Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Time to over analyse things – politicalbetting.com

12346»

Comments

  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,582
    Sandpit said:

    TimT said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    TimT said:

    The thing that most worries me about the Ukraine situation is how Putin will react if his armies in Ukraine suffer a sudden, almost complete collapse. I don't think this is certain to happen, but by some accounts they are being attrited faster than new reinforcements are arriving. At some point, the reinforcements stop arriving.

    Given that Ukraine has already dispatched some 50% of Russia's functioning armour, a complete collapse in 2-3 months time is not out of the question if the current pattern continues.

    What does Putin do then? He will have virtually no conventional armed forces left to defend Mother Russia. It scares me enough I try not to think about it, even though I would love to see the total collapse of the Russian AF without the ... ahem ... fallout.

    Some think he will use Victory Day to announce a full mobilisation.
    Interesting rumours that Zelensky has plans to mark Victory Day too, and in a way that Russia would find very embarrasing.
    What show off all the Western kit the Russians can only dream of?
    More like, showing off all the Russian kit the Russians can only dream of.
    Captured Russian equipment is Ukraine's largest source of heavy armour, and Ukraine now reportedly has more tanks in Ukraine than Russia.
    Even ignoring the Western reinforcements, the Ukranians now have more tanks than they did before the war started! They’ve captured more than they’ve lost themselves.
    Some have suggested that Ukraine should hold a parade....

    image
  • Options
    TimTTimT Posts: 6,328

    TimT said:

    stodge said:


    It already is de facto involvement with NATO arming Ukrainian and it cannot be ruled out that NATO will be drawn into the conflict at some time

    Just repeating your opinion does not make it an unqualified fact in this intractable and unpredictable war, sadly

    The Cold War was a series of proxy conflicts where sometimes the USA and Soviet Union would be arming one side or both sides. Ukraine is more like Vietnam or Afghanistan in which the forces of one of the superpowers are faced with what should be an inferior force but which is armed and supplied by the other superpower.

    The results of both of those conflicts should give Ukraine some encouragement.

    We have to avoid the temptation to become directly involved.
    We are discussing this without considering one important thing. What is NATO's war aim? We are all-but belligerent, we must be working towards some end.
    The end is the defence of the western democratic, human rights, liberal economics ideal in a rules-based world, and defending it at the first, not last domino. That is a defensive posture; NATO is not being an aggressor.
    Yes, but is it the defeat of Russia, the destruction of their Army of Ukraine, a truce on 2014 borders, a bullet in the back of Putin's head, etc, etc.
    Ideally, it would result in a Russia who wants to join, and is fully committed to joining that western democratic, human rights, liberal economics ideal in a rules-based world. But there are many acceptable alternatives that fall short of that, where Russia is defanged, required to leave Ukraine and is effectively removed as a threat for the foreseeable.
  • Options

    There is another unknown about Putin and nukes. Despite the talk of "buttons" in the Kremlin and the White House, in fact a nuclear strike depends on men following orders. Would the Russian soldiers in charge of those weapons follow a Putin order for a first strike, knowing that their families would almost certainly die in the Western response?

    Military generally do follow orders , its not a holywood thriller - the only two times nuclear bombs have been ordered to be dropped the guys doing it did it
    Rather different situation to now though, wasn’t it? I’d imagine the crews families were all safely tucked up home in the USA, and no one else had nukes.
    There was also a clear and reasonable military objective. It wasn't a case of a leader who had stuffed up saying 'let's kill as many people as can anyway'.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,967
    kle4 said:

    politico.eu - LE PEN SEES VICTORY IN DEFEAT

    “A great wind of freedom could have swept through this country. The fate of the ballot box wanted otherwise,” Le Pen told her supporters in a speech.

    But she said her score of more than 40 percent of the vote “represents in itself a great victory. Millions of our compatriots have chosen the national camp and change.”

    She also thanked her voters, especially those in rural and remote areas: “This France which has been too much forgotten, we do not forget it.”

    SSI - Am NOT a fan of Putin's French understudy, but think that last para above is smack bang on the euro . . . AND the pound AND (lest we forget) the almighty dollar . . .

    Losing is a "great victory"? Now who does that remind me of? Step forward, Jezza's mates (though not Jezza himself, actually).
    Le Pen wants to keep her supporters - base & swing - motivated for the upcoming legislative elections.
    Biggest result for her party, ever.

