church had placed one of there relocks on the ship, a fragment from the cross that Jesus was crucified on. That has presumably gone down with the Ship.
(Please can we not argue about weather it was really a fragment of the cross, HYDF will say one thing and everybody else the other and we will be here all night, so please lets not go down that road. However the significant thing here is the Russian Orthodox Church pronated that it was. and this shoes:
1) The ridiculously close relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Russian State and armed forces. Whatever ones opinion of the separation of church and state, Russia today is at an absolute extreme end of this spectrum.
2) The Russians really did not expect this ship to be sunk.
I would not call myself a Christian at all anymore but that is sick and offensive. What were they thinking?
Free advertising. Cue the shock and publicity, and they get far more exposure than they ever would.
Not sure they would have tried it with a Mohammed related advert though.
Indeed.
It is somewhat offensive but I have seen worse.
Fortunately for the author Christians will not issue a Fatwa of death against him for insulting their main prophet though, so he has to go into hiding
Why do you find it offensive though?
It acknowledges the fundamental truth of our shared beliefs - that the crucifixion was not the end for the Risen Christ.
They may claim - in a jokey fashion - that it was down to human failing rather than God’s mystery, but that’s a relatively minor transgression in the scheme of things
I dont find it offensive and its rather witty but the point is well made that the authors of it would not have done the same to a depiction of Mohammed etc .I personally wish we could live in a country where you can "tease" religion and its icons but it should be the same for all and clearly we live in a country where you can make jokes about Jesus and his death but not other historical leaders
Can’t argue with that. I think there are signs that parts of Islam is throwing off the shackles a bit and becoming more westernised. The ability to laugh at your own religion or indeed have others do it should be a mark of civilisation. You are totally right that they wouldn’t dream of doing it about Mohamed.
Had they done it about Mohammed they would have to have gone into hiding as they would almost certainly have had death threats
I would have thought most Muslims would just have been confused by why Mohammed was running away from a cross.
Though to be fair Muslims also see Jesus as a prophet, even if not the Messiah nor their main prophet
I agree with the PB-ers who say the Ukrainian invasion looks an awful lot like genocide
It is an attempt to cancel a country. To remove it from history, to eradicate its identity. Is that not genocide?
I understand this is a solemn question, as it then entails quite fierce commitments by us
quite - it will mean WW3 (and the death of 99% of people in the UK) if countries take the law on it literally so lets be careful about it shall we?
Let’s just sacrifice all Ukrainians over your care for the definition, shall we?
well you want WW3 then and nuclear war?
I do not believe for a moment that Russians will commit suicide to “win” Ukraine.
oh good I am not prepared to take the risk personally of your hunch
Are you prepared to sacrifice the Poles too on your hunch that they will?
Poles they are NATO are they not so I doubt Russia will attack.
So the Ukrainians aren’t worth it because of a piece of paper?
the continued supply of weapons is killing people not the other way around and prolonging things
Why can’t they just surrender and get it over with? Is that your line? Have you seen great the Russians have been so far in occupied areas? Would you fucking surrender? For gods sake, take a look at yourself.
no, if ukrainian its a hard decision - but I am not and supplying weapons is only prolonging the war and killing people. At some point it has to stop . You really dont want endless years of active war stalemate there. there are a lot of people on here who are used to winning in a virtuous way. Sometimes life cannot be like that and you have to be more pragmatic. Weigh up the bigger risk , weigh up the bigger evil (of an endless unwinnable war that will destroy at least one country )- the sinking of that ship was probably a mistake despite the gooshing it led to amongst militiary battle types on here and elsewhere. What is going to be needed is a localised conflict in the east of Ukraine and then a face saving settlement for both sides - what else can there be ?
If we imagine the Russians don't actually lose, but there's a ceasefire etc where they keep most of the territory they're currently occupying, why would we expect that to stick? They've been embarrassed, and the strategic reasons for the invasion are still there and then some. They couldn't go any further than they did because they have trouble getting supplies too far from their own territory, and their army was worn down and exhausted. So in a few years time they build their army back up, fix some of their military problems and build infrastructure right up to their new border. And then the war starts again.
I find it quite fascinating to read conversations like this because it sound like what a few people would have been saying back at the start of WW2, after France had surrendered and some in government were looking to do a deal with Hitler. Frankly, for me, its a no brainer, Russia must be seen to lose, anything else is appeasement and that never ends well as history shows.
