LAB is grossly over-priced in the GE majority betting – politicalbetting.com

System

LAB is grossly over-priced in the GE majority betting – politicalbetting.com

This point has been made before but given the way the betting markets currently give Labour a more than 25% chance of securing a majority it is worth restating.

Read the full story here

DavidL

Completely agree.

The power of incumbency, the change of leadership, the tedium of SKS, events etc, there are lots of reasons to be cautious about this.

MarqueeMark

Virtually no chance that Labour gets a majority.

Liz Truss may yet reap what Boris sowed on Ukraine.

ydoethur

For Starmer’s LAB to secure the 326 seats required for a majority he would need to gain more seats than even Tony Blair did at the 1997 general election. This is too big an ask in my view

Tony Blair gained 145 seats (boundary adjusted) in 1997 (148 overall). If that were mapped on to a tally of 202 Starmer would have a majority of 44 in the current House.

I think you mean he needs the same swing as Blair to achieve a majority of 1. Which is, as Cameron and indeed Wilson found out, a very difficult ask at one go even when the government is totally clapped out and discredited.

kyf_100

Pre-Truss, all the polls were pointing to a Labour majority. Electoral calculus still has Labour on 333 seats, or a majority of 16. Assuming that any Truss bounce is temporary, I think the price is a fair reflection on that.

In reality I think everything hinges on what happens with the economy over the next couple of years. If Truss is lucky, and the war ends sooner rather than later, and the cost of living crisis abates, it will be a Labour minority or she may even scrape home in a Major 1992 style narrow victory.

On the other hand if inflation remains a problem, the cost of living crisis fails to abate, unemployment rises and so on - given the Conservatives will have been in power 14 years there will be a strong "change" vote coupled with a lot of people who usually vote Conservative staying at home - people who can't see themselves voting Labour but who wouldn't really *mind* if Starmer got in.

The key factor here is the scale of the 2019 defeat was squarely at the hands of an enormous ABC vote - Anyone But Corbyn. I was certainly motivated to turn out and vote in 2019 as an "ABC" voter. That impetus will be gone in 2024.

BlancheLivermore

@Roger and his mates, I reckon

@A_Melikishvili
🚨Meanwhile in France: Two Ukrainian women from Izyum were physically assaulted by unknown people (presumably Russians) for listening to Ukrainian music. This happened in seaside town of Roquebrune-Cap-Martin in southeastern France. Assailants fled. French police is investigating
https://twitter.com/A_Melikishvili/status/1569296278256754694

BartholomewRoberts

ydoethur said:

For Starmer’s LAB to secure the 326 seats required for a majority he would need to gain more seats than even Tony Blair did at the 1997 general election. This is too big an ask in my view

Tony Blair gained 145 seats (boundary adjusted) in 1997 (148 overall). If that were mapped on to a tally of 202 Starmer would have a majority of 44 in the current House.

I think you mean he needs the same swing as Blair to achieve a majority of 1. Which is, as Cameron and indeed Wilson found out, a very difficult ask at one go even when the government is totally clapped out and discredited.

Although that also depends upon universal swing. When swings happen they're not universal, so its possible to gain a majority on a smaller swing than had been calculated previously if your voting ends up more efficient than predicted. As happened in 2015 for Cameron.

Stark_Dawning

MarqueeMark said:

Virtually no chance that Labour gets a majority.

Liz Truss may yet reap what Boris sowed on Ukraine.

I can't see that what happens in Ukraine will have any effect on British politics whatsoever. Are we saying that if Putin wins that will benefit Sir Keir?

wooliedyed

We are on to the ceremony of the keys... look, is this going to be in the exam?

ydoethur

BartholomewRoberts said:

ydoethur said:

For Starmer’s LAB to secure the 326 seats required for a majority he would need to gain more seats than even Tony Blair did at the 1997 general election. This is too big an ask in my view

Tony Blair gained 145 seats (boundary adjusted) in 1997 (148 overall). If that were mapped on to a tally of 202 Starmer would have a majority of 44 in the current House.

I think you mean he needs the same swing as Blair to achieve a majority of 1. Which is, as Cameron and indeed Wilson found out, a very difficult ask at one go even when the government is totally clapped out and discredited.

Although that also depends upon universal swing. When swings happen they're not universal, so its possible to gain a majority on a smaller swing than had been calculated previously if your voting ends up more efficient than predicted. As happened in 2015 for Cameron.

Indeed. One of the things that made Labour's 1997 victory so crushing was that they and the Liberal Democrats far outperformed UNS. Indeed, the LibDems lost voteshare while winning almost twice as many seats.

Could Starmer benefit from a similar effect? Possibly, but he and the LibDems are starting from much further back this time.

wooliedyed

ydoethur said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

ydoethur said:

For Starmer’s LAB to secure the 326 seats required for a majority he would need to gain more seats than even Tony Blair did at the 1997 general election. This is too big an ask in my view

Tony Blair gained 145 seats (boundary adjusted) in 1997 (148 overall). If that were mapped on to a tally of 202 Starmer would have a majority of 44 in the current House.

I think you mean he needs the same swing as Blair to achieve a majority of 1. Which is, as Cameron and indeed Wilson found out, a very difficult ask at one go even when the government is totally clapped out and discredited.

Although that also depends upon universal swing. When swings happen they're not universal, so its possible to gain a majority on a smaller swing than had been calculated previously if your voting ends up more efficient than predicted. As happened in 2015 for Cameron.

Indeed. One of the things that made Labour's 1997 victory so crushing was that they and the Liberal Democrats far outperformed UNS. Indeed, the LibDems lost voteshare while winning almost twice as many seats.

Could Starmer benefit from a similar effect? Possibly, but he and the LibDems are starting from much further back this time.

The LD vote doesnt have anywhere near the capacity of '97 to become more efficient either, they are already hollowed out in many places

Cicero

I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

It seems something big is brewing over the border.

More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.

BartholomewRoberts

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

Malmesbury said:

wooliedyed said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1569270901685862403

Where is the PB free speech brigade?

I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace.
He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order.
Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc

I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.

If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.

Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics

They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.

The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.

No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order

Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.

Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.

Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.

So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?

Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.

Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.

Should and reality are not bedfellows here

They really are.


If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.

If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.

Big_G_NorthWales

kyf_100 said:

Pre-Truss, all the polls were pointing to a Labour majority. Electoral calculus still has Labour on 333 seats, or a majority of 16. Assuming that any Truss bounce is temporary, I think the price is a fair reflection on that.

In reality I think everything hinges on what happens with the economy over the next couple of years. If Truss is lucky, and the war ends sooner rather than later, and the cost of living crisis abates, it will be a Labour minority or she may even scrape home in a Major 1992 style narrow victory.

On the other hand if inflation remains a problem, the cost of living crisis fails to abate, unemployment rises and so on - given the Conservatives will have been in power 14 years there will be a strong "change" vote coupled with a lot of people who usually vote Conservative staying at home - people who can't see themselves voting Labour but who wouldn't really *mind* if Starmer got in.

