Howdy, Stranger!

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

So far the polling’s not looking bad for LizT – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 21 in General
imageSo far the polling’s not looking bad for LizT – politicalbetting.com

LizT has been Prime Minister for just over 3 weeks and I have been skimming the polling trends to see if we can conclude whethe she is making a difference

Read the full story here

«13456710

Comments

  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,404
    edited September 21
    The most important thing I take from recent polling is that Labour look rock solid on 40 to 42%. Sometimes higher than 42 and only very rarely dipping below 40.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2022

    This despite a change of leader who is banging her ideological Daily Express drum. She has failed to make an impact.

    Labour will win the next General Election with an outright majority.
  • Heathener said:

    1st

    Yay! You're back
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,178
    Electoral calculus currently gives 70% chance lab majority

    You can get 3/1

    If you expect Liz to be a cluster fuck, this is value
  • FPT

    Completely off all topics, I have a new and compelling candidate for The Worst Piece of Software Ever Written. It's something called Ariba by SAP, and it makes even the worst Microsoft applications look brilliant in comparison.

    You need to install Ándale first, then it runs much faster
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,344
    FPT:

    Mr. Doethur, but the English union occurred over a thousand years ago whereas the German and Italian states came into being just a couple of centuries or so ago. I think that makes quite the difference.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Electoral calculus currently gives 70% chance lab majority

    You can get 3/1

    If you expect Liz to be a cluster fuck, this is value

    By the end of this week the scale of that cluster fuck will be clearer.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,084
    edited September 21
    Speaking of being publicly owned...

    https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1572328294393020419
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054
    IshmaelZ said:

    Electoral calculus currently gives 70% chance lab majority

    You can get 3/1

    If you expect Liz to be a cluster fuck, this is value

    Blair won 145 seats in 1997. A Lab majority next time out requires a win of 124 seats, plus about half a dozen more for boundary change affects.

    Do we think Starmer is 90% of Blair?
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,011
    Someone on twitter described this as “Teen Vogue communism”, which got a chuckle from me.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378
    As previously noted the key is the Tory share. 3 pollsters have pushed it to 34/35 since Truss. If it breaks through 36 that would likely see a lead emerge with someone in at least one poll (for all that means). If the Tories get over 35 in the next election, Labour will not get anywhere near a majority.
  • Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Electoral calculus currently gives 70% chance lab majority

    You can get 3/1

    If you expect Liz to be a cluster fuck, this is value

    Blair won 145 seats in 1997. A Lab majority next time out requires a win of 124 seats, plus about half a dozen more for boundary change affects.

    Do we think Starmer is 90% of Blair?
    Don’t we need to know Truss to Major ratio too?

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,344
    Mr. Sandpit, Starmer isn't that.

    But the Conservatives are facing numerous significant problems.
    1) They've been in for a long time, so time for a change becomes a powerful mantra.
    2) Cost of living is a problem for many people.
    3) The former clownish PM's antics lost the party a lot of support which has not returned.

    Against that, they do have incumbency and the boundary changes should help, but I'd not be surprised if we see a lot of changes next time.
  • ...

    Shock as an economically illiterate government tries to solve a supply issue by incentivising demand

    I am literally begging, just build more fucking houses

    How exactly is Truss to do this? There are thousands of plots that developers hold with planning permission, but why exactly would they go hell for leather and build them all, reducing the properties' value and the developers' profits (which is the effect that you want to see), as opposed to downing tools, selling the houses off plan, keeping values high and taking very little risk?

    It's the same situation with supply of energy - we would all love suppliers to flood the market with cheap energy, but who's going to pay them to do so? Someone will have to.
    Abolish planning permission so that having land with permission is no longer valuable.

    The only reason holding land with permission has a value is because permission is rationed and thus valuable. Abolish rationing, then holding permission loses all value.
    The equivalent of legalising robbery so that the crime figures go down.
    Legalise robbery and robberies will increase.

    The question by Luckyguy was how to build more houses, the answer is legalise house building so that houses are built.

    If you ration the ability to build houses, then whoever owns the rations controls the rate houses are built. Abolish rationing, and they can be built at the level demanded, they won't be built more than demanded because people won't waste money building homes with nobody to sell them to.