Labour majority of 36 plugging those numbers into Electoral Calculus.
Wait till the cost of living crisis REALLY kicks in.
We're almost at 1997 levels of support now.
But without the 55 Scottish seats, it’s a harder mountain to climb.
Indeed. That Deltapoll is fantastic for Labour, especially for Scottish Labour (at 29% compared to 18.6% at the last UK GE). However, Baxter gives the following seat distribution, based on the new boundaries:
Then Labour splits, Corbynites would walk out and start their own party
The reason they don't split (and so few left during the Corbyn era) is because no-one is going to give up being "Labour". It's always been more than one party, going back to the 1920s, fighting tooth and nail.
Labour is a coalition between Corbynite Socialists and Starmerite Social Democrats with a few Blairites still in the mix.
Just as the Conservatives are a coalition between One Nation types of the Cameroon and Major school and Thatcherite Brexiteers.
Only FPTP keeps them all in the same party, PR would break up the old parties into smaller ones
Labour majority of 36 plugging those numbers into Electoral Calculus.
Wait till the cost of living crisis REALLY kicks in.
We're almost at 1997 levels of support now.
But without the 55 Scottish seats, it’s a harder mountain to climb.
Indeed. That Deltapoll is fantastic for Labour, especially for Scottish Labour (at 29% compared to 18.6% at the last UK GE). However, Baxter gives the following seat distribution, based on the new boundaries:
I don't think the LDs would be reduced to zero in Scotland, thanks to the magic of tactical voting.
They might drop to a single seat (O&S), but I think that's the limit of their 2024 drop. (Of course we don't have final boundaries yet, but my guess is that they lose the successor seat to CS&ER, and then have two ultra marginals around Edinburgh West and St Andrews/Fife NE.)
I agree with the PB-ers who say the Ukrainian invasion looks an awful lot like genocide
It is an attempt to cancel a country. To remove it from history, to eradicate its identity. Is that not genocide?
I understand this is a solemn question, as it then entails quite fierce commitments by us
quite - it will mean WW3 (and the death of 99% of people in the UK) if countries take the law on it literally so lets be careful about it shall we?
Let’s just sacrifice all Ukrainians over your care for the definition, shall we?
well you want WW3 then and nuclear war?
I do not believe for a moment that Russians will commit suicide to “win” Ukraine.
oh good I am not prepared to take the risk personally of your hunch
Are you prepared to sacrifice the Poles too on your hunch that they will?
Poles they are NATO are they not so I doubt Russia will attack.
So the Ukrainians aren’t worth it because of a piece of paper?
the continued supply of weapons is killing people not the other way around and prolonging things
Why can’t they just surrender and get it over with? Is that your line? Have you seen great the Russians have been so far in occupied areas? Would you fucking surrender? For gods sake, take a look at yourself.
no, if ukrainian its a hard decision - but I am not and supplying weapons is only prolonging the war and killing people. At some point it has to stop . You really dont want endless years of active war stalemate there. there are a lot of people on here who are used to winning in a virtuous way. Sometimes life cannot be like that and you have to be more pragmatic. Weigh up the bigger risk , weigh up the bigger evil (of an endless unwinnable war that will destroy at least one country )- the sinking of that ship was probably a mistake despite the gooshing it led to amongst militiary battle types on here and elsewhere. What is going to be needed is a localised conflict in the east of Ukraine and then a face saving settlement for both sides - what else can there be ?
If we imagine the Russians don't actually lose, but there's a ceasefire etc where they keep most of the territory they're currently occupying, why would we expect that to stick? They've been embarrassed, and the strategic reasons for the invasion are still there and then some. They couldn't go any further than they did because they have trouble getting supplies too far from their own territory, and their army was worn down and exhausted. So in a few years time they build their army back up, fix some of their military problems and build infrastructure right up to their new border. And then the war starts again.
I find it quite fascinating to read conversations like this because it sound like what a few people would have been saying back at the start of WW2, after France had surrendered and some in government were looking to do a deal with Hitler. Frankly, for me, its a no brainer, Russia must be seen to lose, anything else is appeasement and that never ends well as history shows.