The key factor here is the scale of the 2019 defeat was squarely at the hands of an enormous ABC vote - Anyone But Corbyn. I was certainly motivated to turn out and vote in 2019 as an "ABC" voter. That impetus will be gone in 2024.

I think that is fair but there are so many unknowns

A week ago the Queen died in an event of enormous magnitude that will continue to next Mondays funeral and then onto the coronation next Spring (probably)

The war in Ukraine is edging towards a defeat for Putin of some sort and again an end to hostilities would have huge economic repercussions

Furthermore, April 23 will see the end of NI and corporation tax increases together with the triple lock giving pensioners a 10% plus rise and possibly changes to personal allowances yet to be announced by the COE. Today's poll shows tax cuts and corporation tax cuts are popular with the public

I do not claim Truss will win in 2024 but Labour do need to accept this is not a foregone conclusion

TOPPING

fpt

Generally protests have strict rules governing them and it is all done under the auspices of the police (separate areas, timings, etc). Once the official protest has finished I can assure you that protesters "mingle" elsewhere. Same with footie fans.

ydoethur

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

Malmesbury said:

wooliedyed said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1569270901685862403

Where is the PB free speech brigade?

I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace.
He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order.
Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc

I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.

If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.

Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics

They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.

The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.

No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order

Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.

Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.

Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.

So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?

Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.

Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.

Should and reality are not bedfellows here

They really are.


If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.

If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.

Couldn't we compromise and have both of them arrested for wearing really stupid hats?

Andy_JS

Enjoyed reading the conversations between HYUFD and StuartDickson on the previous thread.

Stark_Dawning

If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

turbotubbs

Spot on Mike. We are in mid-term after 12 years of either Coalition (Tory led) or Tory government. Labour has o chance in Scotland of anything more than a few seats. To achieve a majority nationally Starmer needs to out-perform the 1997 revolution where even the BBC were celebrating ('corridors strewn with empty champagne bottles...' - Jane Garvey) Frankly I can't see the enthusiasm. Yes a lot of people want the Tories out, but a lot can't get excited about Starmer, man of people, football supporting (from the posh seats) that he is. He is competent and will be rewarded with a competent election result, which should get him into power in a coalition or CaS.

ydoethur

Cicero said:

I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

It seems something big is brewing over the border.

More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.

Let's hope your friend is right on both counts. Putin and Lukashenko both getting their comeuppance would be small compensation for all the terrible things they've done, but it would be compensation.

TOPPING

BREAKING NEWS: BBC WatO talking about energy bills.

kle4

ydoethur said:

Cicero said:

I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

It seems something big is brewing over the border.

More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.

Let's hope your friend is right on both counts. Putin and Lukashenko both getting their comeuppance would be small compensation for all the terrible things they've done, but it would be compensation.

At the very least if some people are at the 'someone lied to Putin' stage it means some in Russia are noticing a problem exists, even if they are doing the classic blame the counsellors thing.

Morris_Dancer

FPT

F1: backed Perez at 23 and Sainz at 16 (each way, both with boost) for Singapore.

Both did very well in Monaco, Perez winning and Sainz coming 2nd.

Taz

A brave move.

18 deputies in Moscow and St Petersburg demand Putin go, or have asked to be defenestrated.

https://twitter.com/faytuks/status/1569292164949065730?s=21&t=uN6OPFjmGJbQgCdTwtF0jQ

Morris_Dancer

Mr. kle4, when I was in China (a couple of decades ago) the line on Mao and the famine etc was that bad things happened but they happened due to Mao's underlings who misled him. If I were a senior Putin underling I'd be very concerned about scapegoating.

HYUFD

Today's new Comres poll has Labour on 42%, the Conservatives on 35% and the LDs on 10%. Starmer leads Truss 36% to 33% as preferred PM

That would give Labour 313 seats and the Conservatives 252 on the new boundaries, so Starmer would indeed lead a minority government

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11202257/Boost-Liz-Truss-new-poll-shows-nine-10-voters-plan-freeze-energy-bills.html

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=35&LAB=42&LIB=10&Reform=2&Green=3&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=19.1&SCOTLAB=23.9&SCOTLIB=8&SCOTReform=0&SCOTGreen=0&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=44.9&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase

DavidL

kyf_100 said:

Pre-Truss, all the polls were pointing to a Labour majority. Electoral calculus still has Labour on 333 seats, or a majority of 16. Assuming that any Truss bounce is temporary, I think the price is a fair reflection on that.

In reality I think everything hinges on what happens with the economy over the next couple of years. If Truss is lucky, and the war ends sooner rather than later, and the cost of living crisis abates, it will be a Labour minority or she may even scrape home in a Major 1992 style narrow victory.

On the other hand if inflation remains a problem, the cost of living crisis fails to abate, unemployment rises and so on - given the Conservatives will have been in power 14 years there will be a strong "change" vote coupled with a lot of people who usually vote Conservative staying at home - people who can't see themselves voting Labour but who wouldn't really *mind* if Starmer got in.

The key factor here is the scale of the 2019 defeat was squarely at the hands of an enormous ABC vote - Anyone But Corbyn. I was certainly motivated to turn out and vote in 2019 as an "ABC" voter. That impetus will be gone in 2024.

But so has the magic Grandpa vote, which should not be underestimated, even in 2019.

wooliedyed

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

Malmesbury said:

wooliedyed said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1569270901685862403

Where is the PB free speech brigade?

I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace.
He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order.
Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc

I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.

If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.

Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics

They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.

The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.

No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order

Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.

Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.

Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.

So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?

Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.

Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.

Should and reality are not bedfellows here

They really are.


If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.

If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.

They 'should' but reality shows us that doesnt happen. Many football fans don't 'mingle peacefully', opposing protestors don't mingle peacefully, thats why there is a police presence at events, why people are directed on certain routes etc. What 'should' be the case is not the case. We 'shouldn't' need police at all, there should be no deviation from lawful and peaceful coexistence. But there is.

TimS

Cicero said:

I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

It seems something big is brewing over the border.

More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.

I've felt since February that Belarus would be quickest to crack. Luka survived last time because an apparently strong Russia stepped in. The weaker Putin looks the greater the opportunity for Belarusian opposition (who seem to form a significant part of its armed forces).

kyf_100

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kyf_100 said:

Pre-Truss, all the polls were pointing to a Labour majority. Electoral calculus still has Labour on 333 seats, or a majority of 16. Assuming that any Truss bounce is temporary, I think the price is a fair reflection on that.

In reality I think everything hinges on what happens with the economy over the next couple of years. If Truss is lucky, and the war ends sooner rather than later, and the cost of living crisis abates, it will be a Labour minority or she may even scrape home in a Major 1992 style narrow victory.

On the other hand if inflation remains a problem, the cost of living crisis fails to abate, unemployment rises and so on - given the Conservatives will have been in power 14 years there will be a strong "change" vote coupled with a lot of people who usually vote Conservative staying at home - people who can't see themselves voting Labour but who wouldn't really *mind* if Starmer got in.

The key factor here is the scale of the 2019 defeat was squarely at the hands of an enormous ABC vote - Anyone But Corbyn. I was certainly motivated to turn out and vote in 2019 as an "ABC" voter. That impetus will be gone in 2024.

