Howdy, Stranger!

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

Politics over past year as seen by the betting markets – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited May 3 in General
imagePolitics over past year as seen by the betting markets – politicalbetting.com

Everybody is talking about the locals at the moment but the big thing about next Thursday’s set of elections is what it will tell us about the next general election. Is Johnson’s government in spite of everything going to be able to survive or else are we going to move into the territory of a hung parliament once again?

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,394
    First like NOM.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,394

    April 30 last year was, I recall, after a relaxation from lockdown.

    I remember because the very moment the opportunity arose I hotfooted it to Devon. I just checked and that was the after the 12 April.

    So the Mail (and the Tories quoted it the article - like Nadine Dorries, and the PB Tories hoping for a pile on - like Marquee Mark) are talking shite.

    From the Mail:

    Under the ‘Step 2’ restrictions in place between April 12 and May 17, the Government insisted: ‘You must not socialise indoors except with your household or support bubble.’

    Only groups of six were allowed to meet outdoors and pubs could not serve drinks indoors, by law. The separate campaigning guidance allowed political activists to deliver leaflets and knock on voters’ doors.

    But they were told: ‘You should not meet with other campaigners indoors.’


    So no, lockdown was very much not over. Indeed, I got a telling off for chatting to friends in a pub car park around this time.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371
    Whilst an overall Labour majority is a huge challenge and Mike is right to say that punters are over-estimating the chances, this is not the same as saying it cannot, or won't happen. Nor is a hung parliament Keir Starmer's 'best hope.'

    I've seen sea changes happen, and we are experiencing one. I rule out nothing right now, including a Conservative wipeout.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 46,234
    So long as the SNP dominate Scotland, a Labour majority is extremely difficult. I'd be very happy to sell that at 1-5.
  • pingping Posts: 2,398
    edited April 28
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukraine-war-planes-liz-truss-b2066470.html?amp

    Amateur hour.

    Truss is not just embarrassing. She’s dangerous.

    Get someone serious in as FS, now. Even Theresa May will do. Just someone with the basic skill set required of a FS during a crisis.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371
    edited April 28
    rcs1000 said:

    So long as the SNP dominate Scotland, a Labour majority is extremely difficult. I'd be very happy to sell that at 1-5.

    Agreed and I think that's the right way of putting it. It's extremely difficult but not impossible.

    As a matter of interest, Labour are picking up in Scotland. They are currently polling around 10% higher than how they performed at the 2019 GE and at current voting intention levels that would equate to taking around 9 seats off the SNP. Something to keep an eye on.
    https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/latest-opinion-polls/

    My view on this at the moment is that NoM should be the standout favourite. The chances of a Conservative majority under BJ are going down the plughole but I also don't rule out the extreme version: the UK equivalent of a Canada wipeout. I think this is now getting to be worse than 1992-7. We have a constellation of circumstances that only seem to be increasing. They might fare disastrously at the General Election if Johnson is still in charge.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371
    ping said:


    Truss is not just embarrassing. She’s dangerous.

    She is but she's just war gaming to out-right Ben Wallace. She wants to be the darling of the right in case the tories ditch BJ.
  • pingping Posts: 2,398
    Heathener said:

    rcs1000 said:

    So long as the SNP dominate Scotland, a Labour majority is extremely difficult. I'd be very happy to sell that at 1-5.

    Agreed and I think that's the right way of putting it. It's extremely difficult but not impossible.

    As a matter of interest, Labour are picking up in Scotland. They are currently polling around 10% higher than how they performed at the 2019 GE and at current voting intention levels that would equate to taking around 9 seats off the SNP. Something to keep an eye on.
    https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/latest-opinion-polls/

    My view on this at the moment is that NoM should be the standout favourite. The chances of a Conservative majority under BJ are going down the plughole but I also don't rule out the extreme version: the UK equivalent of a Canada wipeout. I think this is now getting to be worse than 1992-7. We have a constellation of circumstances that only seem to be increasing. They might fare disastrously at the General Election if Johnson is still in charge.
    Depends on many factors. Eg, If the war with Russia metastasises, Johnson stands a decent chance of getting re-elected, imo.

    I recon that’s a ~30% chance.

    It really is that serious.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 46,234
    ping said:

    Heathener said:

    rcs1000 said:

    So long as the SNP dominate Scotland, a Labour majority is extremely difficult. I'd be very happy to sell that at 1-5.

    Agreed and I think that's the right way of putting it. It's extremely difficult but not impossible.

    As a matter of interest, Labour are picking up in Scotland. They are currently polling around 10% higher than how they performed at the 2019 GE and at current voting intention levels that would equate to taking around 9 seats off the SNP. Something to keep an eye on.
    https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/latest-opinion-polls/

    My view on this at the moment is that NoM should be the standout favourite. The chances of a Conservative majority under BJ are going down the plughole but I also don't rule out the extreme version: the UK equivalent of a Canada wipeout. I think this is now getting to be worse than 1992-7. We have a constellation of circumstances that only seem to be increasing. They might fare disastrously at the General Election if Johnson is still in charge.
    Depends on many factors. Eg, If the war with Russia metastasises, Johnson stands a decent chance of getting re-elected, imo.

    I recon that’s a ~30% chance.

    It really is that serious.
    I'm not that convinced that military victories lead to electoral ones.

    Exhibits: George Bush, Margaret Thatcher, Churchill, Lloyd George
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371
    rcs1000 said:

    ping said:

    Heathener said:

    rcs1000 said:

    So long as the SNP dominate Scotland, a Labour majority is extremely difficult. I'd be very happy to sell that at 1-5.

    Agreed and I think that's the right way of putting it. It's extremely difficult but not impossible.

    As a matter of interest, Labour are picking up in Scotland. They are currently polling around 10% higher than how they performed at the 2019 GE and at current voting intention levels that would equate to taking around 9 seats off the SNP. Something to keep an eye on.
    https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/latest-opinion-polls/

    My view on this at the moment is that NoM should be the standout favourite. The chances of a Conservative majority under BJ are going down the plughole but I also don't rule out the extreme version: the UK equivalent of a Canada wipeout. I think this is now getting to be worse than 1992-7. We have a constellation of circumstances that only seem to be increasing. They might fare disastrously at the General Election if Johnson is still in charge.
    Depends on many factors. Eg, If the war with Russia metastasises, Johnson stands a decent chance of getting re-elected, imo.

    I recon that’s a ~30% chance.

    It really is that serious.
    I'm not that convinced that military victories lead to electoral ones.

    Exhibits: George Bush, Margaret Thatcher, Churchill, Lloyd George
    Indeed and nor does foreign policy.

    When it comes to voting in a General Election no one pays any attention to the wider world. Ping and others may lament that, and wish it were not so, but it's the case.

    Incidentally, I've treated the ill-Putin meme with a bit of disinterest until this morning. He REALLY does look very unwell to me. Most peculiar puffiness in the face.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202
    ‘Totally dysfunctional’: Sophie in ‘t Veld on the EU’s relationship with democracy
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/27/totally-dysfunctional-sophie-in-t-veld-on-the-eus-relationship-with-democracy
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202
    Russia confirm its massive forced deportations.
    This is a war crime on a huge scale.

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1519504675212570625
    Russia says it has "evacuated" more than a million Ukrainians to its territory, including 183,000 children, 🇷🇺state-controled outlet RIA

    🇺🇦authorities have repeatedly reported on the forced deportation of Ukrainians, incl orphans, to Russia, in particular from Mariupol and Izium
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,621
    NEW: Exclusive polling for @GMB this morning finds 70% of people think the Prime Minister is dishonest.

    Only 32% think he should continue in his role.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1519544752827420673
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,455
    I think the odds on Sunak for next PM are good. He's going to survive the partygate stuff and the non dom stuff, its all gone off the radar, and he is keeping a low profile. Has he lied to anyone? Not sure he has been put on the spot. Johnson is the one taking all the flak. Sunak is still chancellor, and is good at PR, quite young, etc, proved himself to be ok at politics, and also, he has had a career outside of politics, at quite a high level. I don't think Truss or Wallace are particularly convincing. Truss does seem like an error prone lightweight, and seems to go over the top with the Instagram/PR, which comes across as contrived, unlike Sunak's more down to earth efforts. Wallace seems like an enthusiast, and is just popular because he has a military background, but not a particularly impressive one. Hunt... yesterdays man, unfortunately. The best value is still in backing Priti Patel. Why is she 40/1? She is home secretary. Everyone says she is a failure, but shes been there for 3 years, and hasn't been forced out by any scandal, in a poisonous job. Not suggesting she should be PM, but surely her chances are better than that.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202
    That was quick.
    M777 towed 155 mm howitzers bound for 🇺🇦Ukraine are loaded onto a US Air Forces C-17 Globemaster III aircraft,–🇺🇸 @DeptofDefense

    Pentagon said “more than half” of 90 Howitzers the US is sending to Ukraine are in the country

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1519484542377238530
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,621
    darkage said:

    Everyone says she is a failure, but shes been there for 3 years, and hasn't been forced out by any scandal, in a poisonous job.

    She was sacked due to a scandal.

    She is only back cos BoZo can't appoint anyone competent
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,178
    darkage said:

    I think the odds on Sunak for next PM are good. He's going to survive the partygate stuff and the non dom stuff, its all gone off the radar, and he is keeping a low profile. Has he lied to anyone? Not sure he has been put on the spot. Johnson is the one taking all the flak. Sunak is still chancellor, and is good at PR, quite young, etc, proved himself to be ok at politics, and also, he has had a career outside of politics, at quite a high level. I don't think Truss or Wallace are particularly convincing. Truss does seem like an error prone lightweight, and seems to go over the top with the Instagram/PR, which comes across as contrived, unlike Sunak's more down to earth efforts. Wallace seems like an enthusiast, and is just popular because he has a military background, but not a particularly impressive one. Hunt... yesterdays man, unfortunately. The best value is still in backing Priti Patel. Why is she 40/1? She is home secretary. Everyone says she is a failure, but shes been there for 3 years, and hasn't been forced out by any scandal, in a poisonous job. Not suggesting she should be PM, but surely her chances are better than that.

    She should have been forced out by several - bullying, boats, visas without even thinking hard - but she’s still there as Johnson finds her politically useful and as we know doesn’t consider incompetence or even criminality a serious matter.

    That’s not a qualification to be PM.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,751
    "The Federal Senate of Brazil has recognized the Holodomor of 1932-1933 as a genocide against the Ukrainian nation."

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1519489653518258177

    does this, and the fact Brazil are giving over 300,000 rounds of ammunition to the Ukrainians for the German-provided Gepard tanks, show a weakening of Russia's BRIC hopes?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,157
    ping said:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukraine-war-planes-liz-truss-b2066470.html?amp

    Amateur hour.

    Truss is not just embarrassing. She’s dangerous.

    Get someone serious in as FS, now. Even Theresa May will do. Just someone with the basic skill set required of a FS during a crisis.