Yes, but I would word that slightly differently, Putin must be seen to loos, or aggression bust be seen to loss,
Russia is still a great nation, with wonderful cultcher and lots more, its people have not failed, its leader has failed its people.
https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1515394868595539968 BREAKING: India reportedly cancels plans to buy 48 Mi-17 V5 helicopters from Russia… … This plan is being linked to India's push to transition towards domestic-made military equipment and is not framed as a rejection of Russia. But the timing of this move, if confirmed, is striking given U.S. pressure over India's Russia ties.
Could it be partly because the Indians have noticed how easily the Ukrainian shot done Russian Helicopters?
Ok probably not, but
I'm absolutely convinced that the Indians (and the Chinese, and a bunch of others) have noticed how Anglo-Swedish NLAWs, British Starstreak and French Martlets have absolutely massacred Russian kit.
They have taken out the Russian flagship of the Black Sea fleet, hundreds of tanks, and many helicopters and planes.
The idea that is not reverberating through the operators of Russian kit around the world is for the birds.
I doubt China is too concerned. The real Russian deficiency is in modern electronic systems, which is not so much a problem for them - not indeed is the economic wherewithal to retire and replace their obsolete kit.
But you’re right that there are also plenty of alternate suppliers now, even if they’re not quite so cheap. And people will certainly be thinking quality is at least as important as quantity.
Agreed: the really interesting thing is that it's not really about the weapons delivery platforms, but missiles, etc. that sit on top of them. And if you lack an advanced electronics and sensor industry, you simply can't compete.
I must buy some Thales shares...
What about the South Koreans ? They are going to be a real competitor for the traditional western manufacturers (note we're buying our 155mm artillery replacement from them). Also Israel.
Turkey seems to have done OK just raiding US part bins for their Bayraktars. Though that does require some sort of access to US part bins.
back to the Sinking of the Russian Flagship Moskova.
It seems that the Russian Orthodox Church had placed one of there relocks on the ship, a fragment from the cross that Jesus was crucified on. That has presumably gone down with the Ship.
(Please can we not argue about weather it was really a fragment of the cross, HYDF will say one thing and everybody else the other and we will be here all night, so please lets not go down that road. However the significant thing here is the Russian Orthodox Church pronated that it was. and this shoes:
1) The ridiculously close relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Russian State and armed forces. Whatever ones opinion of the separation of church and state, Russia today is at an absolute extreme end of this spectrum.
2) The Russians really did not expect this ship to be sunk.
I would not call myself a Christian at all anymore but that is sick and offensive. What were they thinking?
Free advertising. Cue the shock and publicity, and they get far more exposure than they ever would.
Not sure they would have tried it with a Mohammed related advert though.
Indeed.
It is somewhat offensive but I have seen worse.
Fortunately for the author Christians will not issue a Fatwa of death against him for insulting their main prophet though, so he has to go into hiding
Why do you find it offensive though?
It acknowledges the fundamental truth of our shared beliefs - that the crucifixion was not the end for the Risen Christ.
They may claim - in a jokey fashion - that it was down to human failing rather than God’s mystery, but that’s a relatively minor transgression in the scheme of things
I dont find it offensive and its rather witty but the point is well made that the authors of it would not have done the same to a depiction of Mohammed etc .I personally wish we could live in a country where you can "tease" religion and its icons but it should be the same for all and clearly we live in a country where you can make jokes about Jesus and his death but not other historical leaders
Can’t argue with that. I think there are signs that parts of Islam is throwing off the shackles a bit and becoming more westernised. The ability to laugh at your own religion or indeed have others do it should be a mark of civilisation. You are totally right that they wouldn’t dream of doing it about Mohamed.
Had they done it about Mohammed they would have to have gone into hiding as they would almost certainly have had death threats
I would have thought most Muslims would just have been confused by why Mohammed was running away from a cross.
I think we all know that’s not the allegory which would have been used - and that the creators of any such poster would have had to go into hiding…
Johnson to visit India in bid to boost defence ties
Prime Minister Boris Johnson is set to make a long-delayed trip to India this week in a bid to strengthen security ties with the country. He will meet his counterpart Narendra Modi in New Delhi on Friday, with talks focused on defence and trade.
