Howdy, Stranger!

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

The election day betting moves to a 2022 Johnson exit – politicalbetting.com

13567

Comments

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 41,655

    First result declared. Sefton

    And the result is...?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 17,433

    ..

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    I wonder what the author really thinks about the German intellectuals who wrote that open letter to Scholz?

    In a world of death pits and rape gangs there is nothing here but virtue signalling moral mush. Compare this with the clarity and toughness of other European leaders, especially the “warrior women” in charge of Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, and Lithuania.

    https://thecritic.co.uk/its-time-to-burst-the-red-balloons/

    A lot of people ostensibly opposed to Russian victory but emphasising a quick peace (seemingly at any cost) probably make something like the below point. You know the sort, the ones who think arming Ukraine is a bad thing because it prolongs the fight, and fighting is bad as it gives them false hope.

    The authors of this miserable diatribe finally come up with a statement so awful that it would take a new long compound German word to capture just how cynical and patronising it is. They manage to accept that Russia is the aggressor, but claim: “Even legitimate resistance to an aggressor is at some point an intolerable disproportion.
    The last sentence is simply unanswerable fact.
    If you're going to be tortured and killed whether you fight or whether you give in without a fight, it is not 'unanswerable fact' that it is 'intolerable disproportion' to at least take some of the mofos with you. And that is clearly what is happening in Ukraine.
    I don't blame anyone in Ukraine for fighting the invasion. I merely state that there is absolutely a point at which supporting their continued brave resistance becomes untenable. Everyone, and every polity, must decide where their personal and collective point is.
    One might very reasonably claim exactly the opposite. That there is a point at which continuing the invasion becomes untenable. I personally think that is a far more likely outcome than the one you seem to prefer.
    No, that's undoutedly true too, of course it is. It may or may not be a likelier outcome.
    Don't you think that the likelihood of that outcome might be influenced by the level of support Ukraine gets from its allies?

    I think even you would argue that US support for Britain during WW2 was in its narrow national interest so it is possible to combine being on the right side and being strategic.
    US support for Britain afaicg involved selling us what we needed, at full price, for which we liquidated the Empire, and put the rest on our credit card, which we paid over the next decades. Of course that was in their national interest.

    Their support after war was declared on them lead to them having bases all over the UK, and created a permanent defence alliance with a junior partner, one that as late as the 30's had been a serious economical competitor and geopolitical player.

    I can't see the resemblance to the current situation.
    To be honest, what we're doing today (see my post upthread) is entirely consistent with empire building in the 18th and 19th Century - because back then there wasn't any other way of doing it.

    It's why so much of the retrospective historical mudslinging we do today is self-indulgent and context free horseshit.
    I agree, but I don't think we're serving our own national interests anymore.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,737
    Heard quite enough about Wandsworth.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,640
    What I've heard from Lab folk: Activists feeling good about London, inc the key Tory strongholds of Barnet and Wandsworth. Worthing & Crawley looking like SE gains. Southampton possible, also.

    Croydon has been tough, however, inc the mayoral race

    https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1522319301239361539
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,157
    dixiedean said:

    Quincel said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Expectation management in full flow in England as polls close.

    Tories say it’s been a “tough” election.

    Labour playing down big gains and say focus is vote share.

    Lib Dems “cautiously optimistic” of “modest” gains including in blue wall targets.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-61235136

    Any exit polls. News of gloomy observers at counts yet?
    Pretty sure we don't get any formal exit polls. I'm off to bed but good luck those following the counts overnight. I've got too much work tomorrow.
    Any impression of turnout? I saw Sean F talking about turnout in NI, but haven't seen anything for British wards.
    Turnout down in NI. From 65% to just over 60%.
    According to Electoral Commission. As reported on R4.
    Just over 60% as at 9pm, so probably slightly up on 2017, ultimately. But, it looks as if the pattern of increased turnout in middle class areas is consistent. That should be good for centrist parties, although the DUP are saying that they are satisifed with their own turnout. As usual, the highest turnouts will be West of the Bann, but it looks as if the gap will be lower than in most elections.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,737

    Will I wake up (6am NY, 11am London) to any actual results?

    Libdems will be winning here everywhere by then! We take Hull about 4am.
    You didn't get the expectations memo, then.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,305
    Nigelb said:

    dixiedean said:

    Russia planning a Victory Day parade in Mariupol.
    Channeling my inner Sgt. Wilson,
    "Do you think that is wise?"

    Russian media commentators have been calling for public executions of the defenders to ‘set an example’.
    That might not result in behavioural changes to Russia's advantage ...
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 9,084
    Sean_F said:

    ..

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    I wonder what the author really thinks about the German intellectuals who wrote that open letter to Scholz?

    In a world of death pits and rape gangs there is nothing here but virtue signalling moral mush. Compare this with the clarity and toughness of other European leaders, especially the “warrior women” in charge of Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, and Lithuania.

    https://thecritic.co.uk/its-time-to-burst-the-red-balloons/

    A lot of people ostensibly opposed to Russian victory but emphasising a quick peace (seemingly at any cost) probably make something like the below point. You know the sort, the ones who think arming Ukraine is a bad thing because it prolongs the fight, and fighting is bad as it gives them false hope.

    The authors of this miserable diatribe finally come up with a statement so awful that it would take a new long compound German word to capture just how cynical and patronising it is. They manage to accept that Russia is the aggressor, but claim: “Even legitimate resistance to an aggressor is at some point an intolerable disproportion.
    The last sentence is simply unanswerable fact.
    If you're going to be tortured and killed whether you fight or whether you give in without a fight, it is not 'unanswerable fact' that it is 'intolerable disproportion' to at least take some of the mofos with you. And that is clearly what is happening in Ukraine.
    I don't blame anyone in Ukraine for fighting the invasion. I merely state that there is absolutely a point at which supporting their continued brave resistance becomes untenable. Everyone, and every polity, must decide where their personal and collective point is.
    One might very reasonably claim exactly the opposite. That there is a point at which continuing the invasion becomes untenable. I personally think that is a far more likely outcome than the one you seem to prefer.
    No, that's undoutedly true too, of course it is. It may or may not be a likelier outcome.
    Don't you think that the likelihood of that outcome might be influenced by the level of support Ukraine gets from its allies?

    I think even you would argue that US support for Britain during WW2 was in its narrow national interest so it is possible to combine being on the right side and being strategic.
    US support for Britain afaicg involved selling us what we needed, at full price, for which we liquidated the Empire, and put the rest on our credit card, which we paid over the next decades. Of course that was in their national interest.

    Their support after war was declared on them lead to them having bases all over the UK, and created a permanent defence alliance with a junior partner, one that as late as the 30's had been a serious economical competitor and geopolitical player.

    I can't see the resemblance to the current situation.
    The Lend Lease stuff was on the basis of send it back, or keep it for 10% of price, plus a loan to pay for it below the market rate. Those loans were some of the cheapest bits of the National Debt - which is why they were kept for so many years.

    The skill with which UK post war government blew the oceans of money the Americans threw at us was impressive.
    Emblematic perhaps of the US view of original AND current Lend-Lease, is that when Royal Navy took possession of first destroyers transferred over by the US, British sailors found that the US Navy had fully stocked the ships with armament, fuel and provisions, including some rich and rare to Limey tars.

    My understanding is that there was in fact a huge desire in the USA after the end of the war to return home, and *not* act as the World's policeman, and to leave it to the UK and France to keep the Soviet Union in check. For a time, the UK in the late forties had the world's biggest navy, by some margin.

    It was the fact the UK and France could not afford this role, combined with the Berlin blockade and the fall of China, that pushed the US into taking the lead role in opposing Communism.
    Mostly just desire of US troops abroad to come home, and belief that there was no need for a world policeman, not just after VJ day; that would come a few years later. Combined with fears at home of return of depression; so government encouraged peace-time conversion AND gave monthly checks, college tuition, home loans and other GI Bill benefits to veterans, to ease the transition AND maintain purchasing power.

    Result was one of the greatest social revolutions in the history of America, and the world. Yours truly and millions are direct beneficiaries, and even more benefited indirectly.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 14,513
    Sean_F said:

    ..

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    I wonder what the author really thinks about the German intellectuals who wrote that open letter to Scholz?

    In a world of death pits and rape gangs there is nothing here but virtue signalling moral mush. Compare this with the clarity and toughness of other European leaders, especially the “warrior women” in charge of Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, and Lithuania.

    https://thecritic.co.uk/its-time-to-burst-the-red-balloons/

    A lot of people ostensibly opposed to Russian victory but emphasising a quick peace (seemingly at any cost) probably make something like the below point. You know the sort, the ones who think arming Ukraine is a bad thing because it prolongs the fight, and fighting is bad as it gives them false hope.

    The authors of this miserable diatribe finally come up with a statement so awful that it would take a new long compound German word to capture just how cynical and patronising it is. They manage to accept that Russia is the aggressor, but claim: “Even legitimate resistance to an aggressor is at some point an intolerable disproportion.
    The last sentence is simply unanswerable fact.
    If you're going to be tortured and killed whether you fight or whether you give in without a fight, it is not 'unanswerable fact' that it is 'intolerable disproportion' to at least take some of the mofos with you. And that is clearly what is happening in Ukraine.
    I don't blame anyone in Ukraine for fighting the invasion. I merely state that there is absolutely a point at which supporting their continued brave resistance becomes untenable. Everyone, and every polity, must decide where their personal and collective point is.
    One might very reasonably claim exactly the opposite. That there is a point at which continuing the invasion becomes untenable. I personally think that is a far more likely outcome than the one you seem to prefer.
    No, that's undoutedly true too, of course it is. It may or may not be a likelier outcome.
    Don't you think that the likelihood of that outcome might be influenced by the level of support Ukraine gets from its allies?

    I think even you would argue that US support for Britain during WW2 was in its narrow national interest so it is possible to combine being on the right side and being strategic.
    US support for Britain afaicg involved selling us what we needed, at full price, for which we liquidated the Empire, and put the rest on our credit card, which we paid over the next decades. Of course that was in their national interest.