    That's 24 hours old, she has said something even more stupid since then about Nato should double down on driving Russia out of Ukraine
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 46,234
    darkage said:

    I think the odds on Sunak for next PM are good. He's going to survive the partygate stuff and the non dom stuff, its all gone off the radar, and he is keeping a low profile. Has he lied to anyone? Not sure he has been put on the spot. Johnson is the one taking all the flak. Sunak is still chancellor, and is good at PR, quite young, etc, proved himself to be ok at politics, and also, he has had a career outside of politics, at quite a high level. I don't think Truss or Wallace are particularly convincing. Truss does seem like an error prone lightweight, and seems to go over the top with the Instagram/PR, which comes across as contrived, unlike Sunak's more down to earth efforts. Wallace seems like an enthusiast, and is just popular because he has a military background, but not a particularly impressive one. Hunt... yesterdays man, unfortunately. The best value is still in backing Priti Patel. Why is she 40/1? She is home secretary. Everyone says she is a failure, but shes been there for 3 years, and hasn't been forced out by any scandal, in a poisonous job. Not suggesting she should be PM, but surely her chances are better than that.

    She's value at 40-1... But she's still a long shot.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,621
    ...




  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,455
    Nigelb said:

    Russia confirm its massive forced deportations.
    This is a war crime on a huge scale.

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1519504675212570625
    Russia says it has "evacuated" more than a million Ukrainians to its territory, including 183,000 children, 🇷🇺state-controled outlet RIA

    🇺🇦authorities have repeatedly reported on the forced deportation of Ukrainians, incl orphans, to Russia, in particular from Mariupol and Izium

    Horrible. But that is why Western policy in Ukraine, ie to demilitarise Russia, is correct. This is what real life colonialism/ imperialism looks like. People tearing down statues of old colonial figures in the UK and complaining about 'colonial legacies', would be more productively occupied going to join the Ukraine foreign legion - fighting a real modern day colonial power that is actually engaged in mass slavery and genocide. The alleged 'historic crimes of colonialism' cannot compete with the abundant evidence of actual real world crimes going on right now, and circulating on twitter, etc. Decolonialism has a new front, and it is a good thing. I am totally with it.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,529
    Heathener said:

    rcs1000 said:

    So long as the SNP dominate Scotland, a Labour majority is extremely difficult. I'd be very happy to sell that at 1-5.

    Agreed and I think that's the right way of putting it. It's extremely difficult but not impossible.

    As a matter of interest, Labour are picking up in Scotland. They are currently polling around 10% higher than how they performed at the 2019 GE and at current voting intention levels that would equate to taking around 9 seats off the SNP. Something to keep an eye on.
    https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/latest-opinion-polls/

    My view on this at the moment is that NoM should be the standout favourite. The chances of a Conservative majority under BJ are going down the plughole but I also don't rule out the extreme version: the UK equivalent of a Canada wipeout. I think this is now getting to be worse than 1992-7. We have a constellation of circumstances that only seem to be increasing. They might fare disastrously at the General Election if Johnson is still in charge.
    Good morning everyone.

    Ms H, you suggest that NoM should be the favourite and then go on to discuss the possibility, a strong one, apparently, in your view that the next GE could be totally disastrous for the Tories.
    Surely, even if that (desirable to me) situation doesn't come to pass, a Labour win rather than NoM is more likely?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,455
    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    I think the odds on Sunak for next PM are good. He's going to survive the partygate stuff and the non dom stuff, its all gone off the radar, and he is keeping a low profile. Has he lied to anyone? Not sure he has been put on the spot. Johnson is the one taking all the flak. Sunak is still chancellor, and is good at PR, quite young, etc, proved himself to be ok at politics, and also, he has had a career outside of politics, at quite a high level. I don't think Truss or Wallace are particularly convincing. Truss does seem like an error prone lightweight, and seems to go over the top with the Instagram/PR, which comes across as contrived, unlike Sunak's more down to earth efforts. Wallace seems like an enthusiast, and is just popular because he has a military background, but not a particularly impressive one. Hunt... yesterdays man, unfortunately. The best value is still in backing Priti Patel. Why is she 40/1? She is home secretary. Everyone says she is a failure, but shes been there for 3 years, and hasn't been forced out by any scandal, in a poisonous job. Not suggesting she should be PM, but surely her chances are better than that.

    She should have been forced out by several - bullying, boats, visas without even thinking hard - but she’s still there as Johnson finds her politically useful and as we know doesn’t consider incompetence or even criminality a serious matter.

    That’s not a qualification to be PM.
    Doesn't this actually make her the logical heir to Boris Johnson? These are the qualities that have made him politically successful!
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371

    Heathener said:

    rcs1000 said:

    So long as the SNP dominate Scotland, a Labour majority is extremely difficult. I'd be very happy to sell that at 1-5.

    Agreed and I think that's the right way of putting it. It's extremely difficult but not impossible.

    As a matter of interest, Labour are picking up in Scotland. They are currently polling around 10% higher than how they performed at the 2019 GE and at current voting intention levels that would equate to taking around 9 seats off the SNP. Something to keep an eye on.
    https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/latest-opinion-polls/

    My view on this at the moment is that NoM should be the standout favourite. The chances of a Conservative majority under BJ are going down the plughole but I also don't rule out the extreme version: the UK equivalent of a Canada wipeout. I think this is now getting to be worse than 1992-7. We have a constellation of circumstances that only seem to be increasing. They might fare disastrously at the General Election if Johnson is still in charge.
    Good morning everyone.

    Ms H, you suggest that NoM should be the favourite and then go on to discuss the possibility, a strong one, apparently, in your view that the next GE could be totally disastrous for the Tories.
    Surely, even if that (desirable to me) situation doesn't come to pass, a Labour win rather than NoM is more likely?
    Good morning Old King Cole.

    I 'don't rule out' the extreme version of a Conservative wipeout but I still think NoM should be clear favourite. 20% Labour majority? I think the markets have that about right.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371
    edited April 28
    This is the photo to which I referred. Is it up to date? Putin looks REALLY ill. You wouldn't even know it's him:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61252320
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420
    FPT
    Cyclefree said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Bloody weird case. Seriously weird. I indulged a flight of fancy the other day about Boris defecating on the despatch box during PMQs and brazening it out while Sue Gray investigated, and this is a bit like that. It is eeeeuw behaviour but it isn't by most standards particularly immoral. It's not illegal (unless it is extreme porn in which case he is obv toast) and in fact contrasts rather favourably with his colleagues who molest actual women (unless he has been at that too). If he does go or get pushed, it's going to put Boris's failure to go under the spotlight.

    I've had it with politics and public life. The way women are treated in the Commons, the language, the use of porn, the misogyny and lack of basic decency, 56 MPs from all parties accused of sexual harassment, the failure to do anything at all after the Dame Laura Cox report etc. I am just utterly fed up and disgusted with this constant brutish oafishness which far too many people in politics, in the police, in finance and elsewhere seem to think normal and acceptable.
    I agree with @Cyclefree here. We have a real problem with this sort of misogyny in a number of spheres of public life, but Parliament does need to set an example, as indeed did MPs breaching covid rules.

    The only rider that I would add is that we should not assume that all 56 cases are male on female harrassment. There may well be some female on male harrassment, and highly likely to be some homosexual harrassment in the 56 cases. Finally, of course some of the cases may well not be found to be authentic.



  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,529
    edited April 28
    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    I think the odds on Sunak for next PM are good. He's going to survive the partygate stuff and the non dom stuff, its all gone off the radar, and he is keeping a low profile. Has he lied to anyone? Not sure he has been put on the spot. Johnson is the one taking all the flak. Sunak is still chancellor, and is good at PR, quite young, etc, proved himself to be ok at politics, and also, he has had a career outside of politics, at quite a high level. I don't think Truss or Wallace are particularly convincing. Truss does seem like an error prone lightweight, and seems to go over the top with the Instagram/PR, which comes across as contrived, unlike Sunak's more down to earth efforts. Wallace seems like an enthusiast, and is just popular because he has a military background, but not a particularly impressive one. Hunt... yesterdays man, unfortunately. The best value is still in backing Priti Patel. Why is she 40/1? She is home secretary. Everyone says she is a failure, but shes been there for 3 years, and hasn't been forced out by any scandal, in a poisonous job. Not suggesting she should be PM, but surely her chances are better than that.

    She should have been forced out by several - bullying, boats, visas without even thinking hard - but she’s still there as Johnson finds her politically useful and as we know doesn’t consider incompetence or even criminality a serious matter.

    That’s not a qualification to be PM.
    Doesn't this actually make her the logical heir to Boris Johnson? These are the qualities that have made him politically successful!
    As I've commented before I live in her constituency and I gather she's well liked in the Conservative Association. She's certainly been very pleasant when I've met her; much more so than her predecessor as 'my' MP, Brooks Newmark.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,522
    Morning all, may have been commented on earlier but the NY Court of Appeals (the highest court) has overturned the Democrats’ redistricting plans in NY and gave it to a neutral expert to draw up. Fairly big blow for the Democrats for the House - the original plans would have seen the likely GOP seats go from 8 to 4.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 6,483
    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    I think the odds on Sunak for next PM are good. He's going to survive the partygate stuff and the non dom stuff, its all gone off the radar, and he is keeping a low profile. Has he lied to anyone? Not sure he has been put on the spot. Johnson is the one taking all the flak. Sunak is still chancellor, and is good at PR, quite young, etc, proved himself to be ok at politics, and also, he has had a career outside of politics, at quite a high level. I don't think Truss or Wallace are particularly convincing. Truss does seem like an error prone lightweight, and seems to go over the top with the Instagram/PR, which comes across as contrived, unlike Sunak's more down to earth efforts. Wallace seems like an enthusiast, and is just popular because he has a military background, but not a particularly impressive one. Hunt... yesterdays man, unfortunately. The best value is still in backing Priti Patel. Why is she 40/1? She is home secretary. Everyone says she is a failure, but shes been there for 3 years, and hasn't been forced out by any scandal, in a poisonous job. Not suggesting she should be PM, but surely her chances are better than that.

    She should have been forced out by several - bullying, boats, visas without even thinking hard - but she’s still there as Johnson finds her politically useful and as we know doesn’t consider incompetence or even criminality a serious matter.

    That’s not a qualification to be PM.
    Doesn't this actually make her the logical heir to Boris Johnson? These are the qualities that have made him politically successful!
    Johnson is way batter at cloaking his nastiness and incompetence in superficial bonhomie.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814
    edited April 28
    New

    Welsh female mp accuses a shadow cabinet minister of making lewd comments to her

    BBC News - Women in politics: Labour figure's 'lewd comments to MP' - claim
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-61245456
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420
    edited April 28
    Heathener said:

    This is the photo to which I referred. Is it up to date? Putin looks REALLY ill. You wouldn't even know it's him:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61252320

    I watched the clip, and it does have a whiff of "Downfall" about it. Mostly I thought it the incoherent rant of a dictator who knows he is losing, but that could have been poor translation.

    https://twitter.com/LtTimMcMillan/status/1519343013109108737?t=fUFZv78iwZgbbnhxk2QYXA&s=19

    I don't think he looks particularly ill or puffy faced, just tired and under strain. Possibly a hint of a previous left sided weakness from a stroke, but clearly not as bad as Andrew Marr.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 18,405
    Glad to see that I am not alone in my concerns about Liz Truss' trash talk. The Ukrainian war is too important and too dangerous to play with for internal Tory party political reasons. Truss is not participating in a radio phone in, she is our top diplomat.
  • Gary_BurtonGary_Burton Posts: 737
    Heathener said:

    Whilst an overall Labour majority is a huge challenge and Mike is right to say that punters are over-estimating the chances, this is not the same as saying it cannot, or won't happen. Nor is a hung parliament Keir Starmer's 'best hope.'