    In Japan and other countries with building standards and zoning but without UK's Byzantine planning permission system houses are built individually at levels demanded, rather than in major estates by "developers".
    I genuinely think that you simply don't understand what 'planning permission' is or the function it serves.

    To paraphrase the Great Inigo Montoya; "You keep using that phrase, I do not think it means what you think it means".

    The default setting for all planning permissions is to grant permission. That has been the way since at least the introduction of the planning guidances (PPG) by Thatcher in the late 80s. The purpose of the planning permission is to ensure that the development is both as harmless as possible to the existing environment (archaeology, nature, water supply etc) and is also sustainable in terms of services and infrastructure. If it meets these criteria it will be granted. If it does not then the council will look for the developer to provide changes to their plans or mitigations to the damage they will cause. It is extremely rare for planning to be denied to developments and the changes the planners want to planning permission have nothing to do with releasing more land and everything to do with reducing the requirements upon them to make their developments as sustainable and harmless as possible.

    Planning permission is not 'Byzantine' and is not the cause of a lack of housebuilding, no matter what you might think.
    The purpose may be that, but the only people who can easily manage that are the developers, which is why it is Byzantine and why we have our system that we have.

    "Developments" shouldn't be the only option, "developers" shouldn't be the only option, most countries people can self-build their own home because they don't have the requirement to get permission like we do in this country.

    Anyone self-building their own home shouldn't need to apply for or get permission, it should be automatic so long as it is built to pre-determined standards in pre-determined zones. Do that and people can build their own home whenever or wherever they need it instead of "developers" controlling the system.
    Nope because the same localised conditions for archaeology, nature, transport and services exist.

    Planning permission is not the onerous bit about self building. Building regs are far more problematic than planning permission these days. I agree there should be far more self building. It is about 80% of all building in Belgium for example. The Dutch have a far better system which I keep meaning to address in a thread header but never get round to. But planning permission is not the issue in the UK you pretend it is.
    Belgium and the Netherlands of course both have zoning designed to make self-building easy.

    Archaeology, nature, transport and services can be dealt with by appropriate zoning, making self-building easy in the zones where those aren't an issue and meaning people don't seek to develop in zones where it is problematic, because they can easily self-build in the appropriate and relevant zones.

    If you make archaeology, nature, transport and services the responsibility of the developer then only developers dealing with entire estates can manage that. No individual self-builder can resolve transportation, nor should they. Zone appropriately, plan transportation for that zone, and let people self-build within the zone.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,961
    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Electoral calculus currently gives 70% chance lab majority

    You can get 3/1

    If you expect Liz to be a cluster fuck, this is value

    Blair won 145 seats in 1997. A Lab majority next time out requires a win of 124 seats, plus about half a dozen more for boundary change affects.

    Do we think Starmer is 90% of Blair?
    I suspect the confounding factors are 1) the SNP and 2) Ed Davey is no Paddy Ashdown!
  • FPT:

    Mr. Doethur, but the English union occurred over a thousand years ago whereas the German and Italian states came into being just a couple of centuries or so ago. I think that makes quite the difference.

    If only anyone had a clue to what you're replying..
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,178
    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Electoral calculus currently gives 70% chance lab majority

    You can get 3/1

    If you expect Liz to be a cluster fuck, this is value

    Blair won 145 seats in 1997. A Lab majority next time out requires a win of 124 seats, plus about half a dozen more for boundary change affects.

    Do we think Starmer is 90% of Blair?
    Not how it works.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,520
    IshmaelZ said:

    Electoral calculus currently gives 70% chance lab majority

    You can get 3/1

    If you expect Liz to be a cluster fuck, this is value

    Yeah - I think that's probably the best value bet for now.

    Lab for most seats at 1.83 looks good to me also. Even if Liz Truss is being underestimated, she has a big poll deficit to turnaround to win most seats.
  • Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Electoral calculus currently gives 70% chance lab majority

    You can get 3/1

    If you expect Liz to be a cluster fuck, this is value

    Blair won 145 seats in 1997. A Lab majority next time out requires a win of 124 seats, plus about half a dozen more for boundary change affects.