Johnson to visit India in bid to boost defence ties
Prime Minister Boris Johnson is set to make a long-delayed trip to India this week in a bid to strengthen security ties with the country. He will meet his counterpart Narendra Modi in New Delhi on Friday, with talks focused on defence and trade.
Tremendous poll for Scottish and Welsh Labour. Scottish and Welsh Conservatives in meltdown territory.
London Lab 50% Con 20% LD 8% Grn 7%
Rest of South Con 43% Lab 37% LD 11% Grn 6%
Midlands Con 47% Lab 37% LD 7% Grn 5%
North Lab 54% Con 24% LD 12% Grn 6%
Scotland SNP 49% Lab 29% Con 15% LD 5% Grn 2%
Wales Lab 56% PC 19% Con 13% Grn 6% LD 3%
(Deltapoll/Mail on Sunday; Sample Size: 1,550; Fieldwork: 13th - 14th April 2022)
Ah, here we see the magic effect of the Rwanda proposals on those working-class Northern seats...
or not.
It would be helpful to know the comparative figures for 2019 for each region - is there an overview somewhere? The "Rest of South" is a bit problematic for tactical voting, as on those figures there will certainly be seats that Labour could win that appear to have the LibDems as main challengers because of tactical voting last time.
It's hard to believe how awful the Conservative figures in Wales are. They got 36.1% last time, so they've more than halved.
It is truly remarkable how people just lump the North into one big pot.
The key question should not be “the splits for the North” but “what are the splits between the metropolitan areas in the North and the rest?”. The North contains a large number of cities - Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford etc - that are generally unfavourable to the Tories. But the Tories hardly had any seats in them anyway.
Labour majority of 36 plugging those numbers into Electoral Calculus.
Wait till the cost of living crisis REALLY kicks in.
We're almost at 1997 levels of support now.
But without the 55 Scottish seats, it’s a harder mountain to climb.
Indeed. That Deltapoll is fantastic for Labour, especially for Scottish Labour (at 29% compared to 18.6% at the last UK GE). However, Baxter gives the following seat distribution, based on the new boundaries:
I don't think the LDs would be reduced to zero in Scotland, thanks to the magic of tactical voting.
They might drop to a single seat (O&S), but I think that's the limit of their 2024 drop. (Of course we don't have final boundaries yet, but my guess is that they lose the successor seat to CS&ER, and then have two ultra marginals around Edinburgh West and St Andrews/Fife NE.)
No way do the Lib Dems lose Edinburgh West ever again, of that I am confident. They are turning it into a complete fortress at a local level. I actually think Edinburgh West would be their last seat standing in Scotland as O&S has really weird local dynamics and Shetland has swung heavily towards the SNP even if LDs/Carmichael have more support in Orkney. Fife NE is a possible loss with boundaries but they might still overcome the boundary changes.
I think they are also looking somewhat more resilient in Caithness now even if the SNP is favourites there.
I can see their vote completely dissipating in East Dunbartonshire to Con/Lab now Swinson has gone though.
'I have to say, I'm really, really, shocked by this.'
This is the moment @IainDale realises the UK's policy of exporting asylum seekers to Rwanda means those asylum seekers will remain in Rwanda after being processed.
Labour majority of 36 plugging those numbers into Electoral Calculus.
Wait till the cost of living crisis REALLY kicks in.
We're almost at 1997 levels of support now.
But without the 55 Scottish seats, it’s a harder mountain to climb.
Indeed. That Deltapoll is fantastic for Labour, especially for Scottish Labour (at 29% compared to 18.6% at the last UK GE). However, Baxter gives the following seat distribution, based on the new boundaries:
Then Labour splits, Corbynites would walk out and start their own party
The reason they don't split (and so few left during the Corbyn era) is because no-one is going to give up being "Labour". It's always been more than one party, going back to the 1920s, fighting tooth and nail.
Labour is a coalition between Corbynite Socialists and Starmerite Social Democrats with a few Blairites still in the mix.
Just as the Conservatives are a coalition between One Nation types of the Cameroon and Major school and Thatcherite Brexiteers.
Only FPTP keeps them all in the same party, PR would break up the old parties into smaller ones
I don't think Starmer believes in very much TBH although he has Blairite advisors and is running a sort of 'Blair-lite' media strategy and we will see if it is successful or not.
'I have to say, I'm really, really, shocked by this.'