    I've seen sea changes happen, and we are experiencing one. I rule out nothing right now, including a Conservative wipeout.

    To get a majority I think Labour would have to get up to 15-20 seats in Scotland. I would struggle to see more than 5-10 tops at the next GE TBH.

    I would say 10% chance of a Labour OM rather than 20%.

    ~30% chance of a Con OM seems about right.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420
    edited April 28
    The risk of the conflict expanding to nuclear war between NATO and Russia seems to be going up as the renewed Russian offensive makes only marginal gains, while the Ukranian army equips and trains for a counter-offensive on exhausted and depleted Russian forces. Both sides are taking heavy casualties, but for Ukraine this is existential war, not a Special Operation.

    The risk of going nuclear is when it becomes existential for the Putin regime, and that may well happen this year. I am not sure that we can do much to stop it. Putin has not behaved rationally throughout.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,563
    Foxy said:

    The risk of the conflict expanding to nuclear war between NATO and Russia seems to be going up as the renewed Russian offensive makes only marginal gains, while the Ukranian army equips and trains for a counter-offensive on exhausted and depleted Russian forces. Both sides are taking heavy casualties, but for Ukraine this is existential war, not a Special Operation.

    The risk of going nuclear is when it becomes existential for the Putin regime, and that may well happen this year. I am not sure what we can do much to stop it. Putin has not behaved rationally throughout.

    I think we just have to hope that he's only psychopathic and not completely suicidal.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    ping said:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukraine-war-planes-liz-truss-b2066470.html?amp

    Amateur hour.

    Truss is not just embarrassing. She’s dangerous.

    Get someone serious in as FS, now. Even Theresa May will do. Just someone with the basic skill set required of a FS during a crisis.

    That's 24 hours old, she has said something even more stupid since then about Nato should double down on driving Russia out of Ukraine
    That's not stupid, that's exactly what we should be doing. And we need to keep up the pressure to ensure that other NATO allies don't waver and keep up their support for Ukraine too.

    Truss is 100% in the right here and doing a good job. As much as some quivering wrecks might want to say yeahbutrussiannukes and hide their heads on the sand.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420

    Heathener said:

    Whilst an overall Labour majority is a huge challenge and Mike is right to say that punters are over-estimating the chances, this is not the same as saying it cannot, or won't happen. Nor is a hung parliament Keir Starmer's 'best hope.'

    I've seen sea changes happen, and we are experiencing one. I rule out nothing right now, including a Conservative wipeout.

    To get a majority I think Labour would have to get up to 15-20 seats in Scotland. I would struggle to see more than 5-10 tops at the next GE TBH.

    I would say 10% chance of a Labour OM rather than 20%.

    ~30% chance of a Con OM seems about right.
    Sounds about right to me.

    It is difficult to lose an 80 seat majority at one go, even for this bunch of sleazy porn watching serial lawbreakers and incompetents.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,881
    A Tory majority after the next election is severely under-priced. The government has now taken control of the Electoral Commission and is restricting the right to vote to those who hold government-approved ID. Peaceful protest is being criminalised, while Parliament is being increasingly sidelined. Within the next two years, there will also be legislation that severely restricts current rights to ensure the government complies with the law. We are already well on the road to Orbanisation and by the time the country next goes to the polls we will be further along in the journey. A government with the level of control this one is taking for itself should always win.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420
    Fishing said:

    Foxy said:

    The risk of the conflict expanding to nuclear war between NATO and Russia seems to be going up as the renewed Russian offensive makes only marginal gains, while the Ukranian army equips and trains for a counter-offensive on exhausted and depleted Russian forces. Both sides are taking heavy casualties, but for Ukraine this is existential war, not a Special Operation.

    The risk of going nuclear is when it becomes existential for the Putin regime, and that may well happen this year. I am not sure what we can do much to stop it. Putin has not behaved rationally throughout.

    I think we just have to hope that he's only psychopathic and not completely suicidal.
    When Russian state media are openly saying that nuclear war will send them to heaven, we have reached a very dangerous stage of the war.

    https://twitter.com/thorstenbenner/status/1519539043729649666?t=wUSSePyB0QcSJ5fp8-oXmg&s=19
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 8,969
    "Slowly seeing the mood starting to change amongst the pro-Ukraine crowd..."

    https://twitter.com/Tom_Fowdy/status/1519199384222990337

    The pro give in to Russia crowd on twitter thinks Russia is winning the war, that the initial attack on Kyiv achieved its objective of shaping the battlefield in Russia's favour, and that the pro-Ukraine crowd on twitter is starting to lose heart.

    Any idea what this is based on?
  • Jonathan said:

    Glad to see that I am not alone in my concerns about Liz Truss' trash talk. The Ukrainian war is too important and too dangerous to play with for internal Tory party political reasons. Truss is not participating in a radio phone in, she is our top diplomat.

    And as our top diplomat, diplomatically putting pressure on our NATO allies to keep sending Ukraine arms in order to completely push Russia out of Ukraine is precisely what she should be doing.

    Unless you have a different goal in mind than helping Ukraine win the war?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,621
    🚨🇪🇺🇬🇧🚨🇪🇺🇬🇧🚨Alarm bells ringing in Treasury as the Johnson/Truss plans to neuter Northern Ireland protocol raise fears of EU trade war — tho Brussels is playing it cool via ⁦@GeorgeWParker⁩
    @AndyBounds⁩@FinancialTimes⁩ https://on.ft.com/3xZd7Jh
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,529

    A Tory majority after the next election is severely under-priced. The government has now taken control of the Electoral Commission and is restricting the right to vote to those who hold government-approved ID. Peaceful protest is being criminalised, while Parliament is being increasingly sidelined. Within the next two years, there will also be legislation that severely restricts current rights to ensure the government complies with the law. We are already well on the road to Orbanisation and by the time the country next goes to the polls we will be further along in the journey. A government with the level of control this one is taking for itself should always win.

    Sadly, Mr SO, I fear you are right.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,113
    Foxy said:

    The risk of the conflict expanding to nuclear war between NATO and Russia seems to be going up as the renewed Russian offensive makes only marginal gains, while the Ukranian army equips and trains for a counter-offensive on exhausted and depleted Russian forces. Both sides are taking heavy casualties, but for Ukraine this is existential war, not a Special Operation.

    The risk of going nuclear is when it becomes existential for the Putin regime, and that may well happen this year. I am not sure that we can do much to stop it. Putin has not behaved rationally throughout.

    Going nuclear simply transitions Putin from becoming existential for his regime to a guaranteed ceasing of his existence.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,113
    Andy_JS said:

    I've done a spreadsheet showing which of Labour's 123 targets for a majority are voting at the local elections. Most of them are. I'll post it if anyone's interested in taking a look.

    Very interested
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,563
    rcs1000 said:

    ping said:

    Heathener said:

    rcs1000 said:

    So long as the SNP dominate Scotland, a Labour majority is extremely difficult. I'd be very happy to sell that at 1-5.

    Agreed and I think that's the right way of putting it. It's extremely difficult but not impossible.

    As a matter of interest, Labour are picking up in Scotland. They are currently polling around 10% higher than how they performed at the 2019 GE and at current voting intention levels that would equate to taking around 9 seats off the SNP. Something to keep an eye on.
    https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/latest-opinion-polls/

    My view on this at the moment is that NoM should be the standout favourite. The chances of a Conservative majority under BJ are going down the plughole but I also don't rule out the extreme version: the UK equivalent of a Canada wipeout. I think this is now getting to be worse than 1992-7. We have a constellation of circumstances that only seem to be increasing. They might fare disastrously at the General Election if Johnson is still in charge.
    Depends on many factors. Eg, If the war with Russia metastasises, Johnson stands a decent chance of getting re-elected, imo.

    I recon that’s a ~30% chance.

    It really is that serious.
    I'm not that convinced that military victories lead to electoral ones.

    Exhibits: George Bush, Margaret Thatcher, Churchill, Lloyd George
    George Bush won a second term after the victory in the Iraq War, Mrs Thatcher's triumph in 1983 was undoubtedly greater because of the Falklands and Lloyd George's Coalition routed the opposition in the Coupon Election of 1918.

    Churchill and George Bush Senior are very much the exceptions.

    But those were wars in which their countries were actually fighting. A lot. I think it's difficult to see Boris getting much of a bounce from Ukraine, though Zelensky might win a landslide if he stood in 2024.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420

    "Slowly seeing the mood starting to change amongst the pro-Ukraine crowd..."

    https://twitter.com/Tom_Fowdy/status/1519199384222990337

    The pro give in to Russia crowd on twitter thinks Russia is winning the war, that the initial attack on Kyiv achieved its objective of shaping the battlefield in Russia's favour, and that the pro-Ukraine crowd on twitter is starting to lose heart.

    Any idea what this is based on?

    Wishful thinking by Russian apologists on twitter as far as I can see.

    The best outcome for Russia is that the war grinds on as an attritional stalemate in more or less the current positions, perhaps with a bit more Donbas.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,315
    edited April 28

    Andy_JS said:

    I've done a spreadsheet showing which of Labour's 123 targets for a majority are voting at the local elections. Most of them are. I'll post it if anyone's interested in taking a look.

    Very interested
    Here it is. Labour probably needs to "win" most of them on 5th May because usually you'd expect some kind of swingback to the government before the general election compared to mid-term.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jKkG-6we5fYeaAuUY-M1DPdmHz-_RcvWC_y7ErCrBL0/edit#gid=0
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,113

    Heathener said:

    Whilst an overall Labour majority is a huge challenge and Mike is right to say that punters are over-estimating the chances, this is not the same as saying it cannot, or won't happen. Nor is a hung parliament Keir Starmer's 'best hope.'

    I've seen sea changes happen, and we are experiencing one. I rule out nothing right now, including a Conservative wipeout.

    To get a majority I think Labour would have to get up to 15-20 seats in Scotland. I would struggle to see more than 5-10 tops at the next GE TBH.

    I would say 10% chance of a Labour OM rather than 20%.

    ~30% chance of a Con OM seems about right.
    My view is that when Scotland flips it will flip (sorry to be tautological about it).

    If Scots sense a chance to eject the Westminster government and replace it with a Labour government with good SLAB representation then I think they'll take it - and we will see c.20 seats go.

    Those will be centre/centre-left Unionists, sure, and also include some who vote SNP in Holyrood - because Nicola - but are desperate to see the back of the Tories in Westminster.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,983
    Nigelb said:

    That was quick.
    M777 towed 155 mm howitzers bound for 🇺🇦Ukraine are loaded onto a US Air Forces C-17 Globemaster III aircraft,–🇺🇸 @DeptofDefense

    Pentagon said “more than half” of 90 Howitzers the US is sending to Ukraine are in the country

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1519484542377238530

    It makes sense to announce what is going only once it has been sent and safely arrived.