I think that is fair but there are so many unknowns

A week ago the Queen died in an event of enormous magnitude that will continue to next Mondays funeral and then onto the coronation next Spring (probably)

The war in Ukraine is edging towards a defeat for Putin of some sort and again an end to hostilities would have huge economic repercussions

Furthermore, April 23 will see the end of NI and corporation tax increases together with the triple lock giving pensioners a 10% plus rise and possibly changes to personal allowances yet to be announced by the COE. Today's poll shows tax cuts and corporation tax cuts are popular with the public

I do not claim Truss will win in 2024 but Labour do need to accept this is not a foregone conclusion

Indeed. If the war ends and the economy bounces as a result, Truss will be a very lucky general and I reckon will score a 1992-like victory.

On the other hand, sustained inflation and business bankruptcies caused by elevated energy prices remaining a problem in 2023 and 2024, coupled with high interest rates and a corresponding fall in the housing market could easily see a "change" vote for Labour plus a lot of stay-at-home Conservatives.

Combined with the most recent polling showing a small Labour majority (assuming any Truss bounce is temporary), I don't think a 25% chance of a Labour majority is a particularly wild mis-price. As others have mentioned downthread, tactical voting in England could make a big difference and Labour and the Lib Dems have two years to figure out how to make this work.

TheValiant

Cicero said:

I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

It seems something big is brewing over the border.

More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Barry Goldwater was right!

Very pleased Ukraine has turned it around. Here's hoping they win.
Can they get Crimea back as well? Tough ask, and if it was me in charge (thank goodness I'm not) I might just be prepared to write it off for the sake of lives, but just maybe they can.

DecrepiterJohnL

So the headline that Labour is overpriced should be that Labour's price is too short.

TOPPING

Stark_Dawning said:

If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

And I believe it will matter.

Stark_Dawning

HYUFD said:

Today's new Comres poll has Labour on 42%, the Conservatives on 35% and the LDs on 10%. Starmer leads Truss 36% to 33% as preferred PM

That would give Labour 313 seats and the Conservatives 252 on the new boundaries, so Starmer would indeed lead a minority government

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11202257/Boost-Liz-Truss-new-poll-shows-nine-10-voters-plan-freeze-energy-bills.html

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=35&LAB=42&LIB=10&Reform=2&Green=3&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=19.1&SCOTLAB=23.9&SCOTLIB=8&SCOTReform=0&SCOTGreen=0&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=44.9&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase

Love The Mail's spin on that: 'Nine in 10 voters BACK her plan to freeze energy bills.' I mean, would anyone sane actually want their bills to go up?

TheValiant

Stark_Dawning said:

If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

Labour aren't going to 'win'. A majority is probably beyond them.
The header is wrong (and comments by ydoethur is right). A Blair result would see them home (+145 seats or whatever) and they only need 120 from their 202 (Sinn Fein disclaimer here) but I think its too much for Starmer in one go.

Largest party in a hung parliament - eminiently doable, a Cameron gain of seats (+93) would do that. Heck 80 seat gain would probably do, but an outright majority is probably not possible.

Of course, most people on here thought an SNP whitewash in 2015 wasn't happening but it nearly did.

DavidL

TOPPING said:

BREAKING NEWS: BBC WatO talking about energy bills.

And how fast they are falling?

Edit, now down just over 50% from peak.

DecrepiterJohnL

Owen Jones @OwenJones84 tweets:-
We are now [at] the “Paddington Bear isn’t actually real!” stage of the national mourning period
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1569265959197724672

BartholomewRoberts

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

Malmesbury said:

wooliedyed said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1569270901685862403

Where is the PB free speech brigade?

I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace.
He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order.
Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc

I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.

If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.

Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics

They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.

The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.

No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order

Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.

Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.

Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.

So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?

Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.

Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.

Should and reality are not bedfellows here

They really are.


If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.

If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.

They 'should' but reality shows us that doesnt happen. Many football fans don't 'mingle peacefully', opposing protestors don't mingle peacefully, thats why there is a police presence at events, why people are directed on certain routes etc. What 'should' be the case is not the case. We 'shouldn't' need police at all, there should be no deviation from lawful and peaceful coexistence. But there is.

There is a difference between organised events, and individuals on the street etc

If two football fans in opposing shirts meet up on the street, the Police won't and shouldn't segregate them. Similarly individual peaceful protestors.

Yes, when there's crowds, then managing those may be deemed appropriate at events, but that's operationally different to individuals in public. A lone person holding a placard is not a crowd or thousands on a march.

Stuartinromford

turbotubbs said:

Spot on Mike. We are in mid-term after 12 years of either Coalition (Tory led) or Tory government. Labour has o chance in Scotland of anything more than a few seats. To achieve a majority nationally Starmer needs to out-perform the 1997 revolution where even the BBC were celebrating ('corridors strewn with empty champagne bottles...' - Jane Garvey) Frankly I can't see the enthusiasm. Yes a lot of people want the Tories out, but a lot can't get excited about Starmer, man of people, football supporting (from the posh seats) that he is. He is competent and will be rewarded with a competent election result, which should get him into power in a coalition or CaS.

One of the curiosities of FptP is that is does tend to give the Premiership to the right candidate with a majority that reflects the vibe of the country. I'd even include Johnson's enormous mandate from 2019 in that.

On that basis, If the vibe is "Starmer will do (he'll have to), but we're not sure about the rest of his party" you end up with Labour minority. Only question is where the wisdom of crowds lands us in that particular puddle.

TOPPING

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

Malmesbury said:

wooliedyed said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1569270901685862403

Where is the PB free speech brigade?

I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace.
He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order.
Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc

I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.

If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.

Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics

They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.

The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.

No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order

Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.

Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.

Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.

So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?

Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.

Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.

Should and reality are not bedfellows here

They really are.


If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.

If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.

They 'should' but reality shows us that doesnt happen. Many football fans don't 'mingle peacefully', opposing protestors don't mingle peacefully, thats why there is a police presence at events, why people are directed on certain routes etc. What 'should' be the case is not the case. We 'shouldn't' need police at all, there should be no deviation from lawful and peaceful coexistence. But there is.

Absolutely. The point however is that you can't arrest people on the offchance that they might cause problems.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Topping, not so sure about Rayner.

I'd take Starmer over her any day. The 'scum' comments were ugly.

wooliedyed

TOPPING said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

Malmesbury said:

wooliedyed said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1569270901685862403

Where is the PB free speech brigade?

I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace.
He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order.
Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc

I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.

If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.

Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics

They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.

The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.

No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order

Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.

Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.

Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.

So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?

Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.

Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.

Should and reality are not bedfellows here

They really are.


If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.

If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.

They 'should' but reality shows us that doesnt happen. Many football fans don't 'mingle peacefully', opposing protestors don't mingle peacefully, thats why there is a police presence at events, why people are directed on certain routes etc. What 'should' be the case is not the case. We 'shouldn't' need police at all, there should be no deviation from lawful and peaceful coexistence. But there is.

Absolutely. The point however is that you can't arrest people on the offchance that they might cause problems.