This is the moment @IainDale realises the UK's policy of exporting asylum seekers to Rwanda means those asylum seekers will remain in Rwanda after being processed.
Crikey. Never work live with children, small animals or one of Patel's madcap schemes.
I agree with the PB-ers who say the Ukrainian invasion looks an awful lot like genocide
It is an attempt to cancel a country. To remove it from history, to eradicate its identity. Is that not genocide?
I understand this is a solemn question, as it then entails quite fierce commitments by us
quite - it will mean WW3 (and the death of 99% of people in the UK) if countries take the law on it literally so lets be careful about it shall we?
Let’s just sacrifice all Ukrainians over your care for the definition, shall we?
well you want WW3 then and nuclear war?
I do not believe for a moment that Russians will commit suicide to “win” Ukraine.
oh good I am not prepared to take the risk personally of your hunch
Are you prepared to sacrifice the Poles too on your hunch that they will?
Poles they are NATO are they not so I doubt Russia will attack.
So the Ukrainians aren’t worth it because of a piece of paper?
the continued supply of weapons is killing people not the other way around and prolonging things
Why can’t they just surrender and get it over with? Is that your line? Have you seen great the Russians have been so far in occupied areas? Would you fucking surrender? For gods sake, take a look at yourself.
no, if ukrainian its a hard decision - but I am not and supplying weapons is only prolonging the war and killing people. At some point it has to stop . You really dont want endless years of active war stalemate there. there are a lot of people on here who are used to winning in a virtuous way. Sometimes life cannot be like that and you have to be more pragmatic. Weigh up the bigger risk , weigh up the bigger evil (of an endless unwinnable war that will destroy at least one country )- the sinking of that ship was probably a mistake despite the gooshing it led to amongst militiary battle types on here and elsewhere. What is going to be needed is a localised conflict in the east of Ukraine and then a face saving settlement for both sides - what else can there be ?
If we imagine the Russians don't actually lose, but there's a ceasefire etc where they keep most of the territory they're currently occupying, why would we expect that to stick? They've been embarrassed, and the strategic reasons for the invasion are still there and then some. They couldn't go any further than they did because they have trouble getting supplies too far from their own territory, and their army was worn down and exhausted. So in a few years time they build their army back up, fix some of their military problems and build infrastructure right up to their new border. And then the war starts again.
I find it quite fascinating to read conversations like this because it sound like what a few people would have been saying back at the start of WW2, after France had surrendered and some in government were looking to do a deal with Hitler. Frankly, for me, its a no brainer, Russia must be seen to lose, anything else is appeasement and that never ends well as history shows.
Yeah. I mean, I do think it's a bad idea to look at everything through the WW2 lense, part of the problem with the Ukraine situation is that the populations on both sides think they're fighting Hitler.
But the parallels here are as close as they have been in any war I can think of: Humiliated power, sort-of resurgent under nationalistic leader trying to take back territory they think they're owed, ostensibly protecting their ethnic populations who ended up in neighbouring states, repeatedly appeased and showing no sign of stopping.
What I'd like to hear from the "realists" is some kind of realistic end state: Say we accept that stopping the war is more important than the thing they're fighting over and we think Ukraine should give Russia concessions to stop the war, how do they actually make the war stop and not start again?
I did 9 happy months at Linton-on-Don in the 90s. The residents are mainly your wealthier gammons who will be even redder than usual at this news. The pub there had a fruit machine which could be induced to pay out by tilting it while your mate distracted the landlord.
To all those people who say we need to stop the war ASAP and not be sending more weapons to Ukraine - fine. But what sort of peace agreement do you envisage? Very few people seem to be answering that question. Just an assumption of 'oh well if both sides put down their arms they're bound to be able to compromise.'
well I am no expert on the demographics of Ukraine but I imagine a settlement will need to be drawn up along something that resembles those lines - Its not the best solution and I condemn Russia for the war FWIW but let me turn it around and ask you what do you hope to achieve by prolonging the war because Russia is not going to be pushed back to its borders and go home by military force - look at the size of the two armies for that
I did 9 happy months at Linton-on-Don in the 90s. The residents are mainly your wealthier gammons who will be even redder than usual at this news. The pub there had a fruit machine which could be induced to pay out by tilting it while your mate distracted the landlord.