    Worth noting that the Oryx numbers for Russian losses are now at 3,243 in total including 579 tanks. The numbers being captured seem to be drying up; the proportion destroyed going up. A different phase of the war. The NATO kit being sent looks to be doing the job of blunting Russian efforts to take more Ukrainian turf, as Russia feeds the meat grinder.

    In WW2, German U-boat losses ran at 785 out of 1,162 built. In five years. Russian in-theatre tank losses are approaching that level. In 2 months. They can't build more - their main tank factory is closed. The can't buy them internationally. Those that are left in Ukraine are targets, marked with a Z. Their exact locations are known in real time. They can be taken out with a weapon that costs a few % of their initial cost (and that is before the oligarch mark-up on the invoice to the State).

    The stuff being sent really is making a difference. You can tell by the Russian whining: "It's not fair...." Russia is like some bloated ten year old, obese from the sweets it robs off six year olds, being confronted by a gang of their pissed off muscly adult brothers, armed with baseball bats. "It's not fair...."
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,638
    The SNP bloc has replaced the Lib Dems as the balancing factor in the HoC but I still think that the chances of NoM is being significantly overestimated. If you take the minor parties at something like 90, and that may be an overestimate, then you are assuming that neither Tory nor Labour will get 326 out of of 560.

    That is of course possible and we have seen it a couple of times in recent memory in 2010 and 2017 but it is unusual. I think that our recent experience is distorting perceptions somewhat. To make it a 52% chance is surely wrong.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420

    Foxy said:

    The risk of the conflict expanding to nuclear war between NATO and Russia seems to be going up as the renewed Russian offensive makes only marginal gains, while the Ukranian army equips and trains for a counter-offensive on exhausted and depleted Russian forces. Both sides are taking heavy casualties, but for Ukraine this is existential war, not a Special Operation.

    The risk of going nuclear is when it becomes existential for the Putin regime, and that may well happen this year. I am not sure that we can do much to stop it. Putin has not behaved rationally throughout.

    Going nuclear simply transitions Putin from becoming existential for his regime to a guaranteed ceasing of his existence.
    I would judge that Putin would be very willing to take us all with him if his conventional war collapses. We are at the stage where "Downfall" parallels are no longer satire, but documentary, and that is a very dangerous thing to navigate.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,113
    darkage said:

    I think the odds on Sunak for next PM are good. He's going to survive the partygate stuff and the non dom stuff, its all gone off the radar, and he is keeping a low profile. Has he lied to anyone? Not sure he has been put on the spot. Johnson is the one taking all the flak. Sunak is still chancellor, and is good at PR, quite young, etc, proved himself to be ok at politics, and also, he has had a career outside of politics, at quite a high level. I don't think Truss or Wallace are particularly convincing. Truss does seem like an error prone lightweight, and seems to go over the top with the Instagram/PR, which comes across as contrived, unlike Sunak's more down to earth efforts. Wallace seems like an enthusiast, and is just popular because he has a military background, but not a particularly impressive one. Hunt... yesterdays man, unfortunately. The best value is still in backing Priti Patel. Why is she 40/1? She is home secretary. Everyone says she is a failure, but shes been there for 3 years, and hasn't been forced out by any scandal, in a poisonous job. Not suggesting she should be PM, but surely her chances are better than that.

    I wouldn't back Sunak north of 50/1 at the moment.

    He's proved himself to be politically inept and I think he's holed beneath the waterline - both in the parliamentary party and across the country as a whole.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,638

    darkage said:

    I think the odds on Sunak for next PM are good. He's going to survive the partygate stuff and the non dom stuff, its all gone off the radar, and he is keeping a low profile. Has he lied to anyone? Not sure he has been put on the spot. Johnson is the one taking all the flak. Sunak is still chancellor, and is good at PR, quite young, etc, proved himself to be ok at politics, and also, he has had a career outside of politics, at quite a high level. I don't think Truss or Wallace are particularly convincing. Truss does seem like an error prone lightweight, and seems to go over the top with the Instagram/PR, which comes across as contrived, unlike Sunak's more down to earth efforts. Wallace seems like an enthusiast, and is just popular because he has a military background, but not a particularly impressive one. Hunt... yesterdays man, unfortunately. The best value is still in backing Priti Patel. Why is she 40/1? She is home secretary. Everyone says she is a failure, but shes been there for 3 years, and hasn't been forced out by any scandal, in a poisonous job. Not suggesting she should be PM, but surely her chances are better than that.

    I wouldn't back Sunak north of 50/1 at the moment.

    He's proved himself to be politically inept and I think he's holed beneath the waterline - both in the parliamentary party and across the country as a whole.
    I do not see a path for someone who is polling negatively with ConHome supporters to become PM. This is a disappointingly mediocre cabinet and yet he was the only one in that category. Even 50/1 would not attract me at the moment.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420
    Scott_xP said:

    🚨🇪🇺🇬🇧🚨🇪🇺🇬🇧🚨Alarm bells ringing in Treasury as the Johnson/Truss plans to neuter Northern Ireland protocol raise fears of EU trade war — tho Brussels is playing it cool via ⁦@GeorgeWParker⁩
    @AndyBounds⁩@FinancialTimes⁩ https://on.ft.com/3xZd7Jh

    Perfect time for a trade war between allies. What more could Putin ask for?

    Tories and DUP are wetting their knickers because SF are going to win and have the Leadership in Stormont.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,113
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    The risk of the conflict expanding to nuclear war between NATO and Russia seems to be going up as the renewed Russian offensive makes only marginal gains, while the Ukranian army equips and trains for a counter-offensive on exhausted and depleted Russian forces. Both sides are taking heavy casualties, but for Ukraine this is existential war, not a Special Operation.

    The risk of going nuclear is when it becomes existential for the Putin regime, and that may well happen this year. I am not sure that we can do much to stop it. Putin has not behaved rationally throughout.

    Going nuclear simply transitions Putin from becoming existential for his regime to a guaranteed ceasing of his existence.
    I would judge that Putin would be very willing to take us all with him if his conventional war collapses. We are at the stage where "Downfall" parallels are no longer satire, but documentary, and that is a very dangerous thing to navigate.
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    The risk of the conflict expanding to nuclear war between NATO and Russia seems to be going up as the renewed Russian offensive makes only marginal gains, while the Ukranian army equips and trains for a counter-offensive on exhausted and depleted Russian forces. Both sides are taking heavy casualties, but for Ukraine this is existential war, not a Special Operation.

    The risk of going nuclear is when it becomes existential for the Putin regime, and that may well happen this year. I am not sure that we can do much to stop it. Putin has not behaved rationally throughout.

    Going nuclear simply transitions Putin from becoming existential for his regime to a guaranteed ceasing of his existence.
    I would judge that Putin would be very willing to take us all with him if his conventional war collapses. We are at the stage where "Downfall" parallels are no longer satire, but documentary, and that is a very dangerous thing to navigate.
    I think it's more likely he takes the Donbass and then declares victory, whilst buttering over the cracks.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202
    edited April 28

    Jonathan said:

    Glad to see that I am not alone in my concerns about Liz Truss' trash talk. The Ukrainian war is too important and too dangerous to play with for internal Tory party political reasons. Truss is not participating in a radio phone in, she is our top diplomat.

    And as our top diplomat, diplomatically putting pressure on our NATO allies to keep sending Ukraine arms in order to completely push Russia out of Ukraine is precisely what she should be doing.

    Unless you have a different goal in mind than helping Ukraine win the war?
    Whatever you think of the issue, it's not for a single cabinet minister to make policy on the hoof when it's not their sole responsibility.
    I'm almost certain this kind of freelancing was not approved by cabinet.

    And she appears not to understand even what NATO is.

    UK’s Liz Truss: NATO should protect Taiwan too
    https://www.politico.eu/article/liz-truss-nato-taiwan-protect/
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420
    edited April 28

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    The risk of the conflict expanding to nuclear war between NATO and Russia seems to be going up as the renewed Russian offensive makes only marginal gains, while the Ukranian army equips and trains for a counter-offensive on exhausted and depleted Russian forces. Both sides are taking heavy casualties, but for Ukraine this is existential war, not a Special Operation.

    The risk of going nuclear is when it becomes existential for the Putin regime, and that may well happen this year. I am not sure that we can do much to stop it. Putin has not behaved rationally throughout.

    Going nuclear simply transitions Putin from becoming existential for his regime to a guaranteed ceasing of his existence.
    I would judge that Putin would be very willing to take us all with him if his conventional war collapses. We are at the stage where "Downfall" parallels are no longer satire, but documentary, and that is a very dangerous thing to navigate.
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    The risk of the conflict expanding to nuclear war between NATO and Russia seems to be going up as the renewed Russian offensive makes only marginal gains, while the Ukranian army equips and trains for a counter-offensive on exhausted and depleted Russian forces. Both sides are taking heavy casualties, but for Ukraine this is existential war, not a Special Operation.

    The risk of going nuclear is when it becomes existential for the Putin regime, and that may well happen this year. I am not sure that we can do much to stop it. Putin has not behaved rationally throughout.

    Going nuclear simply transitions Putin from becoming existential for his regime to a guaranteed ceasing of his existence.
    I would judge that Putin would be very willing to take us all with him if his conventional war collapses. We are at the stage where "Downfall" parallels are no longer satire, but documentary, and that is a very dangerous thing to navigate.
    I think it's more likely he takes the Donbass and then declares victory, whilst buttering over the cracks.
    Yes, but that requires Ukraine and NATO to accept that outcome, and that ain't going to be the case. It would be a less plausible version of when GWB declared victory over Iraq on the aircraft carrier.

    Incidentally, Donbass is the Russian name, Ukranians use Donbas. A bit like Odessa and Odesa.
  • Nigelb said:

    Jonathan said:

    Glad to see that I am not alone in my concerns about Liz Truss' trash talk. The Ukrainian war is too important and too dangerous to play with for internal Tory party political reasons. Truss is not participating in a radio phone in, she is our top diplomat.

    And as our top diplomat, diplomatically putting pressure on our NATO allies to keep sending Ukraine arms in order to completely push Russia out of Ukraine is precisely what she should be doing.

    Unless you have a different goal in mind than helping Ukraine win the war?
    Whatever you think of the issue, it's not for a single cabinet minister to make policy on the hoof when it's not their sole responsibility.
    I'm almost certain this kind of freelancing was not approved by cabinet.

    And she appears not to understand even what NATO is.

    UK’s Liz Truss: NATO should protect Taiwan too
    https://www.politico.eu/article/liz-truss-nato-taiwan-protect/
    She's not making policy on the hoof, it's the stated policy of this government (and quite right too) that Russia must lose the war and be seen to lose the war.

    Everything Truss says should be judged with that objective in mind. Some people it seems are projecting their own preference (Russia not losing or being seen to lose) and judging her comments against that instead.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,638
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:

    🚨🇪🇺🇬🇧🚨🇪🇺🇬🇧🚨Alarm bells ringing in Treasury as the Johnson/Truss plans to neuter Northern Ireland protocol raise fears of EU trade war — tho Brussels is playing it cool via ⁦@GeorgeWParker⁩
    @AndyBounds⁩@FinancialTimes⁩ https://on.ft.com/3xZd7Jh

    Perfect time for a trade war between allies. What more could Putin ask for?