    Their support after war was declared on them lead to them having bases all over the UK, and created a permanent defence alliance with a junior partner, one that as late as the 30's had been a serious economical competitor and geopolitical player.

    I can't see the resemblance to the current situation.
    The Lend Lease stuff was on the basis of send it back, or keep it for 10% of price, plus a loan to pay for it below the market rate. Those loans were some of the cheapest bits of the National Debt - which is why they were kept for so many years.

    The skill with which UK post war government blew the oceans of money the Americans threw at us was impressive.
    Emblematic perhaps of the US view of original AND current Lend-Lease, is that when Royal Navy took possession of first destroyers transferred over by the US, British sailors found that the US Navy had fully stocked the ships with armament, fuel and provisions, including some rich and rare to Limey tars.

    My understanding is that there was in fact a huge desire in the USA after the end of the war to return home, and *not* act as the World's policeman, and to leave it to the UK and France to keep the Soviet Union in check. For a time, the UK in the late forties had the world's biggest navy, by some margin.

    It was the fact the UK and France could not afford this role, combined with the Berlin blockade and the fall of China, that pushed the US into taking the lead role in opposing Communism.
    I’d like to see some evidence of this, as it’s not what I thought.

    Can you recommend a book?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 17,433

    1941 really marks the hinge point between Pax Britannica and the American century, even if American power and influence had been blindingly obvious since at least 1918.

    Did the Americans exploit the situation to get their hands on UK assets? Broadly, yes.

    Did they also hasten the end of imperial dreams? Certainly at Suez, and probably in myriad subtle ways too.

    I can’t say I know much about how America considers the UK strategically, especially now our job as occasional horse-whisperer to Europe has gone.

    I think we’re chiefly seen as a reliable partner for when a show of multilateralism is required, or as a useful voice to sound out various positions which the US can plausibly deny.

    I imagine (I don’t really know) that British diplomatic influence in the US is as good as it gets, on a par with the Canadians and the Israelis. To the extent that means much.

    I think it means very little, and it was reprehensible of successive British Governments to let it get to this.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,377

    First result declared. Sefton

    And the result is...?
    This one, I suspect?

    https://www.sefton.gov.uk/media/5183/uncontested_st-oswald.pdf
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,737
    dixiedean said:

    John Curtice (pbuh) on R4 right now.

    Points out if they lose 350, that's one in four.
    How 500 or 800 was ever taken seriously is totally beyond me.
    140 is a decimation.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,640
    Just been live in @skynews at with as the polls close. Senior No 10 figure tells me Cons bracing for a “grisly night”
    Labour seem confident of steady progress (the sort of 50-100+ seats) hopeful of Tory scalp in Barnet & goal of going second in Scotland 1/

    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1522325250247204866
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 41,655

    First result declared. Sefton

    And the result is...?
    This one, I suspect?

    https://www.sefton.gov.uk/media/5183/uncontested_st-oswald.pdf
    Uncontested? In this day and age? Tsk!
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 14,513

    ..

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    I wonder what the author really thinks about the German intellectuals who wrote that open letter to Scholz?

    In a world of death pits and rape gangs there is nothing here but virtue signalling moral mush. Compare this with the clarity and toughness of other European leaders, especially the “warrior women” in charge of Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, and Lithuania.

    https://thecritic.co.uk/its-time-to-burst-the-red-balloons/

    A lot of people ostensibly opposed to Russian victory but emphasising a quick peace (seemingly at any cost) probably make something like the below point. You know the sort, the ones who think arming Ukraine is a bad thing because it prolongs the fight, and fighting is bad as it gives them false hope.

    The authors of this miserable diatribe finally come up with a statement so awful that it would take a new long compound German word to capture just how cynical and patronising it is. They manage to accept that Russia is the aggressor, but claim: “Even legitimate resistance to an aggressor is at some point an intolerable disproportion.
    The last sentence is simply unanswerable fact.
    If you're going to be tortured and killed whether you fight or whether you give in without a fight, it is not 'unanswerable fact' that it is 'intolerable disproportion' to at least take some of the mofos with you. And that is clearly what is happening in Ukraine.
    I don't blame anyone in Ukraine for fighting the invasion. I merely state that there is absolutely a point at which supporting their continued brave resistance becomes untenable. Everyone, and every polity, must decide where their personal and collective point is.
    One might very reasonably claim exactly the opposite. That there is a point at which continuing the invasion becomes untenable. I personally think that is a far more likely outcome than the one you seem to prefer.
    No, that's undoutedly true too, of course it is. It may or may not be a likelier outcome.
    Don't you think that the likelihood of that outcome might be influenced by the level of support Ukraine gets from its allies?

    I think even you would argue that US support for Britain during WW2 was in its narrow national interest so it is possible to combine being on the right side and being strategic.
    US support for Britain afaicg involved selling us what we needed, at full price, for which we liquidated the Empire, and put the rest on our credit card, which we paid over the next decades. Of course that was in their national interest.

    Their support after war was declared on them lead to them having bases all over the UK, and created a permanent defence alliance with a junior partner, one that as late as the 30's had been a serious economical competitor and geopolitical player.

    I can't see the resemblance to the current situation.
    To be honest, what we're doing today (see my post upthread) is entirely consistent with empire building in the 18th and 19th Century - because back then there wasn't any other way of doing it.

    It's why so much of the retrospective historical mudslinging we do today is self-indulgent and context free horseshit.
    I agree, but I don't think we're serving our own national interests anymore.
    I think you could certainly make that case for various positions we’ve taken in the last 20 years. Or, even if they do serve our national interests, we haven’t been entirely clear ourselves what our interest actually is.

    But Ukraine is certainly to me not one of these examples.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,640
    But BoZo is a winner...

    NEW: Scottish Tories braced for “heavy losses” in council elections - with senior sources saying they “fully expect to come third” for the first time in six elections.

    A source said: “It’s pretty apparent what’s happening, it’s all down to Partygate and Boris.”

    They added: “It’s probably going to be our worst election in probably about a decade or more.”


    However, party believes this could be a “one-off protest” vote with supporters staying at home rather than backing others.


    https://twitter.com/RachelWatson27/status/1522324546484936712
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,156
    Scott_xP said:

    Scottish Tories first out the traps blaming No 10 for what they’re saying will be “heavy losses”.

    Source: “It’s not going to be a good election for us - it’s down to Boris and partygate”

    Party insiders predicting that they’ll finish 3rd behind Labour

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-61235136

    Silly buggers for tying themselves by the neck to a London party. That's what Unionism is all about, mind.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,640
    Friday’s INDEPENDENT Digital: “Soaring inflation set to push UK into recession” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1522325979288510464/photo/1
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,321
    I thought it would be interesting to see what the combined poplar vote was in the 76 councils counting overnight in 2018 and compare it to the projected national share that year. In fact the totals are for 75 councils because Cumberland voted in 2017 as part of Cumbria so wouldn't make sense to include it.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YmNGpZtNHw9Z9uxunmVrpP2Qe3T6WazVelRGRz6kzto/edit#gid=0

    The popular vote was Lab 41.7%, Con 32.7%, LD 12.7%, Green 6.1%, Ind 2.3%, Others 4.4%

    This compares to the projected national vote share of Con 37%, Lab 36%, LD 14% according to R&T and Con 35%, Lab 35%, LD 16% according to the BBC.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,756

    Congratulations to The Rangers for making the the final of the Europa League.

    A real achievement for a club that was only founded a decade ago.

    FAKE NEWS; it was 1872.
    We can check Companies House.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,737

    First result declared. Sefton

    And the result is...?
    This one, I suspect?

    https://www.sefton.gov.uk/media/5183/uncontested_st-oswald.pdf
    One-nil.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,157

    Sean_F said:

    ..

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    I wonder what the author really thinks about the German intellectuals who wrote that open letter to Scholz?

    In a world of death pits and rape gangs there is nothing here but virtue signalling moral mush. Compare this with the clarity and toughness of other European leaders, especially the “warrior women” in charge of Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, and Lithuania.

    https://thecritic.co.uk/its-time-to-burst-the-red-balloons/

    A lot of people ostensibly opposed to Russian victory but emphasising a quick peace (seemingly at any cost) probably make something like the below point. You know the sort, the ones who think arming Ukraine is a bad thing because it prolongs the fight, and fighting is bad as it gives them false hope.

    The authors of this miserable diatribe finally come up with a statement so awful that it would take a new long compound German word to capture just how cynical and patronising it is. They manage to accept that Russia is the aggressor, but claim: “Even legitimate resistance to an aggressor is at some point an intolerable disproportion.
    The last sentence is simply unanswerable fact.
    If you're going to be tortured and killed whether you fight or whether you give in without a fight, it is not 'unanswerable fact' that it is 'intolerable disproportion' to at least take some of the mofos with you. And that is clearly what is happening in Ukraine.
    I don't blame anyone in Ukraine for fighting the invasion. I merely state that there is absolutely a point at which supporting their continued brave resistance becomes untenable. Everyone, and every polity, must decide where their personal and collective point is.
    One might very reasonably claim exactly the opposite. That there is a point at which continuing the invasion becomes untenable. I personally think that is a far more likely outcome than the one you seem to prefer.
    No, that's undoutedly true too, of course it is. It may or may not be a likelier outcome.
    Don't you think that the likelihood of that outcome might be influenced by the level of support Ukraine gets from its allies?

    I think even you would argue that US support for Britain during WW2 was in its narrow national interest so it is possible to combine being on the right side and being strategic.
    US support for Britain afaicg involved selling us what we needed, at full price, for which we liquidated the Empire, and put the rest on our credit card, which we paid over the next decades. Of course that was in their national interest.

    Their support after war was declared on them lead to them having bases all over the UK, and created a permanent defence alliance with a junior partner, one that as late as the 30's had been a serious economical competitor and geopolitical player.

    I can't see the resemblance to the current situation.
    The Lend Lease stuff was on the basis of send it back, or keep it for 10% of price, plus a loan to pay for it below the market rate. Those loans were some of the cheapest bits of the National Debt - which is why they were kept for so many years.