    My biggest concern is how the polling maps showed support across France for the National Rally. If replicated in the final results, this would show breakthroughs in a number of regions. I am old enough to remember when the wise heads told us that the French National Front was severely regional and could never be competitive nationwide.
    Dont they always get screwed in the legislative elections?
    Hitherto, but there probably comes a tipping point.

    So, for example, Roger will now find himself living in a region which was carried by Le Pen, which may feed through into Assembly seats.
  • Options
    not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,341

    There is another unknown about Putin and nukes. Despite the talk of "buttons" in the Kremlin and the White House, in fact a nuclear strike depends on men following orders. Would the Russian soldiers in charge of those weapons follow a Putin order for a first strike, knowing that their families would almost certainly die in the Western response?

    Military generally do follow orders , its not a holywood thriller - the only two times nuclear bombs have been ordered to be dropped the guys doing it did it
    Rather different situation to now though, wasn’t it? I’d imagine the crews families were all safely tucked up home in the USA, and no one else had nukes.
    There was also a clear and reasonable military objective. It wasn't a case of a leader who had stuffed up saying 'let's kill as many people as can anyway'.
    What do you think happens to members of the Russian nuclear force who fail to follow a direct order to launch a strike? Clue: it isn't a referral to HR.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,790
    EPG said:

    FF43 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.

    The problem has been the collapse of the centre-right in France.

    I wonder how things would have been if 2017 had been Fillon vs Melanchon.
    Macron is the centre-right candidate. He's moved rightwards for this election compared with 2017. Some misunderstanding about this north of the Channel.

    If we wind back to 2017, Fillon had it all sorted. He would get the Gaullist nomination, would swan through first round and beat Le Pen in the second as the only respectable candidate left. The Right/Far Right playbook had been run a couple of times already. Fillon hardly needed to campaign.

    And then his campaign self-combusted for reasons that are quite astonishing in the French context: for employing his family in shadow jobs where they didn't need to turn up to work. No-one ever gets done for anything like that. In 2017 both Macron and Le Pen were challengers. This time round Macron is the Fillon establishment candidate. It's why Pécresse did so badly, She had nothing to offer. Most of her would be voters were already in the Macron camp and the others who wanted to give Le Pen a chance had jumped ship.

    Edit which is probably why Mélenchon did so well. Supporters of other left parties realising their candidates didn't stand a chance voted for him tactically to get a Left/Centre Right choice in the second round instead. They almost succeeded. Macron would still have won the second round however.
    Macron is not centre-right. He is centre. (Not centre-left either, despite his background in the Socialist government.) The BBC and Guardian may disagree and swallow the line from the anti-NATO insoumises wholesale, but remember also they spent most of the campaign reporting from places like Saint-Denis and Trappes - which is like reporting on a British election mostly from places like Bradford and Tower Hamlets, except the election is between two candidates who call out radical Islam.
    I am not particularly bothered about labels. From an electoral strategy PoV Macron is almost indistinguishable from Pécresse, Chirac and a bunch of other Gaullists, current and previous. His pitch is to voters in that camp, which is primarily why those other candidates have been squeezed, although they have also lost a smaller number of votes to Le Pen. Macron has moved a politically significant distance from where he was as minister in Hollande's government
  • Options
    Centrism wins again. KS PM 2024
  • Options
    Tory friend has voted Labour in Wandsworth. Tories are out
  • Options
    So my last holiday dinner.. and nearly all of the the restaurants are closed. All of the top fourteen rated on Tripadvisor (except maybe the pizza restaurant which I didn’t bother checking), including the two Michelin starred ones, are shut. So I came to number fifteen. It’s packed so I’ve had to sit outside, not under cover. This wouldn’t normally worry me, but the weather has reverted to forecast and it was actually still raining a little when I accepted their rather reluctant offer of the table.

    The food is pretty good. I had the “Barade de Bacala”, cod mousse basically, to start. It was lovely and creamy, and went very well with the olivada and piquillo peppers. Unfortunately the “crispies” on top are cornflakes, and far too many of them. I had scrape most of them off to enjoy it properly

    For main I had the Magret of Iberian duck with apple, garlic cloves and a sweet wine sauce. It’s delicious, but really rather sweet - especially without any veg (and there weren’t any side dish veg options on the menu). I don’t feel like I need dessert; I’ll have another glass of wine instead!