    Tories and DUP are wetting their knickers because SF are going to win and have the Leadership in Stormont.
    There were a couple of questions about this at PMQs yesterday and Boris was keen to emphasise that the NI protocol was not only causing problems for NI economically but politically, specifically it is undermining the Unionist parties that initially backed it. Boris claimed that the protocol was undermining the Good Friday Agreement. He wants to do something about this and soon but keeping a united front on Ukraine is obviously the priority at the moment.

    It's a tricky one for him. It's possible that a re-elected Macron may be more amenable to some sort of a deal but I wouldn't count on it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,420

    Heathener said:

    Whilst an overall Labour majority is a huge challenge and Mike is right to say that punters are over-estimating the chances, this is not the same as saying it cannot, or won't happen. Nor is a hung parliament Keir Starmer's 'best hope.'

    I've seen sea changes happen, and we are experiencing one. I rule out nothing right now, including a Conservative wipeout.

    To get a majority I think Labour would have to get up to 15-20 seats in Scotland. I would struggle to see more than 5-10 tops at the next GE TBH.

    I would say 10% chance of a Labour OM rather than 20%.

    ~30% chance of a Con OM seems about right.
    My view is that when Scotland flips it will flip (sorry to be tautological about it).

    If Scots sense a chance to eject the Westminster government and replace it with a Labour government with good SLAB representation then I think they'll take it - and we will see c.20 seats go.

    Those will be centre/centre-left Unionists, sure, and also include some who vote SNP in Holyrood - because Nicola - but are desperate to see the back of the Tories in Westminster.
    I don't think that Scotland will flip next GE. I think the only thing that would flip Scotland back to SLAB would be the SNP losing a further indy ref by a larger margin than last time.
  • Incidentally @Nigelb as far as the Indo Pacific is concerned, yes us having military equipment there as deterrence and to protect allies there is equally a strategic UK policy and not something made on the hoof.

    Did you miss the last Strategic Defence Review?

    It seems some people are unhappy with Truss because they want the UK to have different objectives, not because Truss isn't furthering our stated objectives.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202
    .

    Nigelb said:

    Jonathan said:

    Glad to see that I am not alone in my concerns about Liz Truss' trash talk. The Ukrainian war is too important and too dangerous to play with for internal Tory party political reasons. Truss is not participating in a radio phone in, she is our top diplomat.

    And as our top diplomat, diplomatically putting pressure on our NATO allies to keep sending Ukraine arms in order to completely push Russia out of Ukraine is precisely what she should be doing.

    Unless you have a different goal in mind than helping Ukraine win the war?
    Whatever you think of the issue, it's not for a single cabinet minister to make policy on the hoof when it's not their sole responsibility.
    I'm almost certain this kind of freelancing was not approved by cabinet.

    And she appears not to understand even what NATO is.

    UK’s Liz Truss: NATO should protect Taiwan too
    https://www.politico.eu/article/liz-truss-nato-taiwan-protect/
    She's not making policy on the hoof, it's the stated policy of this government (and quite right too) that Russia must lose the war and be seen to lose the war.

    Everything Truss says should be judged with that objective in mind. Some people it seems are projecting their own preference (Russia not losing or being seen to lose) and judging her comments against that instead.
    The UK government view of our precise war aims is neither clear nor settled - and in any event it's not really our decision.

    And the Taiwan comment is simply nonsense on its face.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,621
    DavidL said:

    Boris was keen to emphasise that the NI protocol was not only causing problems for NI economically but politically, specifically it is undermining the Unionist parties that initially backed it. Boris claimed that the protocol was undermining the Good Friday Agreement.

    Problems entirely of his own making.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,113
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    The risk of the conflict expanding to nuclear war between NATO and Russia seems to be going up as the renewed Russian offensive makes only marginal gains, while the Ukranian army equips and trains for a counter-offensive on exhausted and depleted Russian forces. Both sides are taking heavy casualties, but for Ukraine this is existential war, not a Special Operation.

    The risk of going nuclear is when it becomes existential for the Putin regime, and that may well happen this year. I am not sure that we can do much to stop it. Putin has not behaved rationally throughout.

    Going nuclear simply transitions Putin from becoming existential for his regime to a guaranteed ceasing of his existence.
    I would judge that Putin would be very willing to take us all with him if his conventional war collapses. We are at the stage where "Downfall" parallels are no longer satire, but documentary, and that is a very dangerous thing to navigate.
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    The risk of the conflict expanding to nuclear war between NATO and Russia seems to be going up as the renewed Russian offensive makes only marginal gains, while the Ukranian army equips and trains for a counter-offensive on exhausted and depleted Russian forces. Both sides are taking heavy casualties, but for Ukraine this is existential war, not a Special Operation.

    The risk of going nuclear is when it becomes existential for the Putin regime, and that may well happen this year. I am not sure that we can do much to stop it. Putin has not behaved rationally throughout.

    Going nuclear simply transitions Putin from becoming existential for his regime to a guaranteed ceasing of his existence.
    I would judge that Putin would be very willing to take us all with him if his conventional war collapses. We are at the stage where "Downfall" parallels are no longer satire, but documentary, and that is a very dangerous thing to navigate.
    I think it's more likely he takes the Donbass and then declares victory, whilst buttering over the cracks.
    Yes, but that requires Ukraine and NATO to accept that outcome, and that ain't going to be the case. It would be a less plausible version of when GWB declared victory over Iraq on the aircraft carrier.

    Incidentally, Donbass is the Russian name, Ukranians use Donbas. A bit like Odessa and Odesa.
    I expect it will be a stalemate with either an ongoing simmering insurgency (as per 2014) or some very awkward ceasefire.

    But, a frozen conflict is better than a hot one.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371
    Scott_xP said:
    There are regular messages from wishcasters on here, telling us that the parties no longer matter. Sometimes these are written by people who don't live in the UK. Always by people with no finger on people's pulse.

    They DO matter. They matter because not since the Second World War has this country been asked to sacrifice so much. And all the while that f****** ar******* was partying in No.10.

    Here it is from that article:

    "The line from a recent focus group that stands out most for me is from a first-time Conservative voter. He despaired that “Margaret Thatcher would never have had those parties. She was strong and would have told them to stop”.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,621
    Nigelb said:

    The UK government view of our precise war aims is neither clear nor settled - and in any event it's not really our decision.

    BoZo's war aim is to keep him in office.

    I am not sure Truss shares that aim
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,113
    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Whilst an overall Labour majority is a huge challenge and Mike is right to say that punters are over-estimating the chances, this is not the same as saying it cannot, or won't happen. Nor is a hung parliament Keir Starmer's 'best hope.'

    I've seen sea changes happen, and we are experiencing one. I rule out nothing right now, including a Conservative wipeout.

    To get a majority I think Labour would have to get up to 15-20 seats in Scotland. I would struggle to see more than 5-10 tops at the next GE TBH.

    I would say 10% chance of a Labour OM rather than 20%.

    ~30% chance of a Con OM seems about right.
    My view is that when Scotland flips it will flip (sorry to be tautological about it).

    If Scots sense a chance to eject the Westminster government and replace it with a Labour government with good SLAB representation then I think they'll take it - and we will see c.20 seats go.

    Those will be centre/centre-left Unionists, sure, and also include some who vote SNP in Holyrood - because Nicola - but are desperate to see the back of the Tories in Westminster.
    I don't think that Scotland will flip next GE. I think the only thing that would flip Scotland back to SLAB would be the SNP losing a further indy ref by a larger margin than last time.
    Not wholesale but I could see 15-20 seats going in one batch to SLAB.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371
    Sorry for the language. I don't often hate people, in fact it's extremely rare for me. But three right now are:

    Piers Morgan, Vladimir Putin, and Boris Johnson.
  • Nigelb said:

    .

    Nigelb said:

    Jonathan said:

    Glad to see that I am not alone in my concerns about Liz Truss' trash talk. The Ukrainian war is too important and too dangerous to play with for internal Tory party political reasons. Truss is not participating in a radio phone in, she is our top diplomat.

    And as our top diplomat, diplomatically putting pressure on our NATO allies to keep sending Ukraine arms in order to completely push Russia out of Ukraine is precisely what she should be doing.

    Unless you have a different goal in mind than helping Ukraine win the war?
    Whatever you think of the issue, it's not for a single cabinet minister to make policy on the hoof when it's not their sole responsibility.
    I'm almost certain this kind of freelancing was not approved by cabinet.

    And she appears not to understand even what NATO is.

    UK’s Liz Truss: NATO should protect Taiwan too
    https://www.politico.eu/article/liz-truss-nato-taiwan-protect/
    She's not making policy on the hoof, it's the stated policy of this government (and quite right too) that Russia must lose the war and be seen to lose the war.

    Everything Truss says should be judged with that objective in mind. Some people it seems are projecting their own preference (Russia not losing or being seen to lose) and judging her comments against that instead.
    The UK government view of our precise war aims is neither clear nor settled - and in any event it's not really our decision.

    And the Taiwan comment is simply nonsense on its face.
    Our war aims have always been stated that Russia must lose the war and be seen to lose the war. How do Truss's comments contradict that?

    The Taiwan comment is entirely appropriate and in line with our last defence review, as well as the AUKUS agreement and other policies.

    If you don't like Britain's objectives because you want totalitarian dictatorships like Russia and China to be able to do as they please that's a different matter. It isn't British policy though.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,315
    Heathener said:

    Sorry for the language. I don't often hate people, in fact it's extremely rare for me. But three right now are:

    Piers Morgan, Vladimir Putin, and Boris Johnson.

    Putin is in a different category to the others IMO.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814
    Heathener said:

    Sorry for the language. I don't often hate people, in fact it's extremely rare for me. But three right now are:

    Piers Morgan, Vladimir Putin, and Boris Johnson.

    You put Morgan and Boris alongside your hate list with Putin

    Sence of proportion maybe a bit out of kilter there
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371
    edited April 28

    IshmaelZ said:

    ping said:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukraine-war-planes-liz-truss-b2066470.html?amp

    Amateur hour.

    Truss is not just embarrassing. She’s dangerous.

    Get someone serious in as FS, now. Even Theresa May will do. Just someone with the basic skill set required of a FS during a crisis.

    That's 24 hours old, she has said something even more stupid since then about Nato should double down on driving Russia out of Ukraine
    That's not stupid, that's exactly what we should be doing. And we need to keep up the pressure to ensure that other NATO allies don't waver and keep up their support for Ukraine too.

    Truss is 100% in the right here and doing a good job. As much as some quivering wrecks might want to say yeahbutrussiannukes and hide their heads on the sand.
    As a reminder, this comes from the man who said he'd be happy to see the Troubles return to Northern Ireland in order to get a "pure" Brexit.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,371

    Heathener said:

    Whilst an overall Labour majority is a huge challenge and Mike is right to say that punters are over-estimating the chances, this is not the same as saying it cannot, or won't happen. Nor is a hung parliament Keir Starmer's 'best hope.'

    I've seen sea changes happen, and we are experiencing one. I rule out nothing right now, including a Conservative wipeout.