I agree 100%, but moving them on or elsewhere can be ok is my point

DavidL

TheValiant said:

Cicero said:

I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

It seems something big is brewing over the border.

More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Barry Goldwater was right!

Very pleased Ukraine has turned it around. Here's hoping they win.
Can they get Crimea back as well? Tough ask, and if it was me in charge (thank goodness I'm not) I might just be prepared to write it off for the sake of lives, but just maybe they can.

Anne Applebaum, a doyenne amongst journalists, wrote a piece in the Atlantic about this today: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/09/ukraine-victory-russia-putin/671405/

With all modesty it sounds awfully like some of my much less articulate mutterings of late.

StillWaters

TheValiant said:

Cicero said:

I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

It seems something big is brewing over the border.

More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Barry Goldwater was right!

Very pleased Ukraine has turned it around. Here's hoping they win.
Can they get Crimea back as well? Tough ask, and if it was me in charge (thank goodness I'm not) I might just be prepared to write it off for the sake of lives, but just maybe they can.

It’s got offshore oil. The most critical strategic part.

Taz

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Owen Jones @OwenJones84 tweets:-
We are now [at] the “Paddington Bear isn’t actually real!” stage of the national mourning period
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1569265959197724672

Attention seeker demands attention.

DavidL

StillWaters said:

TheValiant said:

Cicero said:

I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

It seems something big is brewing over the border.

More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Barry Goldwater was right!

Very pleased Ukraine has turned it around. Here's hoping they win.
Can they get Crimea back as well? Tough ask, and if it was me in charge (thank goodness I'm not) I might just be prepared to write it off for the sake of lives, but just maybe they can.

It’s got offshore oil. The most critical strategic part.

But no fresh water supply without Ukraine. Which is how and why we got here.

CarlottaVance

Heartfelt thanks to everyone who generously contributed to allow Jolyon to drive his clown car right into the court. The bit where there was a bang, a cloud of smoke, and all the doors fell off was worth every penny of your money.

https://twitter.com/ExcelPope/status/1569292054857150465

ydoethur

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Owen Jones @OwenJones84 tweets:-
We are now [at] the “Paddington Bear isn’t actually real!” stage of the national mourning period
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1569265959197724672

I long ago arrived at the 'Owen Jones isn't worth listening to' stage.

It has served me quite well.

Foxy

TOPPING said:

Stark_Dawning said:

If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

And I believe it will matter.

How did the last female PM do against an old white bloke at the GE? And who got the female vote at that one?

Driver

Stuartinromford said:

turbotubbs said:

Spot on Mike. We are in mid-term after 12 years of either Coalition (Tory led) or Tory government. Labour has o chance in Scotland of anything more than a few seats. To achieve a majority nationally Starmer needs to out-perform the 1997 revolution where even the BBC were celebrating ('corridors strewn with empty champagne bottles...' - Jane Garvey) Frankly I can't see the enthusiasm. Yes a lot of people want the Tories out, but a lot can't get excited about Starmer, man of people, football supporting (from the posh seats) that he is. He is competent and will be rewarded with a competent election result, which should get him into power in a coalition or CaS.

One of the curiosities of FptP is that is does tend to give the Premiership to the right candidate with a majority that reflects the vibe of the country. I'd even include Johnson's enormous mandate from 2019 in that.

On that basis, If the vibe is "Starmer will do (he'll have to), but we're not sure about the rest of his party" you end up with Labour minority. Only question is where the wisdom of crowds lands us in that particular puddle.

It did (in reverse) in 2010.

DecrepiterJohnL

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Owen Jones @OwenJones84 tweets:-
We are now [at] the “Paddington Bear isn’t actually real!” stage of the national mourning period
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1569265959197724672

I long ago arrived at the 'Owen Jones isn't worth listening to' stage.

It has served me quite well.

Jones is right though.

wooliedyed

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

Malmesbury said:

wooliedyed said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1569270901685862403

Where is the PB free speech brigade?

I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace.
He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order.
Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc

I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.

If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.

Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics

They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.

The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.

No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order

Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.

Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.

Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.

So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?

Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.

Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.

Should and reality are not bedfellows here

They really are.


If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.

If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.

They 'should' but reality shows us that doesnt happen. Many football fans don't 'mingle peacefully', opposing protestors don't mingle peacefully, thats why there is a police presence at events, why people are directed on certain routes etc. What 'should' be the case is not the case. We 'shouldn't' need police at all, there should be no deviation from lawful and peaceful coexistence. But there is.

There is a difference between organised events, and individuals on the street etc

If two football fans in opposing shirts meet up on the street, the Police won't and shouldn't segregate them. Similarly individual peaceful protestors.

Yes, when there's crowds, then managing those may be deemed appropriate at events, but that's operationally different to individuals in public. A lone person holding a placard is not a crowd or thousands on a march.

Nah, i remain utterly unconvinced.

TOPPING

Foxy said:

TOPPING said:

Stark_Dawning said:

If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

And I believe it will matter.

How did the last female PM do against an old white bloke at the GE? And who got the female vote at that one?

13,636,684 vs 12,877,918

was that the point you were making?

MattW

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Owen Jones @OwenJones84 tweets:-
We are now [at] the “Paddington Bear isn’t actually real!” stage of the national mourning period
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1569265959197724672

I long ago arrived at the 'Owen Jones isn't worth listening to' stage.

It has served me quite well.

I'm thinking that Owen Jones has developed into a slightly younger lefty Matthew Parris.

ydoethur

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Owen Jones @OwenJones84 tweets:-
We are now [at] the “Paddington Bear isn’t actually real!” stage of the national mourning period
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1569265959197724672

I long ago arrived at the 'Owen Jones isn't worth listening to' stage.

It has served me quite well.

Jones is right though.

Really? I thought he was some kind of Socialist.

Gadfly

wooliedyed said:

TOPPING said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

Malmesbury said:

wooliedyed said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1569270901685862403

Where is the PB free speech brigade?

I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace.
He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order.
Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc

I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.

If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.

Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics

They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.

The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.

No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order

Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.

Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.

Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.

So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?

Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.

Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.

Should and reality are not bedfellows here

They really are.


If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.

If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.

They 'should' but reality shows us that doesnt happen. Many football fans don't 'mingle peacefully', opposing protestors don't mingle peacefully, thats why there is a police presence at events, why people are directed on certain routes etc. What 'should' be the case is not the case. We 'shouldn't' need police at all, there should be no deviation from lawful and peaceful coexistence. But there is.

Absolutely. The point however is that you can't arrest people on the offchance that they might cause problems.

I agree 100%, but moving them on or elsewhere can be ok is my point

It appears to me that individuals in question were arrested upon the basis of an impending breach of the peace, which is not a criminal offence in England and Wales, but can be a means of diffusing a situation that appears likely to get out of hand. The arrested individual must be released as soon as the risk of breach has passed.

In Scotland a breach of the peace is seemingly a different and more serious matter, which I assume is why the individual has since been charged..

Mexicanpete

TOPPING said:

Stark_Dawning said:

If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

And I believe it will matter.

It really doesn't matter. What matters is the economy. If Truss's energy plans bring down energy bills, inflation and mortgage rates she wins. If they don't she doesn't.