  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,582
    TimT said:

    TimT said:

    stodge said:


    It already is de facto involvement with NATO arming Ukrainian and it cannot be ruled out that NATO will be drawn into the conflict at some time

    Just repeating your opinion does not make it an unqualified fact in this intractable and unpredictable war, sadly

    The Cold War was a series of proxy conflicts where sometimes the USA and Soviet Union would be arming one side or both sides. Ukraine is more like Vietnam or Afghanistan in which the forces of one of the superpowers are faced with what should be an inferior force but which is armed and supplied by the other superpower.

    The results of both of those conflicts should give Ukraine some encouragement.

    We have to avoid the temptation to become directly involved.
    We are discussing this without considering one important thing. What is NATO's war aim? We are all-but belligerent, we must be working towards some end.
    The end is the defence of the western democratic, human rights, liberal economics ideal in a rules-based world, and defending it at the first, not last domino. That is a defensive posture; NATO is not being an aggressor.
    Yes, but is it the defeat of Russia, the destruction of their Army of Ukraine, a truce on 2014 borders, a bullet in the back of Putin's head, etc, etc.
    Ideally, it would result in a Russia who wants to join, and is fully committed to joining that western democratic, human rights, liberal economics ideal in a rules-based world. But there are many acceptable alternatives that fall short of that, where Russia is defanged, required to leave Ukraine and is effectively removed as a threat for the foreseeable.
    To many of the hard core Greater Russian Nationalists, the above is tantamount to the extinction of Russia -

    Vilain : Respect is everything. Without respect, we are just people. Common, shitty people.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    OllyT said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    OllyT said:

    HYUFD said:

    What chance of her winning in 5 years?

    She increased her vote by about 9% on 2017, if she did the same in 2027 she would be on 50%.

    Macron cannot run again so could be close next time

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    What chance of her winning in 5 years?

    She increased her vote by about 9% on 2017, if she did the same in 2027 she would be on 50%.

    Macron cannot run again so could be close next time
    Clinging onto straws and your love of the far right, Le Pen, Trump and Farage
    I said last week I would have voted for Pecresse in the first round and Macron in the runoff.

    I also never voted for Farage, so stop sprouting rubbish.

    So you reject Le Pen, Farage and Trump ?
    I am a conservative not a far right nationalist, I did not even vote for Brexit although I accepted the result like you
    Fair play - we have our disagreements but good we both utterly reject the likes of Le Pen, Trump and Farage
    I think HYUFD has pretty consistent in his opposition to Trump, Le Pen and Farage. They do have a few secret supporters on PB but HYUFD isn't really one of them, and as he says he didn't actually vote for Brexit.

    The few fanboys on PB try to hide it (out of embarrassment I presume) but give themselves away by getting overexcited when the possibility of one of them pulling a surprise happens. We saw it tonight when the rumours about the French overseas territories votes emerged.
    Let me share with you my pet PB hate: it's dickless generalisers. You want to attack a poster? so attack them. Your generative organ is so microscopic that attacking is simply not an option? Hang weights on it, and STFU. "Few fanboys" ffs.

    Your brain seems to be vying (vieing?) with your willy on the nanometer. This is a betting website, and surely even you can see that punters might be excited by the thought of a Le Pen victory for betting reasons?
    Of course they are.

    Seem to have hit a bit of nerve there
    Le Penis smaller zan ze Planck length in your case, I see. If you trouble to read the thread you will see that I had money on Le Pen.

    But you have taken the important first step of actually engaging with an actual poster. Well done, keep it up.

    And hang weights on it.
  • Options
    1st dep declared:

    Lozere

    Macron 54.2
    Le Pen 45.8

    Macron down 12.8 v Rd 2 2017
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,582

    Final word from me on Le Pen. There's no doubt that she's tried to ditch the (neo-) fascist baggage of her party. But I watched most of the televised Macron-Le Pen debate a few days ago and some of her views, and language, still remain firmly entrenched in the far right. I was a bit taken aback - as I am that her vote is so high. If this is Le Pen having ditched her father's fascism, there's still more to ditch. The racism and unbridled nationalism is still there in the subtext, even if she chooses her words a bit more carefully. Her dog whistles on race and religion are much, much louder than even Farage's. It would have been a disaster for France, and Europe, if she'd won.

    Yes - she is a post-fascist, like Fini in Italy. But the boot boys are there, in her party. Always managing to just be out of camera shot.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,897
    OllyT said:

    HYUFD said:

    What chance of her winning in 5 years?