This seems to be yet another article saying that those processed and rejected will be sent to Rwanda.
That is not as i understand it the plan.
If a person is sent to Rw they are staying there. there is no processing. It is as the Daily Mail triumphantly put it - A ONE WAY TICKET
Got to love the council paper pushers, can't use a caravan because of restrictions on year round occupation. You don't think given the situation, you could perhaps bends the rules? Or perhaps say its fine for the next 6 months. Don't be silly.
What leaps out at me from the delta poll is 11% Labour lead, but ten behind in the key midlands battle ground, one of Labours worse polls for that split. Sure there are key marginals all round the place, and the lead up north is good for a few of those, but let’s be honest 11% overall, ten behind in midlands has a whiff if piling on negatory votes in places they just don’t need them.
General election night isn’t just the size of your vote but the bang you get from it.
Another thing to add, some pollsters produce consistent good polls for the different parties, and each month tends to have a labour sympathetic run, and then Kantor and others can come together showing smaller leads.
That means compare polls from companies to feel the trends. The green, Lab, Lib added together falling about 55 or more is a good indicator too, as those three share voter based on pollster
To all those people who say we need to stop the war ASAP and not be sending more weapons to Ukraine - fine. But what sort of peace agreement do you envisage? Very few people seem to be answering that question. Just an assumption of 'oh well if both sides put down their arms they're bound to be able to compromise.'
well I am no expert on the demographics of Ukraine but I imagine a settlement will need to be drawn up along something that resembles those lines - Its not the best solution and I condemn Russia for the war FWIW but let me turn it around and ask you what do you hope to achieve by prolonging the war because Russia is not going to be pushed back to its borders and go home by military force - look at the size of the two armies for that
Why can’t Russia surrender?
Absolutely. What I intend to achieve by sending Ukraine arms is the defeat of Russia and Ukraine victorious.
If you're against sending arms to Ukraine then you're implicitly in favour of the defeat of Ukraine and Russia victorious.
Russia absolutely needs to be pushed back to its borders and go home by military force, that is how countries lose wars.
To all those people who say we need to stop the war ASAP and not be sending more weapons to Ukraine - fine. But what sort of peace agreement do you envisage? Very few people seem to be answering that question. Just an assumption of 'oh well if both sides put down their arms they're bound to be able to compromise.'
well I am no expert on the demographics of Ukraine but I imagine a settlement will need to be drawn up along something that resembles those lines - Its not the best solution and I condemn Russia for the war FWIW but let me turn it around and ask you what do you hope to achieve by prolonging the war because Russia is not going to be pushed back to its borders and go home by military force - look at the size of the two armies for that
Why can’t Russia surrender?
Absolutely. What I intend to achieve by sending Ukraine arms is the defeat of Russia and Ukraine victorious.
If you're against sending arms to Ukraine then you're implicitly in favour of the defeat of Ukraine and Russia victorious.
Russia absolutely needs to be pushed back to its borders and go home by military force, that is how countries lose wars.
My concern with your master plan is something Zelenskyy often mentions himself - Ukraine troops becoming thinned out. It’s still an unfair fight overall isn’t it? How much Ukraine manpower are you writing off in pursuits of quite right and heroic aims what you have just posted?
A few weeks ago it looked like a negotiated settlement might not just be possible, but near, ironically the Russian withdraw revealing the atrocities and massive war crimes put paid of the Ukraine mood for serious talks and compromise.
There could be a downside to the number of Russian generals killed, as the war crimes to be blamed on dead peoples responsibility for not controlling their command.
When Russia invaded it left people confused what they really wanted from it, as they shaped as they wanted to go into Kyiv. I agree with those who say they have already lost.
well I am no expert on the demographics of Ukraine but I imagine a settlement will need to be drawn up along something that resembles those lines - Its not the best solution and I condemn Russia for the war FWIW but let me turn it around and ask you what do you hope to achieve by prolonging the war because Russia is not going to be pushed back to its borders and go home by military force - look at the size of the two armies for that
You appear to have some mystical foretelling skills. But, ignoring those, would you like to see Russia pushed back to its borders?
Or do you think that would be too ‘dangerous’?
As someone on twitter pointed out, the 'realists' are having a terrible war, and are still largely ignoring the actual - the real - developments in the war.