NorthofStoke

Got caught by new thread syndrome so repeating.

I err towards police not interfering with protesters as long as the protestors aren't interfering with other citizens. The Scottish protestor would probably have been arrested automatically up until very recently just walking down the road with that placard (or a similar t shirt) due to the wording being deemed offensive and also likely to provoke disorder rather than the viewpoint expressed.

Taz

TOPPING said:

Stark_Dawning said:

If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

And I believe it will matter.

Reeves might, the others not a chance. Dodds has been especially disappointing

BlancheLivermore

Nice of a German state-owned media organisation to give us constitutional advice

https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-king-charles-iii-just-abdicate/a-63072183

darkage

Cicero said:

I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

It seems something big is brewing over the border.

More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.

I think the problem is that Putin is a bit like Erdogan; popular with the vast masses of people outside of Moscow and St Petersburg, rather than with the urban 'elites'. His talent was in buying off and co-opting the elites in to his project.

I wouldn't try and make any predictions about where this goes, but I would be extremely wary of the idea that we are on the cusp of a pro western, liberal revolution in Russia. I think is more likely that we would see the breakdown of Russia itself, with vast unknown consequences.

Dura_Ace

DavidL said:

TheValiant said:

Cicero said:

I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

It seems something big is brewing over the border.

More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Barry Goldwater was right!

Very pleased Ukraine has turned it around. Here's hoping they win.
Can they get Crimea back as well? Tough ask, and if it was me in charge (thank goodness I'm not) I might just be prepared to write it off for the sake of lives, but just maybe they can.

Anne Applebaum, a doyenne amongst journalists, wrote a piece in the Atlantic about this today: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/09/ukraine-victory-russia-putin/671405/

This article has the first coherent definition of a Ukrainian victory that I have encountered in the long and glorious history of the SMO.

Foxy

TOPPING said:

Foxy said:

TOPPING said:

Stark_Dawning said:

If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

And I believe it will matter.

How did the last female PM do against an old white bloke at the GE? And who got the female vote at that one?

13,636,684 vs 12,877,918

was that the point you were making?

She stayed PM, but lost seats as I recall.

I don't think gender or other bits of diversity matter much if at all either way when it comes to voting. That is a good thing of course.

CorrectHorseBattery3

It will be Labour minority with LD C&S

SandyRentool

Thank you for the feedback on the previous thread.

I am now planning to release a cover of the Beachboys classic Surf City:

"Five Greggs for Every Pret"

ydoethur

Mexicanpete said:

TOPPING said:

Stark_Dawning said:

If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

And I believe it will matter.

It really doesn't matter. What matters is the economy. If Truss's energy plans bring down energy bills, inflation and mortgage rates she wins. If they don't she doesn't.

Truss' plan doesn't bring down energy bills, it just stop them rising as far as they otherwise would.

For them to fall significantly, we need a solution in Russia - by which I mean rapid political change, an emerging stable government the EU feel they can trust, and therefore the lifting of sanctions so they can trade freely in gas again.

I have to say that strikes me as a very narrow path. Political change is looking fairly likely, but it will probably either lead to another wing nut taking charge and sanctions continuing, or the emergence of some kind of revolutionary government that's as stable as a blancmange in an earthquake.

Until we can focus our power generation on renewable electricity, which requires not just the replacement of CCGT with wind but a tenfold increase in overall output and probably a radical overhaul of the grid, higher prices seem likely to be a feature of life.

IanB2

wooliedyed said:

ydoethur said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

ydoethur said:

For Starmer’s LAB to secure the 326 seats required for a majority he would need to gain more seats than even Tony Blair did at the 1997 general election. This is too big an ask in my view

Tony Blair gained 145 seats (boundary adjusted) in 1997 (148 overall). If that were mapped on to a tally of 202 Starmer would have a majority of 44 in the current House.

I think you mean he needs the same swing as Blair to achieve a majority of 1. Which is, as Cameron and indeed Wilson found out, a very difficult ask at one go even when the government is totally clapped out and discredited.

Although that also depends upon universal swing. When swings happen they're not universal, so its possible to gain a majority on a smaller swing than had been calculated previously if your voting ends up more efficient than predicted. As happened in 2015 for Cameron.

Indeed. One of the things that made Labour's 1997 victory so crushing was that they and the Liberal Democrats far outperformed UNS. Indeed, the LibDems lost voteshare while winning almost twice as many seats.

Could Starmer benefit from a similar effect? Possibly, but he and the LibDems are starting from much further back this time.

The LD vote doesnt have anywhere near the capacity of '97 to become more efficient either, they are already hollowed out in many places

But those places are almost entirely where they were never going to win, hence being hollowed out there makes the Labour vote potentially more efficient.

The key point is that what goes down can go up - and if the LibDem vote rises significantly in the south and south west, it could become significantly more efficient.

turbotubbs

Foxy said:

TOPPING said:

Stark_Dawning said:

If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

And I believe it will matter.

How did the last female PM do against an old white bloke at the GE? And who got the female vote at that one?

I seem to recall they formed a government.

MattW

BlancheLivermore said:

@Roger and his mates, I reckon

@A_Melikishvili
🚨Meanwhile in France: Two Ukrainian women from Izyum were physically assaulted by unknown people (presumably Russians) for listening to Ukrainian music. This happened in seaside town of Roquebrune-Cap-Martin in southeastern France. Assailants fled. French police is investigating
https://twitter.com/A_Melikishvili/status/1569296278256754694

Hope they aren't Liverpool football fans !

ydoethur

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

TOPPING said:

Stark_Dawning said:

If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

And I believe it will matter.

How did the last female PM do against an old white bloke at the GE? And who got the female vote at that one?

I seem to recall they formed a government.

What, together? Or are you suggesting she was up against Philip Hammond?

GIN1138

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

It will be Labour minority with LD C&S

I mean we've got the high energy prices, the inflation and the strikes, might as well have a Lib-Lab pact too...

#BackToThe70s

Dura_Ace

darkage said:

Cicero said:

I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

It seems something big is brewing over the border.

More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.

I think the problem is that Putin is a bit like Erdogan; popular with the vast masses of people outside of Moscow and St Petersburg, rather than with the urban 'elites'. His talent was in buying off and co-opting the elites in to his project.

I wouldn't try and make any predictions about where this goes, but I would be extremely wary of the idea that we are on the cusp of a pro western, liberal revolution in Russia. I think is more likely that we would see the breakdown of Russia itself, with vast unknown consequences.

VVP is incredibly popular on his own terms. Even outside the suppression of dissent and almost total control of the media.

ydoethur

GIN1138 said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

It will be Labour minority with LD C&S

I mean we've got the high energy prices, the inflation and the strikes, might as well have a Lib-Lab pact too...

#BackToThe70s

Not many Liberals either and their previous leader was a Scot who lost her seat...damn, that doesn't work, the alcoholic replaced Sinclair, not the other way around.

turbotubbs

ydoethur said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

TOPPING said:

Stark_Dawning said:

If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

And I believe it will matter.

How did the last female PM do against an old white bloke at the GE? And who got the female vote at that one?

I seem to recall they formed a government.