    She increased her vote by about 9% on 2017, if she did the same in 2027 she would be on 50%.

    Macron cannot run again so could be close next time

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    What chance of her winning in 5 years?

    She increased her vote by about 9% on 2017, if she did the same in 2027 she would be on 50%.

    Macron cannot run again so could be close next time
    Clinging onto straws and your love of the far right, Le Pen, Trump and Farage
    I said last week I would have voted for Pecresse in the first round and Macron in the runoff.

    I also never voted for Farage, so stop sprouting rubbish.

    So you reject Le Pen, Farage and Trump ?
    I am a conservative not a far right nationalist, I did not even vote for Brexit although I accepted the result like you
    Fair play - we have our disagreements but good we both utterly reject the likes of Le Pen, Trump and Farage
    I think HYUFD has pretty consistent in his opposition to Trump, Le Pen and Farage. They do have a few secret supporters on PB but HYUFD isn't really one of them, and as he says he didn't actually vote for Brexit.

    The few fanboys on PB try to hide it (out of embarrassment I presume) but give themselves away by getting overexcited when the possibility of one of them pulling a surprise happens. We saw it tonight when the rumours about the French overseas territories votes emerged.
    It isn't difficult and they aren't few in number. What they have in common is that Trump Le Pen and Farage are supporters of Brexit ans all its ugly connotations. Everyone on here knows who those posters are. As Brexit has unwound and their heroes have shown their feet of clay they've been left looking for any fig leaves they can find


  • Options
    TimTTimT Posts: 6,328

    There is another unknown about Putin and nukes. Despite the talk of "buttons" in the Kremlin and the White House, in fact a nuclear strike depends on men following orders. Would the Russian soldiers in charge of those weapons follow a Putin order for a first strike, knowing that their families would almost certainly die in the Western response?

    Military generally do follow orders , its not a holywood thriller - the only two times nuclear bombs have been ordered to be dropped the guys doing it did it
    Rather different situation to now though, wasn’t it? I’d imagine the crews families were all safely tucked up home in the USA, and no one else had nukes.
    There was also a clear and reasonable military objective. It wasn't a case of a leader who had stuffed up saying 'let's kill as many people as can anyway'.
    @State go away is not entirely correct. There was an instance in which a Russian Lt Col was required to fire nuclear weapons according to protocol but refused to follow standing orders.

    Lt Col Stanislav Petrov: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

    Vasily Arkhipov also gets an honourable mention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,967

    1st dep declared:

    Lozere

    Macron 54.2
    Le Pen 45.8

    Macron down 12.8 v Rd 2 2017

    Lozere looks absolutely stunning, looking at pictures online. Remarkably, it has only about half the population it had in 1850.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,387

    1st dep declared:

    Lozere

    Macron 54.2
    Le Pen 45.8

    Macron down 12.8 v Rd 2 2017

    My hopes of that extra 2% are fading fast.
  • Options
    TimTTimT Posts: 6,328

    TimT said:

    TimT said:

    stodge said:


    It already is de facto involvement with NATO arming Ukrainian and it cannot be ruled out that NATO will be drawn into the conflict at some time

    Just repeating your opinion does not make it an unqualified fact in this intractable and unpredictable war, sadly

    The Cold War was a series of proxy conflicts where sometimes the USA and Soviet Union would be arming one side or both sides. Ukraine is more like Vietnam or Afghanistan in which the forces of one of the superpowers are faced with what should be an inferior force but which is armed and supplied by the other superpower.

    The results of both of those conflicts should give Ukraine some encouragement.

    We have to avoid the temptation to become directly involved.
    We are discussing this without considering one important thing. What is NATO's war aim? We are all-but belligerent, we must be working towards some end.
    The end is the defence of the western democratic, human rights, liberal economics ideal in a rules-based world, and defending it at the first, not last domino. That is a defensive posture; NATO is not being an aggressor.
    Yes, but is it the defeat of Russia, the destruction of their Army of Ukraine, a truce on 2014 borders, a bullet in the back of Putin's head, etc, etc.
    Ideally, it would result in a Russia who wants to join, and is fully committed to joining that western democratic, human rights, liberal economics ideal in a rules-based world. But there are many acceptable alternatives that fall short of that, where Russia is defanged, required to leave Ukraine and is effectively removed as a threat for the foreseeable.
    To many of the hard core Greater Russian Nationalists, the above is tantamount to the extinction of Russia -

    Vilain : Respect is everything. Without respect, we are just people. Common, shitty people.
    Well, he at least is self-aware.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,658

    So my last holiday dinner.. and nearly all of the the restaurants are closed. All of the top fourteen rated on Tripadvisor (except maybe the pizza restaurant which I didn’t bother checking), including the two Michelin starred ones, are shut. So I came to number fifteen. It’s packed so I’ve had to sit outside, not under cover. This wouldn’t normally worry me, but the weather has reverted to forecast and it was actually still raining a little when I accepted their rather reluctant offer of the table.