    The skill with which UK post war government blew the oceans of money the Americans threw at us was impressive.
    Emblematic perhaps of the US view of original AND current Lend-Lease, is that when Royal Navy took possession of first destroyers transferred over by the US, British sailors found that the US Navy had fully stocked the ships with armament, fuel and provisions, including some rich and rare to Limey tars.

    My understanding is that there was in fact a huge desire in the USA after the end of the war to return home, and *not* act as the World's policeman, and to leave it to the UK and France to keep the Soviet Union in check. For a time, the UK in the late forties had the world's biggest navy, by some margin.

    It was the fact the UK and France could not afford this role, combined with the Berlin blockade and the fall of China, that pushed the US into taking the lead role in opposing Communism.
    I’d like to see some evidence of this, as it’s not what I thought.

    Can you recommend a book?
    Checkmate in Berlin, by Giles Milton, is pretty good on senior US and British attitudes at the time.

    I think that what the US expected was the UK would continue to maintain an informal empire, even as the various colonies were given formal independence, with British bases all around the world, similar to the role that the US ultimately took on.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,113

    1941 really marks the hinge point between Pax Britannica and the American century, even if American power and influence had been blindingly obvious since at least 1918.

    Did the Americans exploit the situation to get their hands on UK assets? Broadly, yes.

    Did they also hasten the end of imperial dreams? Certainly at Suez, and probably in myriad subtle ways too.

    I can’t say I know much about how America considers the UK strategically, especially now our job as occasional horse-whisperer to Europe has gone.

    I think we’re chiefly seen as a reliable partner for when a show of multilateralism is required, or as a useful voice to sound out various positions which the US can plausibly deny.

    I imagine (I don’t really know) that British diplomatic influence in the US is as good as it gets, on a par with the Canadians and the Israelis. To the extent that means much.

    I think it will become more significant in the years to come but that's because Pax Americana is on the decline now too so they won't be able to act unilaterally and will need reliable allies more.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,156
    edited May 5

    ..

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    I wonder what the author really thinks about the German intellectuals who wrote that open letter to Scholz?

    In a world of death pits and rape gangs there is nothing here but virtue signalling moral mush. Compare this with the clarity and toughness of other European leaders, especially the “warrior women” in charge of Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, and Lithuania.

    https://thecritic.co.uk/its-time-to-burst-the-red-balloons/

    A lot of people ostensibly opposed to Russian victory but emphasising a quick peace (seemingly at any cost) probably make something like the below point. You know the sort, the ones who think arming Ukraine is a bad thing because it prolongs the fight, and fighting is bad as it gives them false hope.

    The authors of this miserable diatribe finally come up with a statement so awful that it would take a new long compound German word to capture just how cynical and patronising it is. They manage to accept that Russia is the aggressor, but claim: “Even legitimate resistance to an aggressor is at some point an intolerable disproportion.
    The last sentence is simply unanswerable fact.
    If you're going to be tortured and killed whether you fight or whether you give in without a fight, it is not 'unanswerable fact' that it is 'intolerable disproportion' to at least take some of the mofos with you. And that is clearly what is happening in Ukraine.
    I don't blame anyone in Ukraine for fighting the invasion. I merely state that there is absolutely a point at which supporting their continued brave resistance becomes untenable. Everyone, and every polity, must decide where their personal and collective point is.
    One might very reasonably claim exactly the opposite. That there is a point at which continuing the invasion becomes untenable. I personally think that is a far more likely outcome than the one you seem to prefer.
    No, that's undoutedly true too, of course it is. It may or may not be a likelier outcome.
    Don't you think that the likelihood of that outcome might be influenced by the level of support Ukraine gets from its allies?

    I think even you would argue that US support for Britain during WW2 was in its narrow national interest so it is possible to combine being on the right side and being strategic.
    US support for Britain afaicg involved selling us what we needed, at full price, for which we liquidated the Empire, and put the rest on our credit card, which we paid over the next decades. Of course that was in their national interest.

    Their support after war was declared on them lead to them having bases all over the UK, and created a permanent defence alliance with a junior partner, one that as late as the 30's had been a serious economical competitor and geopolitical player.

    I can't see the resemblance to the current situation.
    The Lend Lease stuff was on the basis of send it back, or keep it for 10% of price, plus a loan to pay for it below the market rate. Those loans were some of the cheapest bits of the National Debt - which is why they were kept for so many years.

    The skill with which UK post war government blew the oceans of money the Americans threw at us was impressive.
    Lend Lease was a bunch of crap kit and a lot of debt.

    But it did the job. The Americans basically paid the UK (and others) to stay in the war from 1941.

    In 1945 Truman cut the funding very very suddenly, leaving the incoming Labour government with a massive fiscal crisis.

    But I think that of all the money lent we really only paid a relatively small proportion back.
    The reason that the supply of weapons (not funding) was cut was the sudden end of the war. Strangely, the Americans thought that providing free weapons was not especially necessary since the war was over. Still they did offer a deal - Hence the 10% price for keeping Lend Lease stuff and the cheap loans to pay for it.

    Everyone expected a massive ecumenic crunch at the end of the war. So in America it was seen as vital to reverse the militarisation of the economy and get Detroit making cars again.

    As to crap kit - the FAA was still waiting at the end of the war for decent UK made fighters. Seafires were really good at killing pilots..... There was a reason they hung on to as many American planes as they could.
    And Barracudas too, which strengthens your thesis.

    Edit: strictly, though, not a fighter. But why fly that and an Albacore when you could have an Avenger?
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 1,737
    Nigelb said:

    dixiedean said:

    Russia planning a Victory Day parade in Mariupol.
    Channeling my inner Sgt. Wilson,
    "Do you think that is wise?"

    Russian media commentators have been calling for public executions of the defenders to ‘set an example’.
    Well they're already done private executions so it's not much more really
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 6,398
    edited May 5
    Scott_xP said:

    The Bank of England hasn't forecast an outright recession, but it suggests the UK is heading in that direction.

    It’s the stuff of nightmares. Particularly Tory nightmares.

    Tomorrow's @telebusiness column, online now. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/05/bank-englands-dismal-forecast-stuff-tory-nightmares/

    I’m not convinced credit crunch, stagflation and recession hurt Tories that much. It’s got to be owned by someone to hurt them? If voters see it as international situation and nothing to believe it would be different, perhaps worse, under another party, it’s not going to flip their vote is it?

    And we have opposition party in Labour more obsessed in Partygate than making clear how they actually could manage the economic crisis themselves.

    To be balanced, fair and honest here, every policy can be attacked and it’s downsides flagged up, like downsides of Labours windfall tax flagged up, but in order to best steal voters over the economic pain, they need to get to microphones first with solid policies. The lazy complacent road of just expecting to capitalise on economic downturn without hard work and policy bravery, 1992 lies at the end of that road.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,377
    Didn't know this: "Wandsworth is 30% young female grads and one of 10 youngest boroughs in the UK."
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 34,015
    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Scottish Tories first out the traps blaming No 10 for what they’re saying will be “heavy losses”.

    Source: “It’s not going to be a good election for us - it’s down to Boris and partygate”

    Party insiders predicting that they’ll finish 3rd behind Labour

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-61235136

    Silly buggers for tying themselves by the neck to a London party. That's what Unionism is all about, mind.
    Think how much worse it would be if the SCons had a leader who had reverse reverse ferreted on the suitability of moral dustbin BJ being pm.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,023

    Sean_F said:

    ..

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    I wonder what the author really thinks about the German intellectuals who wrote that open letter to Scholz?

    In a world of death pits and rape gangs there is nothing here but virtue signalling moral mush. Compare this with the clarity and toughness of other European leaders, especially the “warrior women” in charge of Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, and Lithuania.

    https://thecritic.co.uk/its-time-to-burst-the-red-balloons/

    A lot of people ostensibly opposed to Russian victory but emphasising a quick peace (seemingly at any cost) probably make something like the below point. You know the sort, the ones who think arming Ukraine is a bad thing because it prolongs the fight, and fighting is bad as it gives them false hope.

    The authors of this miserable diatribe finally come up with a statement so awful that it would take a new long compound German word to capture just how cynical and patronising it is. They manage to accept that Russia is the aggressor, but claim: “Even legitimate resistance to an aggressor is at some point an intolerable disproportion.
    The last sentence is simply unanswerable fact.
    If you're going to be tortured and killed whether you fight or whether you give in without a fight, it is not 'unanswerable fact' that it is 'intolerable disproportion' to at least take some of the mofos with you. And that is clearly what is happening in Ukraine.
    I don't blame anyone in Ukraine for fighting the invasion. I merely state that there is absolutely a point at which supporting their continued brave resistance becomes untenable. Everyone, and every polity, must decide where their personal and collective point is.
    One might very reasonably claim exactly the opposite. That there is a point at which continuing the invasion becomes untenable. I personally think that is a far more likely outcome than the one you seem to prefer.
    No, that's undoutedly true too, of course it is. It may or may not be a likelier outcome.
    Don't you think that the likelihood of that outcome might be influenced by the level of support Ukraine gets from its allies?

    I think even you would argue that US support for Britain during WW2 was in its narrow national interest so it is possible to combine being on the right side and being strategic.
    US support for Britain afaicg involved selling us what we needed, at full price, for which we liquidated the Empire, and put the rest on our credit card, which we paid over the next decades. Of course that was in their national interest.

    Their support after war was declared on them lead to them having bases all over the UK, and created a permanent defence alliance with a junior partner, one that as late as the 30's had been a serious economical competitor and geopolitical player.

    I can't see the resemblance to the current situation.
    The Lend Lease stuff was on the basis of send it back, or keep it for 10% of price, plus a loan to pay for it below the market rate. Those loans were some of the cheapest bits of the National Debt - which is why they were kept for so many years.

    The skill with which UK post war government blew the oceans of money the Americans threw at us was impressive.
    Emblematic perhaps of the US view of original AND current Lend-Lease, is that when Royal Navy took possession of first destroyers transferred over by the US, British sailors found that the US Navy had fully stocked the ships with armament, fuel and provisions, including some rich and rare to Limey tars.