What, together? Or are you suggesting she was up against Philip Hammond?

They as in the now accepted woke version of she. But you knew that, you swine!

TimS

I am probably just wishcasting but the most likely outcome to be is still a hung parliament with Labour largest party but relying on the Lib Dems and the Green. Of the possible scenarios, we have:

- Tory landslide (highly unlikely)
- Small 2015-style Tory majority (possible)
- 2017-style Tory minority relying on DUP (very unlikely given maths and DUP electoral decline)
- Labour minority requiring LD, Green, SNP, Plaid etc support (possible, messy)
- Labour minority only requiring LD / Green support (possible, more stable)
- Labour majority (still seems unlikely absent an SNP collapse)
- Labour landslide (highly unlikely)

DavidL

Dura_Ace said:

DavidL said:

TheValiant said:

Cicero said:

I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

It seems something big is brewing over the border.

More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Barry Goldwater was right!

Very pleased Ukraine has turned it around. Here's hoping they win.
Can they get Crimea back as well? Tough ask, and if it was me in charge (thank goodness I'm not) I might just be prepared to write it off for the sake of lives, but just maybe they can.

Anne Applebaum, a doyenne amongst journalists, wrote a piece in the Atlantic about this today: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/09/ukraine-victory-russia-putin/671405/

This article has the first coherent definition of a Ukrainian victory that I have encountered in the long and glorious history of the SMO.

I am not sure it has an answer or a definition but at least someone has asked the relevant question. How the hell do we finish this?

Mexicanpete

MarqueeMark said:

Virtually no chance that Labour gets a majority.

Liz Truss may yet reap what Boris sowed on Ukraine.

Another gut- wrencher for Johnson.

Johnson single-handedly defeats the Bear only for Truss to take the spoils.

"Sick as a parrot" doesn't come close to how he must be feeling today. Thoughts and prayers.

CarlottaVance

Under the blazing sun,
#Hongkongers are waiting long queue (current waiting time is 4 hours long) to sign the book of condolence and lay flowers for Her late Majesty #QueenElizabeth II at the British Consulate-General(@UKinHongKong) in #HongKong

https://twitter.com/DrKwanEC/status/1569206839488954374

LostPassword

wooliedyed said:

TOPPING said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

Malmesbury said:

wooliedyed said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1569270901685862403

Where is the PB free speech brigade?

I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace.
He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order.
Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc

I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.

If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.

Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics

They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.

The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.

No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order

Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.

Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.

Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.

So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?

Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.

Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.

Should and reality are not bedfellows here

They really are.


If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.

If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.

They 'should' but reality shows us that doesnt happen. Many football fans don't 'mingle peacefully', opposing protestors don't mingle peacefully, thats why there is a police presence at events, why people are directed on certain routes etc. What 'should' be the case is not the case. We 'shouldn't' need police at all, there should be no deviation from lawful and peaceful coexistence. But there is.

Absolutely. The point however is that you can't arrest people on the offchance that they might cause problems.

I agree 100%, but moving them on or elsewhere can be ok is my point

We're well past that point when they've charged the woman in Edinburgh with breach of the peace and she now has to go to court to defend herself.

ydoethur

turbotubbs said:

ydoethur said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

TOPPING said:

Stark_Dawning said:

If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

And I believe it will matter.

How did the last female PM do against an old white bloke at the GE? And who got the female vote at that one?

I seem to recall they formed a government.

What, together? Or are you suggesting she was up against Philip Hammond?

They as in the now accepted woke version of she. But you knew that, you swine!

Are you making a moch of me?

(I wonder how many people will get the sheer awesomeness of that pun.)

GIN1138

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Owen Jones @OwenJones84 tweets:-
We are now [at] the “Paddington Bear isn’t actually real!” stage of the national mourning period
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1569265959197724672

Jedwards Twitter is good for a laugh (or rather the responses to their tweets) at the moment too! 😂

wooliedyed

IanB2 said:

wooliedyed said:

ydoethur said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

ydoethur said:

For Starmer’s LAB to secure the 326 seats required for a majority he would need to gain more seats than even Tony Blair did at the 1997 general election. This is too big an ask in my view

Tony Blair gained 145 seats (boundary adjusted) in 1997 (148 overall). If that were mapped on to a tally of 202 Starmer would have a majority of 44 in the current House.

I think you mean he needs the same swing as Blair to achieve a majority of 1. Which is, as Cameron and indeed Wilson found out, a very difficult ask at one go even when the government is totally clapped out and discredited.

Although that also depends upon universal swing. When swings happen they're not universal, so its possible to gain a majority on a smaller swing than had been calculated previously if your voting ends up more efficient than predicted. As happened in 2015 for Cameron.

Indeed. One of the things that made Labour's 1997 victory so crushing was that they and the Liberal Democrats far outperformed UNS. Indeed, the LibDems lost voteshare while winning almost twice as many seats.

Could Starmer benefit from a similar effect? Possibly, but he and the LibDems are starting from much further back this time.

The LD vote doesnt have anywhere near the capacity of '97 to become more efficient either, they are already hollowed out in many places

But those places are almost entirely where they were never going to win, hence being hollowed out there makes the Labour vote potentially more efficient.

The key point is that what goes down can go up - and if the LibDem vote rises significantly in the south and south west, it could become significantly more efficient.

Yes, it could, but my point is it does not have the capacity it did in 97 - they have nowhere to lose excess votes nor much capacity to drop in 'dead' areas compensated by increases elsewhere (so if tgey drop vite % like in 97 tgey are highly unlikely to gain much), so for 'efficiency' they require almost exclusive tactical voting where they have a shout. Unless they add a few % nationally, anything beyond, say, 20 seats is utterly reliant on efficiency of vote.
It may happen but much much harder than 97 is the tl;dr

ydoethur

Mexicanpete said:

MarqueeMark said:

Virtually no chance that Labour gets a majority.

Liz Truss may yet reap what Boris sowed on Ukraine.

Another gut- wrencher for Johnson.

Johnson single-handedly defeats the Bear only for Truss to take the spoils.

"Sick as a parrot" doesn't come close to how he must be feeling today. Thoughts and prayers.

You're very magnanimous.

For me, I'm just enjoying the thought.

TOPPING

Foxy said:

TOPPING said:

Foxy said:

TOPPING said:

Stark_Dawning said:

If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

And I believe it will matter.

How did the last female PM do against an old white bloke at the GE? And who got the female vote at that one?

13,636,684 vs 12,877,918

was that the point you were making?

She stayed PM, but lost seats as I recall.

I don't think gender or other bits of diversity matter much if at all either way when it comes to voting. That is a good thing of course.

She got more votes than the old white bloke.

As for does it matter? The benefit for Truss is that she will be seen as the face of the new era. She literally saw out the old and saw in the new and people will remember that. It feeds into the idea of a new era of Charles' reign, a new beginning, the Cons having had a hugely diverse leadership contest and ended up not with an old white bloke but a woman.

While Lab is stuck with an old white bloke.

Yes, I think it might matter.

StillWaters

DavidL said:

StillWaters said:

TheValiant said:

Cicero said:

I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

It seems something big is brewing over the border.