    The food is pretty good. I had the “Barade de Bacala”, cod mousse basically, to start. It was lovely and creamy, and went very well with the olivada and piquillo peppers. Unfortunately the “crispies” on top are cornflakes, and far too many of them. I had scrape most of them off to enjoy it properly

    For main I had the Magret of Iberian duck with apple, garlic cloves and a sweet wine sauce. It’s delicious, but really rather sweet - especially without any veg (and there weren’t any side dish veg options on the menu). I don’t feel like I need dessert; I’ll have another glass of wine instead!


    Perhaps they believe (based on stays at UK B&Bs) that Brits have an inordinate love for corn flakes?
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,032
    FF43 said:

    EPG said:

    FF43 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.

    The problem has been the collapse of the centre-right in France.

    I wonder how things would have been if 2017 had been Fillon vs Melanchon.
    Macron is the centre-right candidate. He's moved rightwards for this election compared with 2017. Some misunderstanding about this north of the Channel.

    If we wind back to 2017, Fillon had it all sorted. He would get the Gaullist nomination, would swan through first round and beat Le Pen in the second as the only respectable candidate left. The Right/Far Right playbook had been run a couple of times already. Fillon hardly needed to campaign.

    And then his campaign self-combusted for reasons that are quite astonishing in the French context: for employing his family in shadow jobs where they didn't need to turn up to work. No-one ever gets done for anything like that. In 2017 both Macron and Le Pen were challengers. This time round Macron is the Fillon establishment candidate. It's why Pécresse did so badly, She had nothing to offer. Most of her would be voters were already in the Macron camp and the others who wanted to give Le Pen a chance had jumped ship.

    Edit which is probably why Mélenchon did so well. Supporters of other left parties realising their candidates didn't stand a chance voted for him tactically to get a Left/Centre Right choice in the second round instead. They almost succeeded. Macron would still have won the second round however.
    Macron is not centre-right. He is centre. (Not centre-left either, despite his background in the Socialist government.) The BBC and Guardian may disagree and swallow the line from the anti-NATO insoumises wholesale, but remember also they spent most of the campaign reporting from places like Saint-Denis and Trappes - which is like reporting on a British election mostly from places like Bradford and Tower Hamlets, except the election is between two candidates who call out radical Islam.
    I am not particularly bothered about labels. From an electoral strategy PoV Macron is almost indistinguishable from Pécresse, Chirac and a bunch of other Gaullists, current and previous. His pitch is to voters in that camp, which is primarily why those other candidates have been squeezed, although they have also lost a smaller number of votes to Le Pen. Macron has moved a politically significant distance from where he was as minister in Hollande's government
    "Gaullism" has been a defunct category since, at latest, 2002 and the creation of the presidential majority party by Chirac had a definitive orientation toward the centre-right, right and even the extreme-right. For example, it incorporated the parts of the old Giscard party which were open to cooperating with the right and extreme-right. Arguably it was dead as soon as Chirac rose to power in the 70s. Macron's appeal is different again: primarily to higher socio-economic groups and self-identified pro-Europeans - which is against the extreme-right of course, but which is absolutely not a Gaullist point of view, unless you count Chirac as a Gaullist, in which case it's just a party label and Macron is a Socialist. Finally observe that while he took votes from across the country, he really eviscerated the traditional centre-left two times in a row, and also in the legislative elections.
  • Options

    NEW THREAD

  • Options
    MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    OllyT said:

    HYUFD said:

    What chance of her winning in 5 years?

    She increased her vote by about 9% on 2017, if she did the same in 2027 she would be on 50%.

    Macron cannot run again so could be close next time

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    What chance of her winning in 5 years?

    She increased her vote by about 9% on 2017, if she did the same in 2027 she would be on 50%.

    Macron cannot run again so could be close next time
    Clinging onto straws and your love of the far right, Le Pen, Trump and Farage
    I said last week I would have voted for Pecresse in the first round and Macron in the runoff.