    Do we think Starmer is 90% of Blair?
    No, and a Labour majority feels like a big ask. But, and its a big but, the tide is going out on the government and leaving them beached on a sandbank.

    On one side the red wall has woken up to the reality that they have been scammed. With levelling up to be dead on Friday and the various promised Brexit unicorns not arriving, polling and byelection results already show a wholesale reversion back to Labour in so many Tory 2019 seats.

    On the other side the more southern and more rural seats who traditionally vote Tory wonder whatever happened to the Tory Party. A resurgence of LibDems winning here across swathes of the south and shires looks to be a reasonable proposition.

    So whilst I agree that a Starmer majority would be a stretch, I do think it will take a radical shift to keep Truss in Downing Street.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,140

    FPT:

    Mr. Doethur, but the English union occurred over a thousand years ago whereas the German and Italian states came into being just a couple of centuries or so ago. I think that makes quite the difference.

    You could argue that there has been a German state since the early Middle Ages, just a highly decentralised one.

    If you did take that argument, you could note that the capital of the aforesaid state was split off from it in 1806 when it became the capital of the new Empire of Austria and the northern German states began the path that would lead to unification in 1871.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,243
    FPT:

    Nigelb said:

    Putin also accused the West of "nuclear blackmail" against Russia + threatened a nuclear response if Ukraine continues to try to reclaim territories that are set to hold "referenda" and which he considers historically Russia. "It's not a bluff."
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1572472312615825408

    Make if that nonsense what you will.

    Professionally speaking when somebody tells me that X isn't a bluff then it usually is a bluff.
    iirc Russian military doctrine is that tactical nukes can be used to defend sovereign territory of Russia. So if Vlad "makes" Donbas sovereign territory then in theory at least he might not be bluffing.
    I think, if he does, either the balloon will go up fairly soon afterwards or else he'll be couped.
    The use of nuclear weapons by Russia will make things much worse for Russia.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,513
    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Electoral calculus currently gives 70% chance lab majority

    You can get 3/1

    If you expect Liz to be a cluster fuck, this is value

    Blair won 145 seats in 1997. A Lab majority next time out requires a win of 124 seats, plus about half a dozen more for boundary change affects.

    Do we think Starmer is 90% of Blair?
    I don't think that Truss is as politically inept as made out, but clearly some people think she is twice as bad as Major, and then Starmer doesn't have to be as good as Blair to achieve the same advantage over Truss as Blair had over Major.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,961

    FPT:

    Mr. Doethur, but the English union occurred over a thousand years ago whereas the German and Italian states came into being just a couple of centuries or so ago. I think that makes quite the difference.

    If only anyone had a clue to what you're replying..
    It was something about the size and supremacy of London versus provincial cities. Similar criteria apply to universities.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,961
    ydoethur said:

    FPT:

    Mr. Doethur, but the English union occurred over a thousand years ago whereas the German and Italian states came into being just a couple of centuries or so ago. I think that makes quite the difference.

    You could argue that there has been a German state since the early Middle Ages, just a highly decentralised one.

    If you did take that argument, you could note that the capital of the aforesaid state was split off from it in 1806 when it became the capital of the new Empire of Austria and the northern German states began the path that would lead to unification in 1871.
    Counterfactual history can be fascinating! Interesting that, according to the TV programme the other evening Hitler regarded himself as German before the first world war!
    Although of course he was born in Austria
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,977


    The use of nuclear weapons by Russia will make things much worse for Russia.

    It's almost like it's pointless to have them.
  • Dura_Ace said:


    The use of nuclear weapons by Russia will make things much worse for Russia.

    It's almost like it's pointless to have them.
    For wars of aggression like Russia is engaged in? Yes, it is.

    They're MAD weapons for self-defence, but Russia isn't engaged in self-defence so that's moot.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,140
    edited September 21

    ydoethur said:

    FPT:

    Mr. Doethur, but the English union occurred over a thousand years ago whereas the German and Italian states came into being just a couple of centuries or so ago. I think that makes quite the difference.

    You could argue that there has been a German state since the early Middle Ages, just a highly decentralised one.