    My understanding is that there was in fact a huge desire in the USA after the end of the war to return home, and *not* act as the World's policeman, and to leave it to the UK and France to keep the Soviet Union in check. For a time, the UK in the late forties had the world's biggest navy, by some margin.

    It was the fact the UK and France could not afford this role, combined with the Berlin blockade and the fall of China, that pushed the US into taking the lead role in opposing Communism.
    I’d like to see some evidence of this, as it’s not what I thought.

    Can you recommend a book?
    Find a strategic plan between 1945 and the start of Korea, for the US would be a bit hard. There wasn't much of a plan as such.

    The desire to pivot the economy back to civilian production fitted with the idea that nearly all the exiting military equipment was obsolete. So massive scraping programs as various research programs on jets, submarines etc moved ahead.

    The thread through all of this was that the Bomb would win wars. The role of conventional arms was up for grabs - but couched in terms of what would be shape of the military that would be mobilised to over a long war, rather than a huge standing military. So the peacetime military shrank and shrank.

    Basically, the Bomb would win the next war. If it didn't, Detroit would do its thing, again.

    Then Korea happened.....
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 1,721

    Will I wake up (6am NY, 11am London) to any actual results?

    Most London boroughs will be in by then. Some regional results from England. Nothing from Scotland or N Ireland. Not sure about Wales
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,094

    Didn't know this: "Wandsworth is 30% young female grads and one of 10 youngest boroughs in the UK."

    30% of the entire population are young female graduates? Really?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,640
    .@Jacqui_Smith1: 'How disruptive has Beergate been for Labour's campaign?'

    Labour's @JonAshworth: 'Do you know how many people have raised it with me? Zero.'


    @IainDale https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1522325009586438145/video/1
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,655
    edited May 5

    Didn't know this: "Wandsworth is 30% young female grads and one of 10 youngest boroughs in the UK."

    30% of the entire population are young female graduates? Really?
    With that sort of population make-up, I expect Leon to be round there shortly.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 6,398
    dixiedean said:

    Will I wake up (6am NY, 11am London) to any actual results?

    Libdems will be winning here everywhere by then! We take Hull about 4am.
    You didn't get the expectations memo, then.
    No. Put I opened the first box of wine an hour ago 😈
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 41,655
    Per the Ilford Recorder:

    "Counts in Redbridge, Barking & Dagenham and Havering kicked off in the evening of May 5, with the winners set to be announced in the early hours of May 6. Newham and Tower Hamlets are starting in the day on Friday, with the results coming after that."
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,094
    Sky News results show starts at 11pm.

    Are there any results or just pointless speculation?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,640
    Friday’s TIMES: “Slash taxes to stave off recession, Sunak urged” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1522328307165024258/photo/1
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,737
    edited May 5

    Per the Ilford Recorder:

    "Counts in Redbridge, Barking & Dagenham and Havering kicked off in the evening of May 5, with the winners set to be announced in the early hours of May 6. Newham and Tower Hamlets are starting in the day on Friday, with the results coming after that."

    Some might opine it a break with tradition for results to come in after counting in Tower Hamlets.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,094
    Scott_xP said:

    .@Jacqui_Smith1: 'How disruptive has Beergate been for Labour's campaign?'

    Labour's @JonAshworth: 'Do you know how many people have raised it with me? Zero.'


    @IainDale https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1522325009586438145/video/1

    With that sort of population make-up, I expect Leon will be round there shortly.

    It sounds like a posh London version of the urban myth that Nottingham has four pretty girls for every one bloke due to the lace trade.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 6,398
    Scott_xP said:

    Friday’s TIMES: “Slash taxes to stave off recession, Sunak urged” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1522328307165024258/photo/1

    That’s exactly what the great economist and world saver Gordon Brown done!

    It resulted in a big recession and no money left 😆
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,452
    edited May 5
    Carnyx said:

    ..

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    I wonder what the author really thinks about the German intellectuals who wrote that open letter to Scholz?

    In a world of death pits and rape gangs there is nothing here but virtue signalling moral mush. Compare this with the clarity and toughness of other European leaders, especially the “warrior women” in charge of Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, and Lithuania.

    https://thecritic.co.uk/its-time-to-burst-the-red-balloons/

    A lot of people ostensibly opposed to Russian victory but emphasising a quick peace (seemingly at any cost) probably make something like the below point. You know the sort, the ones who think arming Ukraine is a bad thing because it prolongs the fight, and fighting is bad as it gives them false hope.

    The authors of this miserable diatribe finally come up with a statement so awful that it would take a new long compound German word to capture just how cynical and patronising it is. They manage to accept that Russia is the aggressor, but claim: “Even legitimate resistance to an aggressor is at some point an intolerable disproportion.
    The last sentence is simply unanswerable fact.
    If you're going to be tortured and killed whether you fight or whether you give in without a fight, it is not 'unanswerable fact' that it is 'intolerable disproportion' to at least take some of the mofos with you. And that is clearly what is happening in Ukraine.
    I don't blame anyone in Ukraine for fighting the invasion. I merely state that there is absolutely a point at which supporting their continued brave resistance becomes untenable. Everyone, and every polity, must decide where their personal and collective point is.
    One might very reasonably claim exactly the opposite. That there is a point at which continuing the invasion becomes untenable. I personally think that is a far more likely outcome than the one you seem to prefer.
    No, that's undoutedly true too, of course it is. It may or may not be a likelier outcome.
    Don't you think that the likelihood of that outcome might be influenced by the level of support Ukraine gets from its allies?

    I think even you would argue that US support for Britain during WW2 was in its narrow national interest so it is possible to combine being on the right side and being strategic.
    US support for Britain afaicg involved selling us what we needed, at full price, for which we liquidated the Empire, and put the rest on our credit card, which we paid over the next decades. Of course that was in their national interest.

    Their support after war was declared on them lead to them having bases all over the UK, and created a permanent defence alliance with a junior partner, one that as late as the 30's had been a serious economical competitor and geopolitical player.

    I can't see the resemblance to the current situation.
    The Lend Lease stuff was on the basis of send it back, or keep it for 10% of price, plus a loan to pay for it below the market rate. Those loans were some of the cheapest bits of the National Debt - which is why they were kept for so many years.

    The skill with which UK post war government blew the oceans of money the Americans threw at us was impressive.
    Lend Lease was a bunch of crap kit and a lot of debt.

    But it did the job. The Americans basically paid the UK (and others) to stay in the war from 1941.

    In 1945 Truman cut the funding very very suddenly, leaving the incoming Labour government with a massive fiscal crisis.

    But I think that of all the money lent we really only paid a relatively small proportion back.
    The reason that the supply of weapons (not funding) was cut was the sudden end of the war. Strangely, the Americans thought that providing free weapons was not especially necessary since the war was over. Still they did offer a deal - Hence the 10% price for keeping Lend Lease stuff and the cheap loans to pay for it.

    Everyone expected a massive ecumenic crunch at the end of the war. So in America it was seen as vital to reverse the militarisation of the economy and get Detroit making cars again.

    As to crap kit - the FAA was still waiting at the end of the war for decent UK made fighters. Seafires were really good at killing pilots..... There was a reason they hung on to as many American planes as they could.
    And Barracudas too, which strengthens your thesis.

    Edit: strictly, though, not a fighter. But why fly that and an Albacore when you could have an Avenger?
    I used to have a patient who flew Seafires. Of his training squadron of 36 only 4 survived the war. No wonder he fancied the quiet life selling insurance in suburban Leicester.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,737

    Sky News results show starts at 11pm.

    Are there any results or just pointless speculation?

    Lots of the latter. I'm off to bed soon.
    The meat of the results come tomorrow.
    Although the narrative is spun overnight. But it will be partial (in both senses) bollocks.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 6,398
    edited May 5

    Sky News results show starts at 11pm.

    Are there any results or just pointless speculation?

    I speculate you are going to hate my honest, fair and balanced posts 🙂

    There has already been one result. Labour are 1 nil up on everybody already
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,640
    Local Labour source: Wandsworth is going red tonight #LocalElections22
    https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1522329435210489859
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 6,398
    edited May 5

    Per the Ilford Recorder:

    "Counts in Redbridge, Barking & Dagenham and Havering kicked off in the evening of May 5, with the winners set to be announced in the early hours of May 6. Newham and Tower Hamlets are starting in the day on Friday, with the results coming after that."

    Can’t the people who know the Tower Hamlets result tell us now, rather than make us wait till tomorow?
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 1,721
    dixiedean said:

    Sky News results show starts at 11pm.

    Are there any results or just pointless speculation?

    Lots of the latter. I'm off to bed soon.
    The meat of the results come tomorrow.
    Although the narrative is spun overnight. But it will be partial (in both senses) bollocks.
    Aren't you staying up for Wandsworth? 😊
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,452
    Scott_xP said:

    .@Jacqui_Smith1: 'How disruptive has Beergate been for Labour's campaign?'

    Labour's @JonAshworth: 'Do you know how many people have raised it with me? Zero.'


    @IainDale https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1522325009586438145/video/1

    Though no elections in Leicester South could be the reason Mr Ashworth!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,157

    dixiedean said:

    Sky News results show starts at 11pm.

    Are there any results or just pointless speculation?

    Lots of the latter. I'm off to bed soon.
    The meat of the results come tomorrow.
    Although the narrative is spun overnight. But it will be partial (in both senses) bollocks.
    Aren't you staying up for Wandsworth? 😊
    Labour are certain to take Wandsworth. The local results are just moving into line with the Parliamentary results.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,321

    Didn't know this: "Wandsworth is 30% young female grads and one of 10 youngest boroughs in the UK."

    That's why the Tories have done so badly there at recent general elections.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 16,932

    Per the Ilford Recorder:

    "Counts in Redbridge, Barking & Dagenham and Havering kicked off in the evening of May 5, with the winners set to be announced in the early hours of May 6. Newham and Tower Hamlets are starting in the day on Friday, with the results coming after that."

    Can’t the people who know the Tower Hamlets result tell us now, rather than make us wait till tomorow?
    I read earlier that they won't finish counting until Saturday. Goodness knows why.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,157
    Andy_JS said:

    Didn't know this: "Wandsworth is 30% young female grads and one of 10 youngest boroughs in the UK."