    I also never voted for Farage, so stop sprouting rubbish.

    So you reject Le Pen, Farage and Trump ?
    I am a conservative not a far right nationalist, I did not even vote for Brexit although I accepted the result like you
    Fair play - we have our disagreements but good we both utterly reject the likes of Le Pen, Trump and Farage
    I think HYUFD has pretty consistent in his opposition to Trump, Le Pen and Farage. They do have a few secret supporters on PB but HYUFD isn't really one of them, and as he says he didn't actually vote for Brexit.

    The few fanboys on PB try to hide it (out of embarrassment I presume) but give themselves away by getting overexcited when the possibility of one of them pulling a surprise happens. We saw it tonight when the rumours about the French overseas territories votes emerged.
    It's a betting website. If you had bothered to look at the 1st round for the DOM-TOMs, Melenchon won places like Guyana very handsomely in the first round. Therefore, Le Pen winning them (as she has) obviously raised the possibility Melenchon voters were switching to Le Pen
  • Options
    OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,921
    IshmaelZ said:

    OllyT said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    OllyT said:

    HYUFD said:

    What chance of her winning in 5 years?

    She increased her vote by about 9% on 2017, if she did the same in 2027 she would be on 50%.

    Macron cannot run again so could be close next time

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    What chance of her winning in 5 years?

    She increased her vote by about 9% on 2017, if she did the same in 2027 she would be on 50%.

    Macron cannot run again so could be close next time
    Clinging onto straws and your love of the far right, Le Pen, Trump and Farage
    I said last week I would have voted for Pecresse in the first round and Macron in the runoff.

    I also never voted for Farage, so stop sprouting rubbish.

    So you reject Le Pen, Farage and Trump ?
    I am a conservative not a far right nationalist, I did not even vote for Brexit although I accepted the result like you
    Fair play - we have our disagreements but good we both utterly reject the likes of Le Pen, Trump and Farage
    I think HYUFD has pretty consistent in his opposition to Trump, Le Pen and Farage. They do have a few secret supporters on PB but HYUFD isn't really one of them, and as he says he didn't actually vote for Brexit.

    The few fanboys on PB try to hide it (out of embarrassment I presume) but give themselves away by getting overexcited when the possibility of one of them pulling a surprise happens. We saw it tonight when the rumours about the French overseas territories votes emerged.
    Let me share with you my pet PB hate: it's dickless generalisers. You want to attack a poster? so attack them. Your generative organ is so microscopic that attacking is simply not an option? Hang weights on it, and STFU. "Few fanboys" ffs.

    Your brain seems to be vying (vieing?) with your willy on the nanometer. This is a betting website, and surely even you can see that punters might be excited by the thought of a Le Pen victory for betting reasons?
    Of course they are.

    Seem to have hit a bit of nerve there
    Le Penis smaller zan ze Planck length in your case, I see. If you trouble to read the thread you will see that I had money on Le Pen.

    But you have taken the important first step of actually engaging with an actual poster. Well done, keep it up.

    And hang weights on it.
    I was clearly under the misapprehension that people were free to simply post comments. I must have missed OGH 's rule that says I am obliged to "engage" with posters like you. If that were the case I'd be off.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,790
    edited April 2022
    EPG said:

    FF43 said:

    EPG said:

    FF43 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.

    The problem has been the collapse of the centre-right in France.

    I wonder how things would have been if 2017 had been Fillon vs Melanchon.
    Macron is the centre-right candidate. He's moved rightwards for this election compared with 2017. Some misunderstanding about this north of the Channel.

    If we wind back to 2017, Fillon had it all sorted. He would get the Gaullist nomination, would swan through first round and beat Le Pen in the second as the only respectable candidate left. The Right/Far Right playbook had been run a couple of times already. Fillon hardly needed to campaign.

    And then his campaign self-combusted for reasons that are quite astonishing in the French context: for employing his family in shadow jobs where they didn't need to turn up to work. No-one ever gets done for anything like that. In 2017 both Macron and Le Pen were challengers. This time round Macron is the Fillon establishment candidate. It's why Pécresse did so badly, She had nothing to offer. Most of her would be voters were already in the Macron camp and the others who wanted to give Le Pen a chance had jumped ship.