A tweet I read earlier said that something along the lines of - if you ever wondered what you would have done about Hitler; it’s what you’re doing now.
Yep. Saw that one, and very much agreed with both the sentiment and the underlying implication that this situation is every bit as serious as 1938.
To all those people who say we need to stop the war ASAP and not be sending more weapons to Ukraine - fine. But what sort of peace agreement do you envisage? Very few people seem to be answering that question. Just an assumption of 'oh well if both sides put down their arms they're bound to be able to compromise.'
well I am no expert on the demographics of Ukraine but I imagine a settlement will need to be drawn up along something that resembles those lines - Its not the best solution and I condemn Russia for the war FWIW but let me turn it around and ask you what do you hope to achieve by prolonging the war because Russia is not going to be pushed back to its borders and go home by military force - look at the size of the two armies for that
Why can’t Russia surrender?
Absolutely. What I intend to achieve by sending Ukraine arms is the defeat of Russia and Ukraine victorious.
If you're against sending arms to Ukraine then you're implicitly in favour of the defeat of Ukraine and Russia victorious.
Russia absolutely needs to be pushed back to its borders and go home by military force, that is how countries lose wars.
The idea that Russia cannot lose and cannot be pushed back to the recognized international borders just because it is big ignores all histories of the beginnings of the end of empires.
It is an argument that the Battle of Teutoburg Forest and its consequences simply could not have happened.
To all those people who say we need to stop the war ASAP and not be sending more weapons to Ukraine - fine. But what sort of peace agreement do you envisage? Very few people seem to be answering that question. Just an assumption of 'oh well if both sides put down their arms they're bound to be able to compromise.'
well I am no expert on the demographics of Ukraine but I imagine a settlement will need to be drawn up along something that resembles those lines - Its not the best solution and I condemn Russia for the war FWIW but let me turn it around and ask you what do you hope to achieve by prolonging the war because Russia is not going to be pushed back to its borders and go home by military force - look at the size of the two armies for that
Why can’t Russia surrender?
Absolutely. What I intend to achieve by sending Ukraine arms is the defeat of Russia and Ukraine victorious.
If you're against sending arms to Ukraine then you're implicitly in favour of the defeat of Ukraine and Russia victorious.
Russia absolutely needs to be pushed back to its borders and go home by military force, that is how countries lose wars.
The idea that Russia cannot lose and cannot be pushed back to the recognized international borders just because it is big ignores all histories of the beginnings of the end of empires.
It is an argument that the Battle of Teutoburg Forest and its consequences simply could not have happened.
We have much more recent examples. Vietnam, for example.
David Frum: If Russia should lose its war against Ukraine, not only will Ukraine secure its full post-Soviet independence - but NATO, the EU, and western democracies generally will be strengthened. So it's not "unprincipled" for people who dislike western democracy & lament the USSR to urge Ukraine to surrender before Russia is defeated. They are indeed acting on their principles. It's just awkward for them to acknowledge what their principles truly are.
Labour majority of 36 plugging those numbers into Electoral Calculus.
Wait till the cost of living crisis REALLY kicks in.
It’s a bit ironic Boris being undone by something that isn’t really his fault…
Brexit isn’t his fault?!
It’s the cost of living not brexit that is causing the tories problems
Brexit is a huge contributing factor to the cost of living crisis.
It’s a factor. I assume there is no cost of living crisis anywhere else then from your post?
He didn't say that. He said brexit was a huge factor, along with others, like qe playing through and shortage of employees.
It’s implied. I seem to recall much of Europe is also having a col crisis.
Well, anywhere that is highly dependent on energy imports (Europe, the UK, Japan) is going to be having a CoL crisis.
Not just those areas either! I live somewhere with plentiful local energy, but petrol prices are through the roof! Cost me more than £50 to fill up yesterday, which seems low until you know that it cost £30 to fill up a year ago.
Comments
Now's a good time to embrace atheism, I reckon.
The Tory core vote is pensioners and the skilled working class, hence the Midlands is now more favourable to the Conservatives than London
Could be a few folk dragged kicking and screaming to the council chamber!
Night all.
I must buy some Thales shares...
Just as the Conservatives are a coalition between One Nation types of the Cameroon and Major school and Thatcherite Brexiteers.