    That's why the Tories have done so badly there at recent general elections.
    75% voted to remain in the EU. Stoke on Trent is now far more Conservative than Wandsworth is.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,171
    Good evening PB on another local election results evening. This is my 16th on PB! I feel old lol!
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,321
    edited May 5
    Lots of interesting betting opportunities on Smarkets wrt the local elections.

    https://smarkets.com/listing/politics/uk/2022-local-elections
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 6,398

    Didn't know this: "Wandsworth is 30% young female grads and one of 10 youngest boroughs in the UK."

    Don't tell Leon!
    Hey! The Pope has showed up. Must be closing time down the Old Inquisition

    Shall we sing a,
    Shall we sing a,
    Shall we sing a song for you,
    Shall we sing a song for you..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8fheDIG_RA
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,655
    Sean_F said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Didn't know this: "Wandsworth is 30% young female grads and one of 10 youngest boroughs in the UK."

    That's why the Tories have done so badly there at recent general elections.
    75% voted to remain in the EU. Stoke on Trent is now far more Conservative than Wandsworth is.
    Hartlepool is now more Conservative than Hove.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,499

    Per the Ilford Recorder:

    "Counts in Redbridge, Barking & Dagenham and Havering kicked off in the evening of May 5, with the winners set to be announced in the early hours of May 6. Newham and Tower Hamlets are starting in the day on Friday, with the results coming after that."

    Can’t the people who know the Tower Hamlets result tell us now, rather than make us wait till tomorow?
    Newham and Tower Hamlets have Mayoral elections as well as Council elections so the plan has always been to count them on Friday - Mayoral election first followed by the Council ballots.

    Obviously, the Labour vote won't be counted, it'll be weighed.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 52,607
    Sean_F said:

    dixiedean said:

    Sky News results show starts at 11pm.

    Are there any results or just pointless speculation?

    Lots of the latter. I'm off to bed soon.
    The meat of the results come tomorrow.
    Although the narrative is spun overnight. But it will be partial (in both senses) bollocks.
    Aren't you staying up for Wandsworth? 😊
    Labour are certain to take Wandsworth. The local results are just moving into line with the Parliamentary results.
    Nick Watt just said that Labour think a lot of the wards will be on a knife edge and will be won by 20 votes or so.

    Sounds like recount territory if that prediction holds.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,094

    Sky News results show starts at 11pm.

    Are there any results or just pointless speculation?

    I speculate you are going to hate my honest, fair and balanced posts 🙂

    There has already been one result. Labour are 1 nil up on everybody already
    I like your posts! –– as I have said several times. If you are referring to my point that you have a soft spot for Bozzatron, I still think you do!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,452
    Andy_JS said:

    Lots of interesting betting opportunities on Smarkets wrt the local elections.

    https://smarkets.com/listing/politics/uk/2022-local-elections

    Not much liquidity!
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 6,398

    Sky News results show starts at 11pm.

    Are there any results or just pointless speculation?

    I speculate you are going to hate my honest, fair and balanced posts 🙂

    There has already been one result. Labour are 1 nil up on everybody already
    I like your posts! –– as I have said several times. If you are referring to my point that you have a soft spot for Bozzatron, I still think you do!
    Then you need to actually read some of my posts rather than just liking look of them. 😝
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,094
    edited May 5
    Sean_F said:

    dixiedean said:

    Sky News results show starts at 11pm.

    Are there any results or just pointless speculation?

    Lots of the latter. I'm off to bed soon.
    The meat of the results come tomorrow.
    Although the narrative is spun overnight. But it will be partial (in both senses) bollocks.
    Aren't you staying up for Wandsworth? 😊
    Labour are certain to take Wandsworth. The local results are just moving into line with the Parliamentary results.
    Would be a massive scalp. Has been Tory for 40+ years IIRC, and is a Tory flagship borough.

    We'll see what happens.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 77,111
    nico679 said:

    I do laugh at all these expectation management statements ! They can’t all be right !

    Either political parties don't really have a clue about what might happen at election time and so talk a load of nonsense about outcomes. Or they have some idea but tell great big whoppers about outcomes.

    Except, since they are cumbersome ill disciplined entities, they do both.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,219

    First result declared. Sefton

    Fuck me we're fast!
    Or do you mean St. Oswald, which was uncontested in Formby?
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,219

    First result declared. Sefton

    And the result is...?
    This one, I suspect?

    https://www.sefton.gov.uk/media/5183/uncontested_st-oswald.pdf
    Uncontested? In this day and age? Tsk!
    I spotted this earlier in the day. I was somewhat ashamed of that as I think all elections should be contested. If I'd known, I might've stood as a paper candidate, just to show opposition.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 77,111
    Nigelb said:

    dixiedean said:

    Russia planning a Victory Day parade in Mariupol.
    Channeling my inner Sgt. Wilson,
    "Do you think that is wise?"

    Russian media commentators have been calling for public executions of the defenders to ‘set an example’.
    They do seem extremely keen to end the resistance in the next few days. It's hard to see that as anything other than connected to the Victory Day stuff. Hopefully it means they are talking greater risks than they should.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,157

    Sean_F said:

    dixiedean said:

    Sky News results show starts at 11pm.

    Are there any results or just pointless speculation?

    Lots of the latter. I'm off to bed soon.
    The meat of the results come tomorrow.
    Although the narrative is spun overnight. But it will be partial (in both senses) bollocks.
    Aren't you staying up for Wandsworth? 😊
    Labour are certain to take Wandsworth. The local results are just moving into line with the Parliamentary results.
    Would be a massive scalp. Has been Tory for 40+ years IIRC, and is a Tory flagship borough.

    We'll see what happens.
    Labour actually outpolled the Conservatives in 2018, and only fell short by a whisker.

    Sean_F said:

    dixiedean said:

    Sky News results show starts at 11pm.

    Are there any results or just pointless speculation?

    Lots of the latter. I'm off to bed soon.
    The meat of the results come tomorrow.
    Although the narrative is spun overnight. But it will be partial (in both senses) bollocks.
    Aren't you staying up for Wandsworth? 😊
    Labour are certain to take Wandsworth. The local results are just moving into line with the Parliamentary results.
    Nick Watt just said that Labour think a lot of the wards will be on a knife edge and will be won by 20 votes or so.

    Sounds like recount territory if that prediction holds.
    If that is so, then it would suggest a very small swing, compared to 2018.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 9,084
    edited May 5

    Sean_F said:

    ..

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    I wonder what the author really thinks about the German intellectuals who wrote that open letter to Scholz?

    In a world of death pits and rape gangs there is nothing here but virtue signalling moral mush. Compare this with the clarity and toughness of other European leaders, especially the “warrior women” in charge of Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, and Lithuania.

    https://thecritic.co.uk/its-time-to-burst-the-red-balloons/

    A lot of people ostensibly opposed to Russian victory but emphasising a quick peace (seemingly at any cost) probably make something like the below point. You know the sort, the ones who think arming Ukraine is a bad thing because it prolongs the fight, and fighting is bad as it gives them false hope.

    The authors of this miserable diatribe finally come up with a statement so awful that it would take a new long compound German word to capture just how cynical and patronising it is. They manage to accept that Russia is the aggressor, but claim: “Even legitimate resistance to an aggressor is at some point an intolerable disproportion.
    The last sentence is simply unanswerable fact.
    If you're going to be tortured and killed whether you fight or whether you give in without a fight, it is not 'unanswerable fact' that it is 'intolerable disproportion' to at least take some of the mofos with you. And that is clearly what is happening in Ukraine.
    I don't blame anyone in Ukraine for fighting the invasion. I merely state that there is absolutely a point at which supporting their continued brave resistance becomes untenable. Everyone, and every polity, must decide where their personal and collective point is.
    One might very reasonably claim exactly the opposite. That there is a point at which continuing the invasion becomes untenable. I personally think that is a far more likely outcome than the one you seem to prefer.
    No, that's undoutedly true too, of course it is. It may or may not be a likelier outcome.
    Don't you think that the likelihood of that outcome might be influenced by the level of support Ukraine gets from its allies?

    I think even you would argue that US support for Britain during WW2 was in its narrow national interest so it is possible to combine being on the right side and being strategic.
    US support for Britain afaicg involved selling us what we needed, at full price, for which we liquidated the Empire, and put the rest on our credit card, which we paid over the next decades. Of course that was in their national interest.

    Their support after war was declared on them lead to them having bases all over the UK, and created a permanent defence alliance with a junior partner, one that as late as the 30's had been a serious economical competitor and geopolitical player.

    I can't see the resemblance to the current situation.
    The Lend Lease stuff was on the basis of send it back, or keep it for 10% of price, plus a loan to pay for it below the market rate. Those loans were some of the cheapest bits of the National Debt - which is why they were kept for so many years.

    The skill with which UK post war government blew the oceans of money the Americans threw at us was impressive.
    Emblematic perhaps of the US view of original AND current Lend-Lease, is that when Royal Navy took possession of first destroyers transferred over by the US, British sailors found that the US Navy had fully stocked the ships with armament, fuel and provisions, including some rich and rare to Limey tars.

    My understanding is that there was in fact a huge desire in the USA after the end of the war to return home, and *not* act as the World's policeman, and to leave it to the UK and France to keep the Soviet Union in check. For a time, the UK in the late forties had the world's biggest navy, by some margin.

    It was the fact the UK and France could not afford this role, combined with the Berlin blockade and the fall of China, that pushed the US into taking the lead role in opposing Communism.
    I’d like to see some evidence of this, as it’s not what I thought.

    Can you recommend a book?
    Some Key dates (source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_events_in_the_Cold_War)

    Sept 2 1945 - Gen MacArthur presides at Japanese surrender on USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay

    Sept 5 1945 - Soviet diplomat defect in Ottawa revealing massive spy ring in Canada and US

    Nov 1945 - Soviets refuse to withdraw from northern part of Iran

    Feb 1946 - "Long Telegram" by US diplomat George Kennan warning of hostile Soviet intent & need for Western containment

    March 1946 - Greek Civil War resumes, Communists versus Royalist government
    > UK withdraws from southern Iran, USSR remains in north
    > Winston Churchill delivers "Iron Curtain" speech at Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri.