    To get a majority I think Labour would have to get up to 15-20 seats in Scotland. I would struggle to see more than 5-10 tops at the next GE TBH.
    Current polling suggests they stand to win 9 seats from the SNP and Labour's Scottish ratings are rising.

    I think we underestimate the possible cataclysm facing the tories if they stick with Johnson. This reminds me so much of 1997. For sure Starmer is no Blair but the economy and cost of living is 10000x worse than then.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 8,969

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    The risk of the conflict expanding to nuclear war between NATO and Russia seems to be going up as the renewed Russian offensive makes only marginal gains, while the Ukranian army equips and trains for a counter-offensive on exhausted and depleted Russian forces. Both sides are taking heavy casualties, but for Ukraine this is existential war, not a Special Operation.

    The risk of going nuclear is when it becomes existential for the Putin regime, and that may well happen this year. I am not sure that we can do much to stop it. Putin has not behaved rationally throughout.

    Going nuclear simply transitions Putin from becoming existential for his regime to a guaranteed ceasing of his existence.
    I would judge that Putin would be very willing to take us all with him if his conventional war collapses. We are at the stage where "Downfall" parallels are no longer satire, but documentary, and that is a very dangerous thing to navigate.
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    The risk of the conflict expanding to nuclear war between NATO and Russia seems to be going up as the renewed Russian offensive makes only marginal gains, while the Ukranian army equips and trains for a counter-offensive on exhausted and depleted Russian forces. Both sides are taking heavy casualties, but for Ukraine this is existential war, not a Special Operation.

    The risk of going nuclear is when it becomes existential for the Putin regime, and that may well happen this year. I am not sure that we can do much to stop it. Putin has not behaved rationally throughout.

    Going nuclear simply transitions Putin from becoming existential for his regime to a guaranteed ceasing of his existence.
    I would judge that Putin would be very willing to take us all with him if his conventional war collapses. We are at the stage where "Downfall" parallels are no longer satire, but documentary, and that is a very dangerous thing to navigate.
    I think it's more likely he takes the Donbass and then declares victory, whilst buttering over the cracks.
    Yes, but that requires Ukraine and NATO to accept that outcome, and that ain't going to be the case. It would be a less plausible version of when GWB declared victory over Iraq on the aircraft carrier.

    Incidentally, Donbass is the Russian name, Ukranians use Donbas. A bit like Odessa and Odesa.
    I expect it will be a stalemate with either an ongoing simmering insurgency (as per 2014) or some very awkward ceasefire.

    But, a frozen conflict is better than a hot one.
    My feeling is that the supply of heavy weaponry since the atrocities of Bucha were revealed has been motivated by the knowledge that a stalemate would condemn many areas of Ukraine to suffer the fate of Bucha under Russian occupation. I think that, before Bucha, the West saw helping Ukraine to fight Russia to a stalemate as the least worst option, but now the objective is to provide sufficient support for Ukraine to at least regain territory lost since February 24th.

    Whether a Ukrainian counter-attack, after blunting the Russian offensive in the Donbas, would be successful is another matter, but it won't be for want of trying.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,638

    Have we done this? Can someone please rid us of this turbulent loosed lipped prat?

    A former head of the Polish army has accused Boris Johnson of “tempting evil” by revealing that Ukrainian soldiers were being trained in Poland in how to use British anti-aircraft missiles before returning with them to Ukraine.

    Gen Waldemar Skrzypczak, also a former junior defence minister, complained that a loose-lipped prime minister had revealed too much to the Russians and that his remarks risked the safety of the soldiers involved.

    Speaking to Polish tabloid Fakt, Skrzypczak said that Johnson had revealed “a military secret” and that “bad words are on the lips” when he gave details of the Ukrainian training plan on a trip to India last week.

    “Military training is a matter of the army, in such a situation secret. Let a man restrain himself and think before he says such things,” said the former general to the newspaper, which described his tone as irritated in an article from Friday.

    “The prime minister may not be aware of it, but with such statements he puts the success of the entire military operation at risk, as well as the safety of the soldiers,” Skrzypczak said. “Such statements are tempting evil.”

    On the visit, Johnson had revealed that Ukrainians were being taught how to use Nato-standard weapons in both Poland and the UK. “I can say that we are currently training Ukrainians in Poland in the use of anti-aircraft defence, and actually in the UK in the use of armoured vehicles,” he said.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/27/boris-johnson-tempting-evil-revealing-ukrainian-soldiers-trained-poland?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    Do you really think that the Russians don't know this?

    It seems to me that the risk of this war spreading beyond Ukraine are increasing almost daily. NATO countries initially gave "defensive" weapons which proved surprisingly effective, mainly due to Russian incompetence. Now they are supplying heavy weapons and potentially even aircraft to help Ukraine recover lost territory. We have had the economic warfare of sanctions and the retaliation yesterday of cutting off gas supplies. We have the possibility of violence spreading to Moldova. We have military build ups on all the bordering NATO countries and the nordic countries wanting access to NATO's nuclear shield. We may even have special forces in theatre, the Russians certainly think we do.

    Step by step we are being dragged into direct conflict with Russia. The betting is that a rational opponent, even one facing defeat on the battlefield, will not go nuclear just as the US didn't in Vietnam. But we do not seem to be dealing with a rational opponent. We are dealing with a paranoid, evil, potentially sick lunatic and I think we need to be a bit more careful about what we say and do than we are at the moment.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,983

    Have we done this? Can someone please rid us of this turbulent loosed lipped prat?

    A former head of the Polish army has accused Boris Johnson of “tempting evil” by revealing that Ukrainian soldiers were being trained in Poland in how to use British anti-aircraft missiles before returning with them to Ukraine.

    Gen Waldemar Skrzypczak, also a former junior defence minister, complained that a loose-lipped prime minister had revealed too much to the Russians and that his remarks risked the safety of the soldiers involved.

    Speaking to Polish tabloid Fakt, Skrzypczak said that Johnson had revealed “a military secret” and that “bad words are on the lips” when he gave details of the Ukrainian training plan on a trip to India last week.

    “Military training is a matter of the army, in such a situation secret. Let a man restrain himself and think before he says such things,” said the former general to the newspaper, which described his tone as irritated in an article from Friday.

    “The prime minister may not be aware of it, but with such statements he puts the success of the entire military operation at risk, as well as the safety of the soldiers,” Skrzypczak said. “Such statements are tempting evil.”

    On the visit, Johnson had revealed that Ukrainians were being taught how to use Nato-standard weapons in both Poland and the UK. “I can say that we are currently training Ukrainians in Poland in the use of anti-aircraft defence, and actually in the UK in the use of armoured vehicles,” he said.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/27/boris-johnson-tempting-evil-revealing-ukrainian-soldiers-trained-poland?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    It's only a secret if Russia don't know what is going on. And we want them to know what is going on. "Your kit is finite. Ukraine's? Not so much...."

    A Russia that is outgunned in Ukraine risks losing not only the Donbas, but - once the Black Sea fleet is on the seabed with its flagship - losing Crimea too. So now might just be a good time to come to the negotiating table and get real.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,202

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Nigelb said:

    Jonathan said:

    Glad to see that I am not alone in my concerns about Liz Truss' trash talk. The Ukrainian war is too important and too dangerous to play with for internal Tory party political reasons. Truss is not participating in a radio phone in, she is our top diplomat.

    And as our top diplomat, diplomatically putting pressure on our NATO allies to keep sending Ukraine arms in order to completely push Russia out of Ukraine is precisely what she should be doing.

    Unless you have a different goal in mind than helping Ukraine win the war?
    Whatever you think of the issue, it's not for a single cabinet minister to make policy on the hoof when it's not their sole responsibility.
    I'm almost certain this kind of freelancing was not approved by cabinet.

    And she appears not to understand even what NATO is.

    UK’s Liz Truss: NATO should protect Taiwan too
    https://www.politico.eu/article/liz-truss-nato-taiwan-protect/
    She's not making policy on the hoof, it's the stated policy of this government (and quite right too) that Russia must lose the war and be seen to lose the war.

    Everything Truss says should be judged with that objective in mind. Some people it seems are projecting their own preference (Russia not losing or being seen to lose) and judging her comments against that instead.
    The UK government view of our precise war aims is neither clear nor settled - and in any event it's not really our decision.

    And the Taiwan comment is simply nonsense on its face.
    Our war aims have always been stated that Russia must lose the war and be seen to lose the war. How do Truss's comments contradict that?

    The Taiwan comment is entirely appropriate and in line with our last defence review, as well as the AUKUS agreement and other policies.

    If you don't like Britain's objectives because you want totalitarian dictatorships like Russia and China to be able to do as they please that's a different matter. It isn't British policy though.
    NATO has no role whatsoever with respect to Taiwan, and to pretend otherwise is foolish - and dangerous nonsense if you're Foreign Secretary..

    Your view of how government should be conducted is as unserious as that of Truss. This isn't about policy disagreement.
  • Heathener said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ping said:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukraine-war-planes-liz-truss-b2066470.html?amp

    Amateur hour.

    Truss is not just embarrassing. She’s dangerous.

    Get someone serious in as FS, now. Even Theresa May will do. Just someone with the basic skill set required of a FS during a crisis.

    That's 24 hours old, she has said something even more stupid since then about Nato should double down on driving Russia out of Ukraine
    That's not stupid, that's exactly what we should be doing. And we need to keep up the pressure to ensure that other NATO allies don't waver and keep up their support for Ukraine too.

    Truss is 100% in the right here and doing a good job. As much as some quivering wrecks might want to say yeahbutrussiannukes and hide their heads on the sand.
    As a reminder, this comes from the man who said he'd be happy to see the Troubles return to Northern Ireland in order to get a "pure" Brexit.
    No that's not what I said, why are you lying?

    What I said is that if the Troubles returned that would be sad but the threat of violence is not enough to overturn democracy. Democracy must come first.

    I stand by that 100%. If you don't value democracy that would explain a lot.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,638
    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    Whilst an overall Labour majority is a huge challenge and Mike is right to say that punters are over-estimating the chances, this is not the same as saying it cannot, or won't happen. Nor is a hung parliament Keir Starmer's 'best hope.'

    I've seen sea changes happen, and we are experiencing one. I rule out nothing right now, including a Conservative wipeout.

    To get a majority I think Labour would have to get up to 15-20 seats in Scotland. I would struggle to see more than 5-10 tops at the next GE TBH.

    I would say 10% chance of a Labour OM rather than 20%.

    ~30% chance of a Con OM seems about right.
    My view is that when Scotland flips it will flip (sorry to be tautological about it).

    If Scots sense a chance to eject the Westminster government and replace it with a Labour government with good SLAB representation then I think they'll take it - and we will see c.20 seats go.

    Those will be centre/centre-left Unionists, sure, and also include some who vote SNP in Holyrood - because Nicola - but are desperate to see the back of the Tories in Westminster.
    I don't think that Scotland will flip next GE. I think the only thing that would flip Scotland back to SLAB would be the SNP losing a further indy ref by a larger margin than last time.
    I think "flip" is completely overstating it but I will be surprised if Labour does not take up to a dozen seats off the SNP in the same way as the Tories did in 2017. It is possible that the SNP might be compensated by recovering more seats from the Tories but they are not quite as dominant as they were.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 8,969

    "The Federal Senate of Brazil has recognized the Holodomor of 1932-1933 as a genocide against the Ukrainian nation."