More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Barry Goldwater was right!

Very pleased Ukraine has turned it around. Here's hoping they win.
Can they get Crimea back as well? Tough ask, and if it was me in charge (thank goodness I'm not) I might just be prepared to write it off for the sake of lives, but just maybe they can.

It’s got offshore oil. The most critical strategic part.

But no fresh water supply without Ukraine. Which is how and why we got here.

Which is why it should be part of southern Ukraine - and why Putin doesn’t want an energy competitor who can supply Europe

DavidL

CarlottaVance said:

Under the blazing sun,
#Hongkongers are waiting long queue (current waiting time is 4 hours long) to sign the book of condolence and lay flowers for Her late Majesty #QueenElizabeth II at the British Consulate-General(@UKinHongKong) in #HongKong

https://twitter.com/DrKwanEC/status/1569206839488954374

And a cheeky passport application since they are there?

pm215

TimS said:

Of the possible scenarios, we have:

- Tory landslide (highly unlikely)
- Small 2015-style Tory majority (possible)
- 2017-style Tory minority relying on DUP (very unlikely given maths and DUP electoral decline)
- Labour minority requiring LD, Green, SNP, Plaid etc support (possible, messy)
- Labour minority only requiring LD / Green support (possible, more stable)
- Labour majority (still seems unlikely absent an SNP collapse)
- Labour landslide (highly unlikely)

Aren't you missing the fairly plausible "labour minority, needing only SNP support"?

TOPPING

DavidL said:

Dura_Ace said:

DavidL said:

TheValiant said:

Cicero said:

I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

It seems something big is brewing over the border.

More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Barry Goldwater was right!

Very pleased Ukraine has turned it around. Here's hoping they win.
Can they get Crimea back as well? Tough ask, and if it was me in charge (thank goodness I'm not) I might just be prepared to write it off for the sake of lives, but just maybe they can.

Anne Applebaum, a doyenne amongst journalists, wrote a piece in the Atlantic about this today: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/09/ukraine-victory-russia-putin/671405/

This article has the first coherent definition of a Ukrainian victory that I have encountered in the long and glorious history of the SMO.

I am not sure it has an answer or a definition but at least someone has asked the relevant question. How the hell do we finish this?

Is she saying but not saying that a complete Ukrainian victory along the lines of the one she outlines will come at a price of a potentially failed state in Russia and do we really want that? She comes very close to asking.

Heathener

@MikeSmithson has made the odd betting mistake recently because of over reliance on precedent. The latest example being the Truss bounce and a tory lead in September, a wager that is most likely not to come off.

This is not a criticism: when Mike thinks the LibDems have an outside chance he goes for it and wins big. When it's Labour, less so.

Of course, historical precedent is not on the side of a Labour majority. But these have been, and still are, unprecedented times.

I put an outright Labour majority at 70%+

WhisperingOracle

Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/12/republican-britain-why-are-people-getting-arrested

DavidL

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

Dura_Ace said:

DavidL said:

TheValiant said:

Cicero said:

I have just been speaking to a Russian friend.

It seems something big is brewing over the border.

More and more people speaking up against Putin, and a real breakdown is possible. Although an even more severe crackdown can not yet be ruled out, his view was that a rebellion of middle ranking officials was beginning and that the army is close to outright mutiny.

Also he says that in Belarus more and more soldiers are crossing the border to join the Ukrainian army.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Barry Goldwater was right!

Very pleased Ukraine has turned it around. Here's hoping they win.
Can they get Crimea back as well? Tough ask, and if it was me in charge (thank goodness I'm not) I might just be prepared to write it off for the sake of lives, but just maybe they can.

Anne Applebaum, a doyenne amongst journalists, wrote a piece in the Atlantic about this today: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/09/ukraine-victory-russia-putin/671405/

This article has the first coherent definition of a Ukrainian victory that I have encountered in the long and glorious history of the SMO.

I am not sure it has an answer or a definition but at least someone has asked the relevant question. How the hell do we finish this?

Is she saying but not saying that a complete Ukrainian victory along the lines of the one she outlines will come at a price of a potentially failed state in Russia and do we really want that? She comes very close to asking.

Yes, she is. As I have asked myself. Getting rid of Putin is, in 1066 terms, a good thing. What comes next is much more up for grabs, especially if unstable dictatorships start spinning off with the idea that all Ukraine got wrong was giving up their nuclear weapons.

wooliedyed

LostPassword said:

wooliedyed said:

TOPPING said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

Malmesbury said:

wooliedyed said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1569270901685862403

Where is the PB free speech brigade?

I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace.
He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order.
Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc

I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.

If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.

Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics

They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.

The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.

No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order

Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.

Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.

Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.

So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?

Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.

Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.

Should and reality are not bedfellows here

They really are.


If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.

If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.

They 'should' but reality shows us that doesnt happen. Many football fans don't 'mingle peacefully', opposing protestors don't mingle peacefully, thats why there is a police presence at events, why people are directed on certain routes etc. What 'should' be the case is not the case. We 'shouldn't' need police at all, there should be no deviation from lawful and peaceful coexistence. But there is.

Absolutely. The point however is that you can't arrest people on the offchance that they might cause problems.

I agree 100%, but moving them on or elsewhere can be ok is my point

We're well past that point when they've charged the woman in Edinburgh with breach of the peace and she now has to go to court to defend herself.

Right and ive said i don't support people being arrested for holding a placard, but that moving them on can be ok

Mexicanpete

ydoethur said:

Mexicanpete said:

TOPPING said:

Stark_Dawning said:

If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

And I believe it will matter.

It really doesn't matter. What matters is the economy. If Truss's energy plans bring down energy bills, inflation and mortgage rates she wins. If they don't she doesn't.

Truss' plan doesn't bring down energy bills, it just stop them rising as far as they otherwise would.

For them to fall significantly, we need a solution in Russia - by which I mean rapid political change, an emerging stable government the EU feel they can trust, and therefore the lifting of sanctions so they can trade freely in gas again.

I have to say that strikes me as a very narrow path. Political change is looking fairly likely, but it will probably either lead to another wing nut taking charge and sanctions continuing, or the emergence of some kind of revolutionary government that's as stable as a blancmange in an earthquake.

Until we can focus our power generation on renewable electricity, which requires not just the replacement of CCGT with wind but a tenfold increase in overall output and probably a radical overhaul of the grid, higher prices seem likely to be a feature of life.

That is undoubtedly true.

There is some straw clutching going on in PBTory circles, like @TOPPING expecting a Conservative win because of diversity. I was responding simply. I don't for one moment think the Truss Government have the wherewithal to achieve what I have suggested.

Alternatively, as @MarqueeMark has outlined, a magnificent victory for the Conservatives in Ukraine could see Truss over the line.

Omnium

Heathener said:

@MikeSmithson has made the odd betting mistake recently because of over reliance on precedent. The latest example being the Truss bounce and a tory lead in September, a wager that is most likely not to come off.

This is not a criticism: when Mike thinks the LibDems have an outside chance he goes for it and wins big. When it's Labour, less so.