    September 1946 - US Secretary of State James Byrnes states intent to retain US forces in Europe indefinitely

    January 1947 - US & UK occupation zones of Germany unite (Bizonia)

    March 1947 - Truman Doctrine of US aid to Greece and Turkey to prevent Soviet domination, this in response to British inability to maintain this role.

    April 1947 - phrase "Cold War" coined (by Bernard Baruch)

    May 1947 - GOP-controlled Congress funds Truman Doctrine

    June 1947 - US Sec of State Gen. George C Marshall outlines Marshall Plan

    July 1947 - New US occupation policy in Germany > industrial rehabilitation for European prosperity

    September 1947 - Formation of Cominform, successor to pre-WW2 Communist International (Communist International)

    October 1947 - Crushing of political opposition to Communism in Poland

    December 1947 - Conversion of Romania from Kingdom to Peoples Republic

    February 1948 - Communist coup d'etat in Czechoslovakia

    April 1948 - Congress passes & President Truman signs Marshall Plan into law

    June 1948 - Start of Soviet blockade of West Berlin and Berlin Airlift
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,171
    edited May 5
    If you were here for Jeremy Vine doing Ming's Bling you're an OLLLLLLLDDDDDDD PB'er! 😂
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 46,237
    Sean_F said:

    ..

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    I wonder what the author really thinks about the German intellectuals who wrote that open letter to Scholz?

    In a world of death pits and rape gangs there is nothing here but virtue signalling moral mush. Compare this with the clarity and toughness of other European leaders, especially the “warrior women” in charge of Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, and Lithuania.

    https://thecritic.co.uk/its-time-to-burst-the-red-balloons/

    A lot of people ostensibly opposed to Russian victory but emphasising a quick peace (seemingly at any cost) probably make something like the below point. You know the sort, the ones who think arming Ukraine is a bad thing because it prolongs the fight, and fighting is bad as it gives them false hope.

    The authors of this miserable diatribe finally come up with a statement so awful that it would take a new long compound German word to capture just how cynical and patronising it is. They manage to accept that Russia is the aggressor, but claim: “Even legitimate resistance to an aggressor is at some point an intolerable disproportion.
    The last sentence is simply unanswerable fact.
    If you're going to be tortured and killed whether you fight or whether you give in without a fight, it is not 'unanswerable fact' that it is 'intolerable disproportion' to at least take some of the mofos with you. And that is clearly what is happening in Ukraine.
    I don't blame anyone in Ukraine for fighting the invasion. I merely state that there is absolutely a point at which supporting their continued brave resistance becomes untenable. Everyone, and every polity, must decide where their personal and collective point is.
    One might very reasonably claim exactly the opposite. That there is a point at which continuing the invasion becomes untenable. I personally think that is a far more likely outcome than the one you seem to prefer.
    No, that's undoutedly true too, of course it is. It may or may not be a likelier outcome.
    Don't you think that the likelihood of that outcome might be influenced by the level of support Ukraine gets from its allies?

    I think even you would argue that US support for Britain during WW2 was in its narrow national interest so it is possible to combine being on the right side and being strategic.
    US support for Britain afaicg involved selling us what we needed, at full price, for which we liquidated the Empire, and put the rest on our credit card, which we paid over the next decades. Of course that was in their national interest.

    Their support after war was declared on them lead to them having bases all over the UK, and created a permanent defence alliance with a junior partner, one that as late as the 30's had been a serious economical competitor and geopolitical player.

    I can't see the resemblance to the current situation.
    The Lend Lease stuff was on the basis of send it back, or keep it for 10% of price, plus a loan to pay for it below the market rate. Those loans were some of the cheapest bits of the National Debt - which is why they were kept for so many years.

    The skill with which UK post war government blew the oceans of money the Americans threw at us was impressive.
    Emblematic perhaps of the US view of original AND current Lend-Lease, is that when Royal Navy took possession of first destroyers transferred over by the US, British sailors found that the US Navy had fully stocked the ships with armament, fuel and provisions, including some rich and rare to Limey tars.

    My understanding is that there was in fact a huge desire in the USA after the end of the war to return home, and *not* act as the World's policeman, and to leave it to the UK and France to keep the Soviet Union in check. For a time, the UK in the late forties had the world's biggest navy, by some margin.

    It was the fact the UK and France could not afford this role, combined with the Berlin blockade and the fall of China, that pushed the US into taking the lead role in opposing Communism.
    At the end of the WW2, the Americans would have had many more carriers than the UK, so is that true?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 9,084
    biggles said:

    Didn't know this: "Wandsworth is 30% young female grads and one of 10 youngest boroughs in the UK."

    30% of the entire population are young female graduates? Really?
    Why was this sort of data not around when I had just graduated?
    You had acquired insufficient skills in hands-on research?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,094
    GIN1138 said:

    If you were here for Jeremy Vine doing Ming's Bling you're an OLLLLLLLDDDDDDD PB'er! 😂

    Was that the gunslinger night? I was here for that one!!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,157
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    ..

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    I wonder what the author really thinks about the German intellectuals who wrote that open letter to Scholz?

    In a world of death pits and rape gangs there is nothing here but virtue signalling moral mush. Compare this with the clarity and toughness of other European leaders, especially the “warrior women” in charge of Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, and Lithuania.

    https://thecritic.co.uk/its-time-to-burst-the-red-balloons/

    A lot of people ostensibly opposed to Russian victory but emphasising a quick peace (seemingly at any cost) probably make something like the below point. You know the sort, the ones who think arming Ukraine is a bad thing because it prolongs the fight, and fighting is bad as it gives them false hope.

    The authors of this miserable diatribe finally come up with a statement so awful that it would take a new long compound German word to capture just how cynical and patronising it is. They manage to accept that Russia is the aggressor, but claim: “Even legitimate resistance to an aggressor is at some point an intolerable disproportion.
    The last sentence is simply unanswerable fact.
    If you're going to be tortured and killed whether you fight or whether you give in without a fight, it is not 'unanswerable fact' that it is 'intolerable disproportion' to at least take some of the mofos with you. And that is clearly what is happening in Ukraine.
    I don't blame anyone in Ukraine for fighting the invasion. I merely state that there is absolutely a point at which supporting their continued brave resistance becomes untenable. Everyone, and every polity, must decide where their personal and collective point is.
    One might very reasonably claim exactly the opposite. That there is a point at which continuing the invasion becomes untenable. I personally think that is a far more likely outcome than the one you seem to prefer.
    No, that's undoutedly true too, of course it is. It may or may not be a likelier outcome.
    Don't you think that the likelihood of that outcome might be influenced by the level of support Ukraine gets from its allies?

    I think even you would argue that US support for Britain during WW2 was in its narrow national interest so it is possible to combine being on the right side and being strategic.
    US support for Britain afaicg involved selling us what we needed, at full price, for which we liquidated the Empire, and put the rest on our credit card, which we paid over the next decades. Of course that was in their national interest.

    Their support after war was declared on them lead to them having bases all over the UK, and created a permanent defence alliance with a junior partner, one that as late as the 30's had been a serious economical competitor and geopolitical player.

    I can't see the resemblance to the current situation.
    The Lend Lease stuff was on the basis of send it back, or keep it for 10% of price, plus a loan to pay for it below the market rate. Those loans were some of the cheapest bits of the National Debt - which is why they were kept for so many years.

    The skill with which UK post war government blew the oceans of money the Americans threw at us was impressive.
    Emblematic perhaps of the US view of original AND current Lend-Lease, is that when Royal Navy took possession of first destroyers transferred over by the US, British sailors found that the US Navy had fully stocked the ships with armament, fuel and provisions, including some rich and rare to Limey tars.

    My understanding is that there was in fact a huge desire in the USA after the end of the war to return home, and *not* act as the World's policeman, and to leave it to the UK and France to keep the Soviet Union in check. For a time, the UK in the late forties had the world's biggest navy, by some margin.

    It was the fact the UK and France could not afford this role, combined with the Berlin blockade and the fall of China, that pushed the US into taking the lead role in opposing Communism.
    At the end of the WW2, the Americans would have had many more carriers than the UK, so is that true?
    They mothballed most of their fleet.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 1,889

    biggles said:

    Didn't know this: "Wandsworth is 30% young female grads and one of 10 youngest boroughs in the UK."

    30% of the entire population are young female graduates? Really?
    Why was this sort of data not around when I had just graduated?
    You had acquired insufficient skills in hands-on research?
    I tried….

    And failed.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,342
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    ..

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    I wonder what the author really thinks about the German intellectuals who wrote that open letter to Scholz?

    In a world of death pits and rape gangs there is nothing here but virtue signalling moral mush. Compare this with the clarity and toughness of other European leaders, especially the “warrior women” in charge of Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, and Lithuania.

    https://thecritic.co.uk/its-time-to-burst-the-red-balloons/

    A lot of people ostensibly opposed to Russian victory but emphasising a quick peace (seemingly at any cost) probably make something like the below point. You know the sort, the ones who think arming Ukraine is a bad thing because it prolongs the fight, and fighting is bad as it gives them false hope.

    The authors of this miserable diatribe finally come up with a statement so awful that it would take a new long compound German word to capture just how cynical and patronising it is. They manage to accept that Russia is the aggressor, but claim: “Even legitimate resistance to an aggressor is at some point an intolerable disproportion.
    The last sentence is simply unanswerable fact.
    If you're going to be tortured and killed whether you fight or whether you give in without a fight, it is not 'unanswerable fact' that it is 'intolerable disproportion' to at least take some of the mofos with you. And that is clearly what is happening in Ukraine.
    I don't blame anyone in Ukraine for fighting the invasion. I merely state that there is absolutely a point at which supporting their continued brave resistance becomes untenable. Everyone, and every polity, must decide where their personal and collective point is.
    One might very reasonably claim exactly the opposite. That there is a point at which continuing the invasion becomes untenable. I personally think that is a far more likely outcome than the one you seem to prefer.
    No, that's undoutedly true too, of course it is. It may or may not be a likelier outcome.
    Don't you think that the likelihood of that outcome might be influenced by the level of support Ukraine gets from its allies?