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1519489653518258177

    does this, and the fact Brazil are giving over 300,000 rounds of ammunition to the Ukrainians for the German-provided Gepard tanks, show a weakening of Russia's BRIC hopes?

    That looks like quite a significant move.

    I also think the decision of the Chinese drone manufacturer to stop selling in Russia and Ukraine is more important than many have realised. If the Chinese no longer want to sell civilian drones to Russia, because of their use in the war, then any prospect of them providing support in the form of military equipment would appear to be finished.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,113
    DavidL said:

    Have we done this? Can someone please rid us of this turbulent loosed lipped prat?

    A former head of the Polish army has accused Boris Johnson of “tempting evil” by revealing that Ukrainian soldiers were being trained in Poland in how to use British anti-aircraft missiles before returning with them to Ukraine.

    Gen Waldemar Skrzypczak, also a former junior defence minister, complained that a loose-lipped prime minister had revealed too much to the Russians and that his remarks risked the safety of the soldiers involved.

    Speaking to Polish tabloid Fakt, Skrzypczak said that Johnson had revealed “a military secret” and that “bad words are on the lips” when he gave details of the Ukrainian training plan on a trip to India last week.

    “Military training is a matter of the army, in such a situation secret. Let a man restrain himself and think before he says such things,” said the former general to the newspaper, which described his tone as irritated in an article from Friday.

    “The prime minister may not be aware of it, but with such statements he puts the success of the entire military operation at risk, as well as the safety of the soldiers,” Skrzypczak said. “Such statements are tempting evil.”

    On the visit, Johnson had revealed that Ukrainians were being taught how to use Nato-standard weapons in both Poland and the UK. “I can say that we are currently training Ukrainians in Poland in the use of anti-aircraft defence, and actually in the UK in the use of armoured vehicles,” he said.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/27/boris-johnson-tempting-evil-revealing-ukrainian-soldiers-trained-poland?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    Do you really think that the Russians don't know this?

    It seems to me that the risk of this war spreading beyond Ukraine are increasing almost daily. NATO countries initially gave "defensive" weapons which proved surprisingly effective, mainly due to Russian incompetence. Now they are supplying heavy weapons and potentially even aircraft to help Ukraine recover lost territory. We have had the economic warfare of sanctions and the retaliation yesterday of cutting off gas supplies. We have the possibility of violence spreading to Moldova. We have military build ups on all the bordering NATO countries and the nordic countries wanting access to NATO's nuclear shield. We may even have special forces in theatre, the Russians certainly think we do.

    Step by step we are being dragged into direct conflict with Russia. The betting is that a rational opponent, even one facing defeat on the battlefield, will not go nuclear just as the US didn't in Vietnam. But we do not seem to be dealing with a rational opponent. We are dealing with a paranoid, evil, potentially sick lunatic and I think we need to be a bit more careful about what we say and do than we are at the moment.
    This is true and we also know NATO has "wargames" various scenarios - all the way to the worst one - and is very well advised on intelligence as well so one hopes there is some good analysis and thinking behind it.

    Maybe there's a lot of public bluster by Russia (possibly to spook Western public opinion so they put pressure on their politicians) but their real position is much more complex behind the scenes.
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Nigelb said:

    Jonathan said:

    Glad to see that I am not alone in my concerns about Liz Truss' trash talk. The Ukrainian war is too important and too dangerous to play with for internal Tory party political reasons. Truss is not participating in a radio phone in, she is our top diplomat.

    And as our top diplomat, diplomatically putting pressure on our NATO allies to keep sending Ukraine arms in order to completely push Russia out of Ukraine is precisely what she should be doing.

    Unless you have a different goal in mind than helping Ukraine win the war?
    Whatever you think of the issue, it's not for a single cabinet minister to make policy on the hoof when it's not their sole responsibility.
    I'm almost certain this kind of freelancing was not approved by cabinet.

    And she appears not to understand even what NATO is.

    UK’s Liz Truss: NATO should protect Taiwan too
    https://www.politico.eu/article/liz-truss-nato-taiwan-protect/
    She's not making policy on the hoof, it's the stated policy of this government (and quite right too) that Russia must lose the war and be seen to lose the war.

    Everything Truss says should be judged with that objective in mind. Some people it seems are projecting their own preference (Russia not losing or being seen to lose) and judging her comments against that instead.
    The UK government view of our precise war aims is neither clear nor settled - and in any event it's not really our decision.

    And the Taiwan comment is simply nonsense on its face.
    Our war aims have always been stated that Russia must lose the war and be seen to lose the war. How do Truss's comments contradict that?

    The Taiwan comment is entirely appropriate and in line with our last defence review, as well as the AUKUS agreement and other policies.

    If you don't like Britain's objectives because you want totalitarian dictatorships like Russia and China to be able to do as they please that's a different matter. It isn't British policy though.
    NATO has no role whatsoever with respect to Taiwan, and to pretend otherwise is foolish - and dangerous nonsense if you're Foreign Secretary..

    Your view of how government should be conducted is as unserious as that of Truss. This isn't about policy disagreement.
    Sorry that's just your ignorance not her making policy on the hoof.

    Actually as the article says the strategic outlook of NATO is being debated and the UK via Truss is saying that NATO should be involved with the Indo Pacific.

    That is a sensible policy even if you dislike it and it is current British policy, not on the hoof.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,983

    Heathener said:

    Sorry for the language. I don't often hate people, in fact it's extremely rare for me. But three right now are:

    Piers Morgan, Vladimir Putin, and Boris Johnson.

    You put Morgan and Boris alongside your hate list with Putin

    Sence of proportion maybe a bit out of kilter there
    Indeed. Morgan has no pretence of a democratic mandate to inflict his presence on us.....
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,787
    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    Boris was keen to emphasise that the NI protocol was not only causing problems for NI economically but politically, specifically it is undermining the Unionist parties that initially backed it. Boris claimed that the protocol was undermining the Good Friday Agreement.

    Problems entirely of his own making.
    The Northern Ireland Protocol is not of itself

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Nigelb said:

    Jonathan said:

    Glad to see that I am not alone in my concerns about Liz Truss' trash talk. The Ukrainian war is too important and too dangerous to play with for internal Tory party political reasons. Truss is not participating in a radio phone in, she is our top diplomat.

    And as our top diplomat, diplomatically putting pressure on our NATO allies to keep sending Ukraine arms in order to completely push Russia out of Ukraine is precisely what she should be doing.

    Unless you have a different goal in mind than helping Ukraine win the war?
    Whatever you think of the issue, it's not for a single cabinet minister to make policy on the hoof when it's not their sole responsibility.
    I'm almost certain this kind of freelancing was not approved by cabinet.

    And she appears not to understand even what NATO is.

    UK’s Liz Truss: NATO should protect Taiwan too
    https://www.politico.eu/article/liz-truss-nato-taiwan-protect/
    She's not making policy on the hoof, it's the stated policy of this government (and quite right too) that Russia must lose the war and be seen to lose the war.

    Everything Truss says should be judged with that objective in mind. Some people it seems are projecting their own preference (Russia not losing or being seen to lose) and judging her comments against that instead.
    The UK government view of our precise war aims is neither clear nor settled - and in any event it's not really our decision.

    And the Taiwan comment is simply nonsense on its face.
    Our war aims have always been stated that Russia must lose the war and be seen to lose the war. How do Truss's comments contradict that?

    The Taiwan comment is entirely appropriate and in line with our last defence review, as well as the AUKUS agreement and other policies.

    If you don't like Britain's objectives because you want totalitarian dictatorships like Russia and China to be able to do as they please that's a different matter. It isn't British policy though.
    Your first paragraph is not true, certainly at the beginning of the conflict. The West collectively would have accepted a negotiated settlement in Russia's favour to contain hostilities inside Ukraine. The expectation then was Ukraine would fall in a week.

    The priorities have changed and your assertion may well be true now, but it wasn't always thus.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,596
    DavidL said:

    Have we done this? Can someone please rid us of this turbulent loosed lipped prat?

    A former head of the Polish army has accused Boris Johnson of “tempting evil” by revealing that Ukrainian soldiers were being trained in Poland in how to use British anti-aircraft missiles before returning with them to Ukraine.

    Gen Waldemar Skrzypczak, also a former junior defence minister, complained that a loose-lipped prime minister had revealed too much to the Russians and that his remarks risked the safety of the soldiers involved.

    Speaking to Polish tabloid Fakt, Skrzypczak said that Johnson had revealed “a military secret” and that “bad words are on the lips” when he gave details of the Ukrainian training plan on a trip to India last week.

    “Military training is a matter of the army, in such a situation secret. Let a man restrain himself and think before he says such things,” said the former general to the newspaper, which described his tone as irritated in an article from Friday.

    “The prime minister may not be aware of it, but with such statements he puts the success of the entire military operation at risk, as well as the safety of the soldiers,” Skrzypczak said. “Such statements are tempting evil.”

    On the visit, Johnson had revealed that Ukrainians were being taught how to use Nato-standard weapons in both Poland and the UK. “I can say that we are currently training Ukrainians in Poland in the use of anti-aircraft defence, and actually in the UK in the use of armoured vehicles,” he said.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/27/boris-johnson-tempting-evil-revealing-ukrainian-soldiers-trained-poland?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    Do you really think that the Russians don't know this?

    It seems to me that the risk of this war spreading beyond Ukraine are increasing almost daily. NATO countries initially gave "defensive" weapons which proved surprisingly effective, mainly due to Russian incompetence. Now they are supplying heavy weapons and potentially even aircraft to help Ukraine recover lost territory. We have had the economic warfare of sanctions and the retaliation yesterday of cutting off gas supplies. We have the possibility of violence spreading to Moldova. We have military build ups on all the bordering NATO countries and the nordic countries wanting access to NATO's nuclear shield. We may even have special forces in theatre, the Russians certainly think we do.

    Step by step we are being dragged into direct conflict with Russia. The betting is that a rational opponent, even one facing defeat on the battlefield, will not go nuclear just as the US didn't in Vietnam. But we do not seem to be dealing with a rational opponent. We are dealing with a paranoid, evil, potentially sick lunatic and I think we need to be a bit more careful about what we say and do than we are at the moment.
    If somebody were going to write a novel about how a nuclear war wipes out civilisation then the events of Feb 24th to date are a fucking good Chapter 1.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 6,378
    edited April 28

    "The Federal Senate of Brazil has recognized the Holodomor of 1932-1933 as a genocide against the Ukrainian nation."

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1519489653518258177

    does this, and the fact Brazil are giving over 300,000 rounds of ammunition to the Ukrainians for the German-provided Gepard tanks, show a weakening of Russia's BRIC hopes?

    That looks like quite a significant move.

    I also think the decision of the Chinese drone manufacturer to stop selling in Russia and Ukraine is more important than many have realised. If the Chinese no longer want to sell civilian drones to Russia, because of their use in the war, then any prospect of them providing support in the form of military equipment would appear to be finished.
    I think China can see the writing on the wall and value their western customers more than Russia write now.