Only FPTP keeps them all in the same party, PR would break up the old parties into smaller ones
They might drop to a single seat (O&S), but I think that's the limit of their 2024 drop. (Of course we don't have final boundaries yet, but my guess is that they lose the successor seat to CS&ER, and then have two ultra marginals around Edinburgh West and St Andrews/Fife NE.)
Russia is still a great nation, with wonderful cultcher and lots more, its people have not failed, its leader has failed its people.
Also Israel.
Turkey seems to have done OK just raiding US part bins for their Bayraktars. Though that does require some sort of access to US part bins.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson is set to make a long-delayed trip to India this week in a bid to strengthen security ties with the country. He will meet his counterpart Narendra Modi in New Delhi on Friday, with talks focused on defence and trade.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61130758
The key question should not be “the splits for the North” but “what are the splits between the metropolitan areas in the North and the rest?”. The North contains a large number of cities - Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford etc - that are generally unfavourable to the Tories. But the Tories hardly had any seats in them anyway.
I think they are also looking somewhat more resilient in Caithness now even if the SNP is favourites there.
I can see their vote completely dissipating in East Dunbartonshire to Con/Lab now Swinson has gone though.
'I have to say, I'm really, really, shocked by this.'
This is the moment @IainDale realises the UK's policy of exporting asylum seekers to Rwanda means those asylum seekers will remain in Rwanda after being processed.
https://twitter.com/scottlincicome/status/1515335601003933702
"S. Korea decides to join CPTPP trade agreement" https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20220415009000320?input=tw
But the parallels here are as close as they have been in any war I can think of: Humiliated power, sort-of resurgent under nationalistic leader trying to take back territory they think they're owed, ostensibly protecting their ethnic populations who ended up in neighbouring states, repeatedly appeased and showing no sign of stopping.
What I'd like to hear from the "realists" is some kind of realistic end state: Say we accept that stopping the war is more important than the thing they're fighting over and we think Ukraine should give Russia concessions to stop the war, how do they actually make the war stop and not start again?
That is not as i understand it the plan.
If a person is sent to Rw they are staying there. there is no processing. It is as the Daily Mail triumphantly put it - A ONE WAY TICKET
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-61127404
Got to love the council paper pushers, can't use a caravan because of restrictions on year round occupation. You don't think given the situation, you could perhaps bends the rules? Or perhaps say its fine for the next 6 months. Don't be silly.
General election night isn’t just the size of your vote but the bang you get from it.
Another thing to add, some pollsters produce consistent good polls for the different parties, and each month tends to have a labour sympathetic run, and then Kantor and others can come together showing smaller leads.
That means compare polls from companies to feel the trends. The green, Lab, Lib added together falling about 55 or more is a good indicator too, as those three share voter based on pollster
If you're against sending arms to Ukraine then you're implicitly in favour of the defeat of Ukraine and Russia victorious.
Russia absolutely needs to be pushed back to its borders and go home by military force, that is how countries lose wars.
If Brexit is such a "huge factor" then why is inflation in the UK lower than inflation in the Eurozone? 🤔
A few weeks ago it looked like a negotiated settlement might not just be possible, but near, ironically the Russian withdraw revealing the atrocities and massive war crimes put paid of the Ukraine mood for serious talks and compromise.
There could be a downside to the number of Russian generals killed, as the war crimes to be blamed on dead peoples responsibility for not controlling their command.
When Russia invaded it left people confused what they really wanted from it, as they shaped as they wanted to go into Kyiv. I agree with those who say they have already lost.
Civil servant’s findings may not be revealed until after the local elections, as detectives spend weeks issuing fixed penalty notices
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/04/16/sue-gray-told-cannot-publish-full-partygate-report-every-fine/ (£££)
The story suggests the report is not affected by purdah rules before the local elections but the police want the report delayed further.
I'll get my coat and cane ..
It is an argument that the Battle of Teutoburg Forest and its consequences simply could not have happened.
Vietnam, for example.
If Russia should lose its war against Ukraine, not only will Ukraine secure its full post-Soviet independence - but NATO, the EU, and western democracies generally will be strengthened. So it's not "unprincipled" for people who dislike western democracy & lament the USSR to urge Ukraine to surrender before Russia is defeated. They are indeed acting on their principles. It's just awkward for them to acknowledge what their principles truly are.