    I think even you would argue that US support for Britain during WW2 was in its narrow national interest so it is possible to combine being on the right side and being strategic.
    US support for Britain afaicg involved selling us what we needed, at full price, for which we liquidated the Empire, and put the rest on our credit card, which we paid over the next decades. Of course that was in their national interest.

    Their support after war was declared on them lead to them having bases all over the UK, and created a permanent defence alliance with a junior partner, one that as late as the 30's had been a serious economical competitor and geopolitical player.

    I can't see the resemblance to the current situation.
    The Lend Lease stuff was on the basis of send it back, or keep it for 10% of price, plus a loan to pay for it below the market rate. Those loans were some of the cheapest bits of the National Debt - which is why they were kept for so many years.

    The skill with which UK post war government blew the oceans of money the Americans threw at us was impressive.
    Emblematic perhaps of the US view of original AND current Lend-Lease, is that when Royal Navy took possession of first destroyers transferred over by the US, British sailors found that the US Navy had fully stocked the ships with armament, fuel and provisions, including some rich and rare to Limey tars.

    My understanding is that there was in fact a huge desire in the USA after the end of the war to return home, and *not* act as the World's policeman, and to leave it to the UK and France to keep the Soviet Union in check. For a time, the UK in the late forties had the world's biggest navy, by some margin.

    It was the fact the UK and France could not afford this role, combined with the Berlin blockade and the fall of China, that pushed the US into taking the lead role in opposing Communism.
    At the end of the WW2, the Americans would have had many more carriers than the UK, so is that true?
    Apparently yes. Quick googling shows that at the end of WW2 the US fleet had grown from 700 vessels in 1941 to more than 6,000 including 99 carriers.

    But the Royal Navy at the end of WW2 consisted of 16 battleships, 52 carriers—though most of these were small escort or merchant carriers—62 cruisers, 257 destroyers, 131 submarines and 9,000 other ships. So they were, at least on paper, still considerably larger.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,171

    GIN1138 said:

    If you were here for Jeremy Vine doing Ming's Bling you're an OLLLLLLLDDDDDDD PB'er! 😂

    Was that the gunslinger night? I was here for that one!!
    That was "Cowboy Clegg" I think? Maybe 2008? You're allowed to say you're an old OLD PB'er I think. ;)
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,321
    Uncontested seats:

    England 3
    Scotland 18
    Wales 74 (including 28 in Gwynedd)
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,638
    Andy_JS said:

    Uncontested seats:

    England 3
    Scotland 18
    Wales 74 (including 28 in Gwynedd)

    Embarassed to admit that 19 are in Pembrokeshire.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,023
    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    If you were here for Jeremy Vine doing Ming's Bling you're an OLLLLLLLDDDDDDD PB'er! 😂

    Was that the gunslinger night? I was here for that one!!
    That was "Cowboy Clegg" I think? Maybe 2008? You're allowed to say you're an old OLD PB'er I think. ;)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7JX8D1Kb88

    Some people stayed up till all hours for the results, and got that instead...
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,655
    edited May 5
    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    ..

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    I wonder what the author really thinks about the German intellectuals who wrote that open letter to Scholz?

    In a world of death pits and rape gangs there is nothing here but virtue signalling moral mush. Compare this with the clarity and toughness of other European leaders, especially the “warrior women” in charge of Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, and Lithuania.

    https://thecritic.co.uk/its-time-to-burst-the-red-balloons/

    A lot of people ostensibly opposed to Russian victory but emphasising a quick peace (seemingly at any cost) probably make something like the below point. You know the sort, the ones who think arming Ukraine is a bad thing because it prolongs the fight, and fighting is bad as it gives them false hope.

    The authors of this miserable diatribe finally come up with a statement so awful that it would take a new long compound German word to capture just how cynical and patronising it is. They manage to accept that Russia is the aggressor, but claim: “Even legitimate resistance to an aggressor is at some point an intolerable disproportion.
    The last sentence is simply unanswerable fact.
    If you're going to be tortured and killed whether you fight or whether you give in without a fight, it is not 'unanswerable fact' that it is 'intolerable disproportion' to at least take some of the mofos with you. And that is clearly what is happening in Ukraine.
    I don't blame anyone in Ukraine for fighting the invasion. I merely state that there is absolutely a point at which supporting their continued brave resistance becomes untenable. Everyone, and every polity, must decide where their personal and collective point is.
    One might very reasonably claim exactly the opposite. That there is a point at which continuing the invasion becomes untenable. I personally think that is a far more likely outcome than the one you seem to prefer.
    No, that's undoutedly true too, of course it is. It may or may not be a likelier outcome.
    Don't you think that the likelihood of that outcome might be influenced by the level of support Ukraine gets from its allies?

    I think even you would argue that US support for Britain during WW2 was in its narrow national interest so it is possible to combine being on the right side and being strategic.
    US support for Britain afaicg involved selling us what we needed, at full price, for which we liquidated the Empire, and put the rest on our credit card, which we paid over the next decades. Of course that was in their national interest.

    Their support after war was declared on them lead to them having bases all over the UK, and created a permanent defence alliance with a junior partner, one that as late as the 30's had been a serious economical competitor and geopolitical player.

    I can't see the resemblance to the current situation.
    The Lend Lease stuff was on the basis of send it back, or keep it for 10% of price, plus a loan to pay for it below the market rate. Those loans were some of the cheapest bits of the National Debt - which is why they were kept for so many years.

    The skill with which UK post war government blew the oceans of money the Americans threw at us was impressive.
    Emblematic perhaps of the US view of original AND current Lend-Lease, is that when Royal Navy took possession of first destroyers transferred over by the US, British sailors found that the US Navy had fully stocked the ships with armament, fuel and provisions, including some rich and rare to Limey tars.

    My understanding is that there was in fact a huge desire in the USA after the end of the war to return home, and *not* act as the World's policeman, and to leave it to the UK and France to keep the Soviet Union in check. For a time, the UK in the late forties had the world's biggest navy, by some margin.

    It was the fact the UK and France could not afford this role, combined with the Berlin blockade and the fall of China, that pushed the US into taking the lead role in opposing Communism.
    At the end of the WW2, the Americans would have had many more carriers than the UK, so is that true?
    They mothballed most of their fleet.
    Sticking to the nineteenth-century rulebook, Britain was extremely wary of pooling resources with Continental forces. It would have required both greater trust of the Continent, and greater willingness to pay both in Britain and on the Continent, which wasn't going to happen.

    The US wasn't dragged kicking and screaming into this role. Huge military-industrial expenditure was pretty quickly identified as a crucial second plank of domestic demand alongside European buyers for American goods following the Marshall Plan. The US got to lead things and basically run the show, and Europe got to raise its standard of living far more than otherwise.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,222
    Andy_JS said:

    Uncontested seats:

    England 3
    Scotland 18
    Wales 74 (including 28 in Gwynedd)

    What the F happened in Wales? Local government is so bad that no-one wants to stand for election?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,321
    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Lots of interesting betting opportunities on Smarkets wrt the local elections.

    https://smarkets.com/listing/politics/uk/2022-local-elections

    Not much liquidity!
    I've just noticed that.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 46,237

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    ..

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    I wonder what the author really thinks about the German intellectuals who wrote that open letter to Scholz?

    In a world of death pits and rape gangs there is nothing here but virtue signalling moral mush. Compare this with the clarity and toughness of other European leaders, especially the “warrior women” in charge of Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, and Lithuania.

    https://thecritic.co.uk/its-time-to-burst-the-red-balloons/

    A lot of people ostensibly opposed to Russian victory but emphasising a quick peace (seemingly at any cost) probably make something like the below point. You know the sort, the ones who think arming Ukraine is a bad thing because it prolongs the fight, and fighting is bad as it gives them false hope.

    The authors of this miserable diatribe finally come up with a statement so awful that it would take a new long compound German word to capture just how cynical and patronising it is. They manage to accept that Russia is the aggressor, but claim: “Even legitimate resistance to an aggressor is at some point an intolerable disproportion.
    The last sentence is simply unanswerable fact.
    If you're going to be tortured and killed whether you fight or whether you give in without a fight, it is not 'unanswerable fact' that it is 'intolerable disproportion' to at least take some of the mofos with you. And that is clearly what is happening in Ukraine.
    I don't blame anyone in Ukraine for fighting the invasion. I merely state that there is absolutely a point at which supporting their continued brave resistance becomes untenable. Everyone, and every polity, must decide where their personal and collective point is.
    One might very reasonably claim exactly the opposite. That there is a point at which continuing the invasion becomes untenable. I personally think that is a far more likely outcome than the one you seem to prefer.
    No, that's undoutedly true too, of course it is. It may or may not be a likelier outcome.
    Don't you think that the likelihood of that outcome might be influenced by the level of support Ukraine gets from its allies?

    I think even you would argue that US support for Britain during WW2 was in its narrow national interest so it is possible to combine being on the right side and being strategic.
    US support for Britain afaicg involved selling us what we needed, at full price, for which we liquidated the Empire, and put the rest on our credit card, which we paid over the next decades. Of course that was in their national interest.

    Their support after war was declared on them lead to them having bases all over the UK, and created a permanent defence alliance with a junior partner, one that as late as the 30's had been a serious economical competitor and geopolitical player.

    I can't see the resemblance to the current situation.
    The Lend Lease stuff was on the basis of send it back, or keep it for 10% of price, plus a loan to pay for it below the market rate. Those loans were some of the cheapest bits of the National Debt - which is why they were kept for so many years.

    The skill with which UK post war government blew the oceans of money the Americans threw at us was impressive.
    Emblematic perhaps of the US view of original AND current Lend-Lease, is that when Royal Navy took possession of first destroyers transferred over by the US, British sailors found that the US Navy had fully stocked the ships with armament, fuel and provisions, including some rich and rare to Limey tars.

    My understanding is that there was in fact a huge desire in the USA after the end of the war to return home, and *not* act as the World's policeman, and to leave it to the UK and France to keep the Soviet Union in check. For a time, the UK in the late forties had the world's biggest navy, by some margin.