    Besides the war and the inflation it's causing probably isn't good for China either. China is a major energy and raw resource importer not exporter, so with the way Russia is losing, why get involved helping them?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,621
    Exclusive:

    Rishi Sunak told Cabinet interest rates expected to increase to 2.5% as he warned against borrowing more to fund public spending

    Sunak said homeowners could see mortgage payments rise by more than £1,000 if they are not on fixed rate deals

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-warns-more-pain-mortgage-bills-latest-uk-pstqtphnm
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 52,814
    Scott_xP said:

    Exclusive:

    Rishi Sunak told Cabinet interest rates expected to increase to 2.5% as he warned against borrowing more to fund public spending

    Sunak said homeowners could see mortgage payments rise by more than £1,000 if they are not on fixed rate deals

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-warns-more-pain-mortgage-bills-latest-uk-pstqtphnm

    Sensible advice
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,638
    Dura_Ace said:

    DavidL said:

    Have we done this? Can someone please rid us of this turbulent loosed lipped prat?

    A former head of the Polish army has accused Boris Johnson of “tempting evil” by revealing that Ukrainian soldiers were being trained in Poland in how to use British anti-aircraft missiles before returning with them to Ukraine.

    Gen Waldemar Skrzypczak, also a former junior defence minister, complained that a loose-lipped prime minister had revealed too much to the Russians and that his remarks risked the safety of the soldiers involved.

    Speaking to Polish tabloid Fakt, Skrzypczak said that Johnson had revealed “a military secret” and that “bad words are on the lips” when he gave details of the Ukrainian training plan on a trip to India last week.

    “Military training is a matter of the army, in such a situation secret. Let a man restrain himself and think before he says such things,” said the former general to the newspaper, which described his tone as irritated in an article from Friday.

    “The prime minister may not be aware of it, but with such statements he puts the success of the entire military operation at risk, as well as the safety of the soldiers,” Skrzypczak said. “Such statements are tempting evil.”

    On the visit, Johnson had revealed that Ukrainians were being taught how to use Nato-standard weapons in both Poland and the UK. “I can say that we are currently training Ukrainians in Poland in the use of anti-aircraft defence, and actually in the UK in the use of armoured vehicles,” he said.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/27/boris-johnson-tempting-evil-revealing-ukrainian-soldiers-trained-poland?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    Do you really think that the Russians don't know this?

    It seems to me that the risk of this war spreading beyond Ukraine are increasing almost daily. NATO countries initially gave "defensive" weapons which proved surprisingly effective, mainly due to Russian incompetence. Now they are supplying heavy weapons and potentially even aircraft to help Ukraine recover lost territory. We have had the economic warfare of sanctions and the retaliation yesterday of cutting off gas supplies. We have the possibility of violence spreading to Moldova. We have military build ups on all the bordering NATO countries and the nordic countries wanting access to NATO's nuclear shield. We may even have special forces in theatre, the Russians certainly think we do.

    Step by step we are being dragged into direct conflict with Russia. The betting is that a rational opponent, even one facing defeat on the battlefield, will not go nuclear just as the US didn't in Vietnam. But we do not seem to be dealing with a rational opponent. We are dealing with a paranoid, evil, potentially sick lunatic and I think we need to be a bit more careful about what we say and do than we are at the moment.
    If somebody were going to write a novel about how a nuclear war wipes out civilisation then the events of Feb 24th to date are a fucking good Chapter 1.
    Succinctly put!

    The difference between this and Vietnam is despite the cold warrior nonsense from Dulles and the like Vietnam was not a threat to the integrity of the US. Russia very much believes that it is not only under threat but being actively threatened by countries with contiguous land borders.

    It has been demonstrated that their "reformed" army is good at beating up those who can't shoot back but absolutely hopeless against NATO equipped forces.They feel defenceless, hence the reference to nukes. The same logic that got the Americans to bomb and destroy Cambodia applies to Poland and other NATO countries. We are gravely underestimating the risks here.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 6,378
    edited April 28

    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    Boris was keen to emphasise that the NI protocol was not only causing problems for NI economically but politically, specifically it is undermining the Unionist parties that initially backed it. Boris claimed that the protocol was undermining the Good Friday Agreement.

    Problems entirely of his own making.
    The Northern Ireland Protocol is not of itself

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Nigelb said:

    Jonathan said:

    Glad to see that I am not alone in my concerns about Liz Truss' trash talk. The Ukrainian war is too important and too dangerous to play with for internal Tory party political reasons. Truss is not participating in a radio phone in, she is our top diplomat.

    And as our top diplomat, diplomatically putting pressure on our NATO allies to keep sending Ukraine arms in order to completely push Russia out of Ukraine is precisely what she should be doing.

    Unless you have a different goal in mind than helping Ukraine win the war?
    Whatever you think of the issue, it's not for a single cabinet minister to make policy on the hoof when it's not their sole responsibility.
    I'm almost certain this kind of freelancing was not approved by cabinet.

    And she appears not to understand even what NATO is.

    UK’s Liz Truss: NATO should protect Taiwan too
    https://www.politico.eu/article/liz-truss-nato-taiwan-protect/
    She's not making policy on the hoof, it's the stated policy of this government (and quite right too) that Russia must lose the war and be seen to lose the war.

    Everything Truss says should be judged with that objective in mind. Some people it seems are projecting their own preference (Russia not losing or being seen to lose) and judging her comments against that instead.
    The UK government view of our precise war aims is neither clear nor settled - and in any event it's not really our decision.

    And the Taiwan comment is simply nonsense on its face.
    Our war aims have always been stated that Russia must lose the war and be seen to lose the war. How do Truss's comments contradict that?

    The Taiwan comment is entirely appropriate and in line with our last defence review, as well as the AUKUS agreement and other policies.

    If you don't like Britain's objectives because you want totalitarian dictatorships like Russia and China to be able to do as they please that's a different matter. It isn't British policy though.
    Your first paragraph is not true, certainly at the beginning of the conflict. The West collectively would have accepted a negotiated settlement in Russia's favour to contain hostilities inside Ukraine. The expectation then was Ukraine would fall in a week.

    The priorities have changed and your assertion may well be true now, but it wasn't always thus.
    It is true actually since the beginning of the conflict.

    While some in the West may have been OK with the conflict being contained inside Ukraine, that was never British policy. Which is precisely why Zelenskyy others (and even Putin) have said that Britain has been Ukraine's leading ally. It is why, with a different British government, the war might have turned out very differently. Putin wasn't expecting to fight NATO equipment and Britain has since the beginning provided a backbone that other western nations lacked. You may have expected Ukraine to fall within a week, but the British government didn't.

    Boris 19 February: Russia 'must fail and be seen to fail' - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/19/russia-johnson-munich-security-conference-putin-ukraine
    Boris 24 February: Putin 'must fail and be seen to fail' - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/feb/24/uk-politics-live-boris-johnson-sanctions-russia-invasion-ukraine-latest-updates

    Putin began his attack at night and the next day Boris made a televised speech to the nation in which he said that Putin 'must fail and be seen to fail'.

    That has been the British objective since day one. There is no secret about that.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,208
    MrEd said:

    Morning all, may have been commented on earlier but the NY Court of Appeals (the highest court) has overturned the Democrats’ redistricting plans in NY and gave it to a neutral expert to draw up. Fairly big blow for the Democrats for the House - the original plans would have seen the likely GOP seats go from 8 to 4.

    Good to hear that courts are striking down some of the more egregious examples of Gerrymandering. Allowing politicians to micromanage the process of elections and districts is the cause of so many problems in the US, and they’re all doing it.

    British arguments about postal votes and ID requirements, are really rather quaint in comparison.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,787

    Scott_xP said:

    Exclusive:

    Rishi Sunak told Cabinet interest rates expected to increase to 2.5% as he warned against borrowing more to fund public spending

    Sunak said homeowners could see mortgage payments rise by more than £1,000 if they are not on fixed rate deals

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-warns-more-pain-mortgage-bills-latest-uk-pstqtphnm

    Sensible advice
    Great parody post!

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,983
    DavidL said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    DavidL said:

    Have we done this? Can someone please rid us of this turbulent loosed lipped prat?

    A former head of the Polish army has accused Boris Johnson of “tempting evil” by revealing that Ukrainian soldiers were being trained in Poland in how to use British anti-aircraft missiles before returning with them to Ukraine.

    Gen Waldemar Skrzypczak, also a former junior defence minister, complained that a loose-lipped prime minister had revealed too much to the Russians and that his remarks risked the safety of the soldiers involved.

    Speaking to Polish tabloid Fakt, Skrzypczak said that Johnson had revealed “a military secret” and that “bad words are on the lips” when he gave details of the Ukrainian training plan on a trip to India last week.

    “Military training is a matter of the army, in such a situation secret. Let a man restrain himself and think before he says such things,” said the former general to the newspaper, which described his tone as irritated in an article from Friday.

    “The prime minister may not be aware of it, but with such statements he puts the success of the entire military operation at risk, as well as the safety of the soldiers,” Skrzypczak said. “Such statements are tempting evil.”

    On the visit, Johnson had revealed that Ukrainians were being taught how to use Nato-standard weapons in both Poland and the UK. “I can say that we are currently training Ukrainians in Poland in the use of anti-aircraft defence, and actually in the UK in the use of armoured vehicles,” he said.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/27/boris-johnson-tempting-evil-revealing-ukrainian-soldiers-trained-poland?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    Do you really think that the Russians don't know this?

    It seems to me that the risk of this war spreading beyond Ukraine are increasing almost daily. NATO countries initially gave "defensive" weapons which proved surprisingly effective, mainly due to Russian incompetence. Now they are supplying heavy weapons and potentially even aircraft to help Ukraine recover lost territory. We have had the economic warfare of sanctions and the retaliation yesterday of cutting off gas supplies. We have the possibility of violence spreading to Moldova. We have military build ups on all the bordering NATO countries and the nordic countries wanting access to NATO's nuclear shield. We may even have special forces in theatre, the Russians certainly think we do.

    Step by step we are being dragged into direct conflict with Russia. The betting is that a rational opponent, even one facing defeat on the battlefield, will not go nuclear just as the US didn't in Vietnam. But we do not seem to be dealing with a rational opponent. We are dealing with a paranoid, evil, potentially sick lunatic and I think we need to be a bit more careful about what we say and do than we are at the moment.
    If somebody were going to write a novel about how a nuclear war wipes out civilisation then the events of Feb 24th to date are a fucking good Chapter 1.
    Succinctly put!

    The difference between this and Vietnam is despite the cold warrior nonsense from Dulles and the like Vietnam was not a threat to the integrity of the US. Russia very much believes that it is not only under threat but being actively threatened by countries with contiguous land borders.

    It has been demonstrated that their "reformed" army is good at beating up those who can't shoot back but absolutely hopeless against NATO equipped forces.They feel defenceless, hence the reference to nukes. The same logic that got the Americans to bomb and destroy Cambodia applies to Poland and other NATO countries. We are gravely underestimating the risks here.
    If you feel defenceless, the last thing you do is lose a chunk of the defences you do have on a disastrous attack on a neighbouring state.

    They are right to feel more threatened. But only in the way that you would feel more threatened if you went and glassed one of the fighters at a WWF convention....

This discussion has been closed.