Of course, historical precedent is not on the side of a Labour majority. But these have been, and still are, unprecedented times.

I put an outright Labour majority at 70%+

I guess you know that the market rather disagrees with you? Have you bet made a bet?

CarlottaVance

Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal seem to be going for it:

UPDATE: A 74-year-old man was also arrested near Holyroodhouse in connection with a breach of the peace - he has also now been charged and is
due to appear before Edinburgh Sheriff Court.

https://twitter.com/darshnasoni/status/1569297507427155968

First, they came for the Lesbians….

Beibheirli_C

Omnium said:

Heathener said:

@MikeSmithson has made the odd betting mistake recently because of over reliance on precedent. The latest example being the Truss bounce and a tory lead in September, a wager that is most likely not to come off.

This is not a criticism: when Mike thinks the LibDems have an outside chance he goes for it and wins big. When it's Labour, less so.

Of course, historical precedent is not on the side of a Labour majority. But these have been, and still are, unprecedented times.

I put an outright Labour majority at 70%+

I guess you know that the market rather disagrees with you? Have you bet made a bet?

There is a reason that Bookies have all the money and punters lose their shirts....

Mexicanpete

Heathener said:

@MikeSmithson has made the odd betting mistake recently because of over reliance on precedent. The latest example being the Truss bounce and a tory lead in September, a wager that is most likely not to come off.

This is not a criticism: when Mike thinks the LibDems have an outside chance he goes for it and wins big. When it's Labour, less so.

Of course, historical precedent is not on the side of a Labour majority. But these have been, and still are, unprecedented times.

I put an outright Labour majority at 70%+

Divide by 10 and you are bob-on!

TOPPING

Mexicanpete said:

ydoethur said:

Mexicanpete said:

TOPPING said:

Stark_Dawning said:

If Labour don't win now it's hard to imagine that they ever will. Liz is perfectly designed as the ideal opponent for them.

'cept she is a woman. And the Lab leader will be, as La Truss so acutely pointed out, an old white bloke from North London. A knight of the realm, no less.

The Cons, meanwhile, have just gone through a(n interminable) leadership contest which must have been the most diverse in British political history.

Rayner, Dodds, Mahmood, Reeves all would have a better chance than SKS.

And I believe it will matter.

It really doesn't matter. What matters is the economy. If Truss's energy plans bring down energy bills, inflation and mortgage rates she wins. If they don't she doesn't.

Truss' plan doesn't bring down energy bills, it just stop them rising as far as they otherwise would.

For them to fall significantly, we need a solution in Russia - by which I mean rapid political change, an emerging stable government the EU feel they can trust, and therefore the lifting of sanctions so they can trade freely in gas again.

I have to say that strikes me as a very narrow path. Political change is looking fairly likely, but it will probably either lead to another wing nut taking charge and sanctions continuing, or the emergence of some kind of revolutionary government that's as stable as a blancmange in an earthquake.

Until we can focus our power generation on renewable electricity, which requires not just the replacement of CCGT with wind but a tenfold increase in overall output and probably a radical overhaul of the grid, higher prices seem likely to be a feature of life.

That is undoubtedly true.

There is some straw clutching going on in PBTory circles, like @TOPPING expecting a Conservative win because of diversity. I was responding simply. I don't for one moment think the Truss Government have the wherewithal to achieve what I have suggested.

Alternatively, as @MarqueeMark has outlined, a magnificent victory for the Conservatives in Ukraine could see Truss over the line.

While I appreciate that PB Tory is a generic term I am not in fact a PB Tory and therefore am even more well placed than usual (which is pretty well placed) to deliver a devastating, impartial and coruscatingly accurate take on things.

Edit: and that take was that I think it will help her while SKS might well be a deadweight around Lab's neck.

Selebian

CarlottaVance said:

Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal seem to be going for it:

UPDATE: A 74-year-old man was also arrested near Holyroodhouse in connection with a breach of the peace - he has also now been charged and is
due to appear before Edinburgh Sheriff Court.

https://twitter.com/darshnasoni/status/1569297507427155968

First, they came for the Lesbians….

Thought for a moment they'd perhaps nicked Charles III himself, but he's only 73

NorthofStoke

wooliedyed said:

LostPassword said:

wooliedyed said:

TOPPING said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

Malmesbury said:

wooliedyed said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1569270901685862403

Where is the PB free speech brigade?

I'm assuming they werent arrested, in which case its for their safety. Febrile atmosphere when feelings are high. Its the same reason oppising view marches are kept apart, its in the interests of keeping the peace.
He must be allowed to express that opinion, but not at the potential ridk of public order.
Yes, anyone attacking him could and should be arrested but that won't unbreak his nose etc

I, for one, really do not like the use of arrest to “protect people” or “protect their rights”.

If we need a new category, fine. Arrest should be for people seriously suspected of an actual crime.

Nor do i, but they werent arrested afaics

They weren't breaking a law AFAICS either, so the Police should not be involved.

The Police should look to deal with criminals, not the law abiding controversial.

No, not at all. For the same reason you dont filter opposing football fans into the same streams or opposing protestors into the same spot, where something is likely to cause a public order incident you move them on for their own safety/to maintain public order

Not at all, that's an authoritarian excuse to clamp down on peaceful protest.

Opposing football fans absolutely can, are and should be allowed to mingle together in public spaces. They're segregated on private property in the stadium, not by law in public places.

Individuals who are not breaking the law, should not be interfered with. If someone starts breaking the law, that is time for the Police to be involved, until then maybe the Police could try actually investigating burglaries or other crimes they claim not to have the resources to investigate instead of the law abiding.

So opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle then? There should be no police direction of football fans to the stadiums? In fact no policing at all unless a crime is committed?

Yes absolutely opposing protestors should be allowed to mingle, if no crime has been committed.

Large organised protests may be on separate routes, but individuals walking freely breaking no law absolutely should be able to mingle with those disagreeing with them.

Should and reality are not bedfellows here

They really are.


If people are not breaking the law, they should be able to mingle and have conversations and not be segregated.

If the law is not being broken, then peaceful protest is a bedrock of a free nation.

They 'should' but reality shows us that doesnt happen. Many football fans don't 'mingle peacefully', opposing protestors don't mingle peacefully, thats why there is a police presence at events, why people are directed on certain routes etc. What 'should' be the case is not the case. We 'shouldn't' need police at all, there should be no deviation from lawful and peaceful coexistence. But there is.

Absolutely. The point however is that you can't arrest people on the offchance that they might cause problems.

I agree 100%, but moving them on or elsewhere can be ok is my point

We're well past that point when they've charged the woman in Edinburgh with breach of the peace and she now has to go to court to defend herself.

Right and ive said i don't support people being arrested for holding a placard, but that moving them on can be ok

If someone were to walk down the street with a T shirt proclaiming a message including F**k are they likely to be arrested? They would have been a couple of decades ago without doubt. I suspect that they might still be.

Theuniondivvie

BlancheLivermore said:

Nice of a German state-owned media organisation to give us constitutional advice

https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-king-charles-iii-just-abdicate/a-63072183

Teeny repayment of the MASSIVE amount of advice you and your ilk have been giving them I guess.