    It was the fact the UK and France could not afford this role, combined with the Berlin blockade and the fall of China, that pushed the US into taking the lead role in opposing Communism.
    At the end of the WW2, the Americans would have had many more carriers than the UK, so is that true?
    Apparently yes. Quick googling shows that at the end of WW2 the US fleet had grown from 700 vessels in 1941 to more than 6,000 including 99 carriers.

    But the Royal Navy at the end of WW2 consisted of 16 battleships, 52 carriers—though most of these were small escort or merchant carriers—62 cruisers, 257 destroyers, 131 submarines and 9,000 other ships. So they were, at least on paper, still considerably larger.
    Bigger by number of vessels, but I'm not convinced it would be true by tonnage.

    A quick search of Wikipedia shows the UK had remarkably few "real" carriers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_Royal_Navy

    The number of British carriers that survived until the end of WW2 appears to be 26. (Although there were a further 5 or 6 of the Colossus class that came on immediately after the war.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,171

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    If you were here for Jeremy Vine doing Ming's Bling you're an OLLLLLLLDDDDDDD PB'er! 😂

    Was that the gunslinger night? I was here for that one!!
    That was "Cowboy Clegg" I think? Maybe 2008? You're allowed to say you're an old OLD PB'er I think. ;)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7JX8D1Kb88

    Some people stayed up till all hours for the results, and got that instead...
    LOL!
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,889
    look at Newsnight. They have a Tory Minister with Blue rosette huge green specs yellow t-shirt and an electric purple jacket. Anyone know who she is? Minister for circus performers?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,321
    edited May 5
    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Uncontested seats:

    England 3
    Scotland 18
    Wales 74 (including 28 in Gwynedd)

    What the F happened in Wales? Local government is so bad that no-one wants to stand for election?
    You can see all the uncontested seats on this page.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aH5YG8g73ywOd01hjqGqtSTGLcq1gd2WXNmD1Zj3RDw/edit#gid=1028777424

    The rural councils in Wales arguably have far too many wards/divisions. Gwynedd for example has 65 wards and 69 councillors for a population of 120,000 people. That's about the same number of councillors as Croydon which has a population about 3 times as large.
  • DoubleCarpetDoubleCarpet Posts: 437
    Well Sam Coates on Sky says "Labour have bagged Barnet". So make of that what you will.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,094
    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    If you were here for Jeremy Vine doing Ming's Bling you're an OLLLLLLLDDDDDDD PB'er! 😂

    Was that the gunslinger night? I was here for that one!!
    That was "Cowboy Clegg" I think? Maybe 2008? You're allowed to say you're an old OLD PB'er I think. ;)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7JX8D1Kb88

    Some people stayed up till all hours for the results, and got that instead...
    LOL!
    Lol!!!!! It was truly the nadir of UK political coverage. I didn’t remember it being quite that bad!
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,638
    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    If you were here for Jeremy Vine doing Ming's Bling you're an OLLLLLLLDDDDDDD PB'er! 😂

    Was that the gunslinger night? I was here for that one!!
    That was "Cowboy Clegg" I think? Maybe 2008? You're allowed to say you're an old OLD PB'er I think. ;)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7JX8D1Kb88

    Some people stayed up till all hours for the results, and got that instead...
    LOL!
    omg, that is so embarassing...
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 34,015
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    ..

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    TimT said:

    I wonder what the author really thinks about the German intellectuals who wrote that open letter to Scholz?

    In a world of death pits and rape gangs there is nothing here but virtue signalling moral mush. Compare this with the clarity and toughness of other European leaders, especially the “warrior women” in charge of Sweden, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, and Lithuania.

    https://thecritic.co.uk/its-time-to-burst-the-red-balloons/

    A lot of people ostensibly opposed to Russian victory but emphasising a quick peace (seemingly at any cost) probably make something like the below point. You know the sort, the ones who think arming Ukraine is a bad thing because it prolongs the fight, and fighting is bad as it gives them false hope.

    The authors of this miserable diatribe finally come up with a statement so awful that it would take a new long compound German word to capture just how cynical and patronising it is. They manage to accept that Russia is the aggressor, but claim: “Even legitimate resistance to an aggressor is at some point an intolerable disproportion.
    The last sentence is simply unanswerable fact.
    If you're going to be tortured and killed whether you fight or whether you give in without a fight, it is not 'unanswerable fact' that it is 'intolerable disproportion' to at least take some of the mofos with you. And that is clearly what is happening in Ukraine.
    I don't blame anyone in Ukraine for fighting the invasion. I merely state that there is absolutely a point at which supporting their continued brave resistance becomes untenable. Everyone, and every polity, must decide where their personal and collective point is.
    One might very reasonably claim exactly the opposite. That there is a point at which continuing the invasion becomes untenable. I personally think that is a far more likely outcome than the one you seem to prefer.
    No, that's undoutedly true too, of course it is. It may or may not be a likelier outcome.
    Don't you think that the likelihood of that outcome might be influenced by the level of support Ukraine gets from its allies?

    I think even you would argue that US support for Britain during WW2 was in its narrow national interest so it is possible to combine being on the right side and being strategic.
    US support for Britain afaicg involved selling us what we needed, at full price, for which we liquidated the Empire, and put the rest on our credit card, which we paid over the next decades. Of course that was in their national interest.

    Their support after war was declared on them lead to them having bases all over the UK, and created a permanent defence alliance with a junior partner, one that as late as the 30's had been a serious economical competitor and geopolitical player.

    I can't see the resemblance to the current situation.
    The Lend Lease stuff was on the basis of send it back, or keep it for 10% of price, plus a loan to pay for it below the market rate. Those loans were some of the cheapest bits of the National Debt - which is why they were kept for so many years.

    The skill with which UK post war government blew the oceans of money the Americans threw at us was impressive.
    Emblematic perhaps of the US view of original AND current Lend-Lease, is that when Royal Navy took possession of first destroyers transferred over by the US, British sailors found that the US Navy had fully stocked the ships with armament, fuel and provisions, including some rich and rare to Limey tars.

    My understanding is that there was in fact a huge desire in the USA after the end of the war to return home, and *not* act as the World's policeman, and to leave it to the UK and France to keep the Soviet Union in check. For a time, the UK in the late forties had the world's biggest navy, by some margin.

    It was the fact the UK and France could not afford this role, combined with the Berlin blockade and the fall of China, that pushed the US into taking the lead role in opposing Communism.
    At the end of the WW2, the Americans would have had many more carriers than the UK, so is that true?
    Apparently yes. Quick googling shows that at the end of WW2 the US fleet had grown from 700 vessels in 1941 to more than 6,000 including 99 carriers.

    But the Royal Navy at the end of WW2 consisted of 16 battleships, 52 carriers—though most of these were small escort or merchant carriers—62 cruisers, 257 destroyers, 131 submarines and 9,000 other ships. So they were, at least on paper, still considerably larger.
    Bigger by number of vessels, but I'm not convinced it would be true by tonnage.

    A quick search of Wikipedia shows the UK had remarkably few "real" carriers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_Royal_Navy

    The number of British carriers that survived until the end of WW2 appears to be 26. (Although there were a further 5 or 6 of the Colossus class that came on immediately after the war.
    Pretty sure a large number of the smaller RN escort carriers and convoy escorts would have been scrapped shortly after the end of the war, for obvious reasons.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,377

    Well Sam Coates on Sky says "Labour have bagged Barnet". So make of that what you will.

    Barry Gardiner saying the same on LBC.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 14,513

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    If you were here for Jeremy Vine doing Ming's Bling you're an OLLLLLLLDDDDDDD PB'er! 😂

    Was that the gunslinger night? I was here for that one!!
    That was "Cowboy Clegg" I think? Maybe 2008? You're allowed to say you're an old OLD PB'er I think. ;)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7JX8D1Kb88

    Some people stayed up till all hours for the results, and got that instead...
    LOL!
    Lol!!!!! It was truly the nadir of UK political coverage. I didn’t remember it being quite that bad!
    Was that the one on the boat when guests included Joan Collins?

    The BBC really fucked that up.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,094

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    If you were here for Jeremy Vine doing Ming's Bling you're an OLLLLLLLDDDDDDD PB'er! 😂

    Was that the gunslinger night? I was here for that one!!
    That was "Cowboy Clegg" I think? Maybe 2008? You're allowed to say you're an old OLD PB'er I think. ;)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7JX8D1Kb88

    Some people stayed up till all hours for the results, and got that instead...
    LOL!
    Lol!!!!! It was truly the nadir of UK political coverage. I didn’t remember it being quite that bad!
    Was that the one on the boat when guests included Joan Collins?

    The BBC really fucked that up.
    Oh no, it was far, far worse than that…
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 77,111
    Andy_JS said:

    Uncontested seats:

    England 3
    Scotland 18
    Wales 74 (including 28 in Gwynedd)

    Not bad for England and Scotland. In my area alone a few cycles ago there were 6 unconstested. Surprised Wales is so out of step.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,180
    Roger said:

    look at Newsnight. They have a Tory Minister with Blue rosette huge green specs yellow t-shirt and an electric purple jacket. Anyone know who she is? Minister for circus performers?

    Apparently it was Rachel Maclean, who's a minister in the Home Office.

    image
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,094
    Presumably no Irish exit poll?
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,034
    Generation X problems:

    Busy day today helping the local party. Collapsed in the evening. Had a bit to drink.

    Ok, I’m going to have a hangover in the morning. Right, I should drink some water.

    Wait, if I drink too much water I’ll wake up at 3am needing a slash.

    Win! I get to check out the election results without having to stay up.
  • DoubleCarpetDoubleCarpet Posts: 437
    edited May 5

    Well Sam Coates on Sky says "Labour have bagged Barnet". So make of that what you will.

    Barry Gardiner saying the same on LBC.
    Hmmm... and how do they know this early? Canvas returns?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,377
    The Rutland council leader has just announced that he's resigning from the Conservatives and hopes to continue qs leader as an independdent. Curious moment to mention it.
This discussion has been closed.