    Edit which is probably why Mélenchon did so well. Supporters of other left parties realising their candidates didn't stand a chance voted for him tactically to get a Left/Centre Right choice in the second round instead. They almost succeeded. Macron would still have won the second round however.
    Macron is not centre-right. He is centre. (Not centre-left either, despite his background in the Socialist government.) The BBC and Guardian may disagree and swallow the line from the anti-NATO insoumises wholesale, but remember also they spent most of the campaign reporting from places like Saint-Denis and Trappes - which is like reporting on a British election mostly from places like Bradford and Tower Hamlets, except the election is between two candidates who call out radical Islam.
    I am not particularly bothered about labels. From an electoral strategy PoV Macron is almost indistinguishable from Pécresse, Chirac and a bunch of other Gaullists, current and previous. His pitch is to voters in that camp, which is primarily why those other candidates have been squeezed, although they have also lost a smaller number of votes to Le Pen. Macron has moved a politically significant distance from where he was as minister in Hollande's government
    "Gaullism" has been a defunct category since, at latest, 2002 and the creation of the presidential majority party by Chirac had a definitive orientation toward the centre-right, right and even the extreme-right. For example, it incorporated the parts of the old Giscard party which were open to cooperating with the right and extreme-right. Arguably it was dead as soon as Chirac rose to power in the 70s. Macron's appeal is different again: primarily to higher socio-economic groups and self-identified pro-Europeans - which is against the extreme-right of course, but which is absolutely not a Gaullist point of view, unless you count Chirac as a Gaullist, in which case it's just a party label and Macron is a Socialist. Finally observe that while he took votes from across the country, he really eviscerated the traditional centre-left two times in a row, and also in the legislative elections.
    I am struggling. You are not allowing me to label people as centre-right or Gaullist who don't vote for Le Pen and don't vote Socialist/Green etc and who have led most governments in the Fifth Republic. Whoever those people are, Macron has pitched to them, with some success it seems.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,774

    No departements on mainland in yet, but partial results currently showing double-digit drops for Macron in rural areas versus his 8-point fall nationwide.

    In my little corner of Southern Burgundy our commune voted 80% Macron. 14 votes for Le Pen today. That’s identical to 5 years ago, and looking at other districts it appears no swing in the Maconnais. It’s one of the rural areas of the Centre-East that is culturally, economically and atmospherically more akin to Western France so it doesn’t surprise me.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,897
    EPG said:

    FF43 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.

    The problem has been the collapse of the centre-right in France.

    I wonder how things would have been if 2017 had been Fillon vs Melanchon.
    Macron is the centre-right candidate. He's moved rightwards for this election compared with 2017. Some misunderstanding about this north of the Channel.

    If we wind back to 2017, Fillon had it all sorted. He would get the Gaullist nomination, would swan through first round and beat Le Pen in the second as the only respectable candidate left. The Right/Far Right playbook had been run a couple of times already. Fillon hardly needed to campaign.

    And then his campaign self-combusted for reasons that are quite astonishing in the French context: for employing his family in shadow jobs where they didn't need to turn up to work. No-one ever gets done for anything like that. In 2017 both Macron and Le Pen were challengers. This time round Macron is the Fillon establishment candidate. It's why Pécresse did so badly, She had nothing to offer. Most of her would be voters were already in the Macron camp and the others who wanted to give Le Pen a chance had jumped ship.

    Edit which is probably why Mélenchon did so well. Supporters of other left parties realising their candidates didn't stand a chance voted for him tactically to get a Left/Centre Right choice in the second round instead. They almost succeeded. Macron would still have won the second round however.
    Macron is not centre-right. He is centre. (Not centre-left either, despite his background in the Socialist government.) The BBC and Guardian may disagree and swallow the line from the anti-NATO insoumises wholesale, but remember also they spent most of the campaign reporting from places like Saint-Denis and Trappes - which is like reporting on a British election mostly from places like Bradford and Tower Hamlets, except the election is between two candidates who call out radical Islam.
    It would be interesting to examine who is further to the right. Johnson or Le Pen. Their views on most things other than Nato are pretty similar though I haven't heard Le Pen suggest sending asylum seekers to Rwanda
  • Options
    OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,921
    MrEd said:

    OllyT said:

    HYUFD said:

    What chance of her winning in 5 years?

    She increased her vote by about 9% on 2017, if she did the same in 2027 she would be on 50%.

    Macron cannot run again so could be close next time

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    What chance of her winning in 5 years?

    She increased her vote by about 9% on 2017, if she did the same in 2027 she would be on 50%.

    Macron cannot run again so could be close next time
    Clinging onto straws and your love of the far right, Le Pen, Trump and Farage
    I said last week I would have voted for Pecresse in the first round and Macron in the runoff.

    I also never voted for Farage, so stop sprouting rubbish.

    So you reject Le Pen, Farage and Trump ?
    I am a conservative not a far right nationalist, I did not even vote for Brexit although I accepted the result like you
    Fair play - we have our disagreements but good we both utterly reject the likes of Le Pen, Trump and Farage
    I think HYUFD has pretty consistent in his opposition to Trump, Le Pen and Farage. They do have a few secret supporters on PB but HYUFD isn't really one of them, and as he says he didn't actually vote for Brexit.

    The few fanboys on PB try to hide it (out of embarrassment I presume) but give themselves away by getting overexcited when the possibility of one of them pulling a surprise happens. We saw it tonight when the rumours about the French overseas territories votes emerged.
    It's a betting website. If you had bothered to look at the 1st round for the DOM-TOMs, Melenchon won places like Guyana very handsomely in the first round. Therefore, Le Pen winning them (as she has) obviously raised the possibility Melenchon voters were switching to Le Pen
    Of course it's a betting site but some posters only seem to find straws in the political wind that point in one direction.
  • Options
    JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,016
    Roger said:

    EPG said:

    FF43 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.

    The problem has been the collapse of the centre-right in France.

    I wonder how things would have been if 2017 had been Fillon vs Melanchon.
    Macron is the centre-right candidate. He's moved rightwards for this election compared with 2017. Some misunderstanding about this north of the Channel.

    If we wind back to 2017, Fillon had it all sorted. He would get the Gaullist nomination, would swan through first round and beat Le Pen in the second as the only respectable candidate left. The Right/Far Right playbook had been run a couple of times already. Fillon hardly needed to campaign.

    And then his campaign self-combusted for reasons that are quite astonishing in the French context: for employing his family in shadow jobs where they didn't need to turn up to work. No-one ever gets done for anything like that. In 2017 both Macron and Le Pen were challengers. This time round Macron is the Fillon establishment candidate. It's why Pécresse did so badly, She had nothing to offer. Most of her would be voters were already in the Macron camp and the others who wanted to give Le Pen a chance had jumped ship.

    Edit which is probably why Mélenchon did so well. Supporters of other left parties realising their candidates didn't stand a chance voted for him tactically to get a Left/Centre Right choice in the second round instead. They almost succeeded. Macron would still have won the second round however.
    Macron is not centre-right. He is centre. (Not centre-left either, despite his background in the Socialist government.) The BBC and Guardian may disagree and swallow the line from the anti-NATO insoumises wholesale, but remember also they spent most of the campaign reporting from places like Saint-Denis and Trappes - which is like reporting on a British election mostly from places like Bradford and Tower Hamlets, except the election is between two candidates who call out radical Islam.
    It would be interesting to examine who is further to the right. Johnson or Le Pen. Their views on most things other than Nato are pretty similar though I haven't heard Le Pen suggest sending asylum seekers to Rwanda
    No, the French like to send them to the UK.
  • Options
    Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,819
    edited April 2022

    There is another unknown about Putin and nukes. Despite the talk of "buttons" in the Kremlin and the White House, in fact a nuclear strike depends on men following orders. Would the Russian soldiers in charge of those weapons follow a Putin order for a first strike, knowing that their families would almost certainly die in the Western response?

    Military generally do follow orders , its not a holywood thriller - the only two times nuclear bombs have been ordered to be dropped the guys doing it did it
    Rather different situation to now though, wasn’t it? I’d imagine the crews families were all safely tucked up home in the USA, and no one else had nukes.
    There was also a clear and reasonable military objective. It wasn't a case of a leader who had stuffed up saying 'let's kill as many people as can anyway'.
    What do you think happens to members of the Russian nuclear force who fail to follow a direct order to launch a strike? Clue: it isn't a referral to HR.
    What about Russian officers who are warned that the US are preparing a nuclear attack, see multiple launches, and deliberately do not pass the information up the chain to those with the power to order a retaliatory launch?

    Edit: Never mind; I see TimT has already mentioned this one.
  • Options
    Times says Sue Grey is a bloodbath for Johnson.

    20 point lead nailed on
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,897
    By .1% Alpes-Maritimes voted Macrom. Phew!

    Must be Marine's Oligarch chums in Cap Ferrat!
This discussion has been closed.