    If you did take that argument, you could note that the capital of the aforesaid state was split off from it in 1806 when it became the capital of the new Empire of Austria and the northern German states began the path that would lead to unification in 1871.
    Counterfactual history can be fascinating! Interesting that, according to the TV programme the other evening Hitler regarded himself as German before the first world war!
    Although of course he was born in Austria
    Lots of Austrians did regard themselves as Germans, and had done for centuries, and weren't very happy at all with Prussia arrogating the name 'Germany/Deutschland' for their new empire. They would have preferred GroßPreußen or 'Greater Prussia.'

    I imagine this was particularly true in border areas like Salzburg.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,140
    edited September 21
    Dura_Ace said:


    The use of nuclear weapons by Russia will make things much worse for Russia.

    It's almost like it's pointless to have them.
    Well, it is if the other side have them.

    Paradoxically, however, if only one side has them it's really urgent the other side get them to make them pointless.

    If only the Yanks had had nuclear weapons in 1949-50, they would surely have used them in Korea and then invaded China.
  • Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Electoral calculus currently gives 70% chance lab majority

    You can get 3/1

    If you expect Liz to be a cluster fuck, this is value

    Blair won 145 seats in 1997. A Lab majority next time out requires a win of 124 seats, plus about half a dozen more for boundary change affects.

    Do we think Starmer is 90% of Blair?
    No, and a Labour majority feels like a big ask. But, and its a big but, the tide is going out on the government and leaving them beached on a sandbank.

    On one side the red wall has woken up to the reality that they have been scammed. With levelling up to be dead on Friday and the various promised Brexit unicorns not arriving, polling and byelection results already show a wholesale reversion back to Labour in so many Tory 2019 seats.

    On the other side the more southern and more rural seats who traditionally vote Tory wonder whatever happened to the Tory Party. A resurgence of LibDems winning here across swathes of the south and shires looks to be a reasonable proposition.

    So whilst I agree that a Starmer majority would be a stretch, I do think it will take a radical shift to keep Truss in Downing Street.
    If you put in anything like current polling into a seat calculator then you get a small Labour majority or as near as as the central case. That's with the new boundaries and without allowing for anti Tory tactical voting. So to argue that a Labour majority is far fetched amounts to saying that current polling is midterm blues and the gap will close or go the other way by the election. That is certainly one plausible story, but another story is that the economic picture is going to get much worse before it gets better, and so Labour's lead could increase further at some point before any swing back starts to happen. I think a Labour majority is underpriced. I would put it as something like 40/40/20 for Lab/NOM/Con and 70/30 as Lab leader is PM.
  • I thought that the key aspect of opinion polls was to concentrate on absolute percentages rather than percentage lead?

    Labour is pretty level at around 40-42% which is a high for the past year. Truss does not appear to appeal to this collection of voters.
    Lib Dems are back down to around 10%, the same level as around 6 months ago. Their summer boost appears to have dissipated.
    The Conservatives are back up to around 33%, around the level about 6 months ago. This suggests a swing from Lib Dems to Conservatives.

    The other parties are on fairly similar numbers with the greens on around 5-6%.

    So the question for the Conservatives is whether the change in policies and a new prime minister will shift the Labour vote.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054

    Mr. Sandpit, Starmer isn't that.

    But the Conservatives are facing numerous significant problems.
    1) They've been in for a long time, so time for a change becomes a powerful mantra.
    2) Cost of living is a problem for many people.
    3) The former clownish PM's antics lost the party a lot of support which has not returned.

    Against that, they do have incumbency and the boundary changes should help, but I'd not be surprised if we see a lot of changes next time.

    I’m sure there will be a lot of changes next time too, but Starmer still needs to win about 130 seats for a majority of just one.

    Even if he does the full Blair, he ends up with only the same majority Cameron got in 2015.

    There’s a very large hung parliament landing zone, which is by far the most likely outcome of the next election.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,112
    I'm one of the habitual Tory voters whose VI switched to Labour from Patersongate onwards.

    It is simply too early to say what would happen in a GE, and how that group would vote if there were one.

    But the issues that would make the difference from the Tory point of view are: Courage, integrity, respect for parliament and the rule of law, not pandering to extremes, concern both for wealth creation and the needs of those who need help, modesty, competence and honesty.

    And from the SKS point of view: Can he keep the extremes in their box.

    Interesting times. And with so much to possibly go/stay wrong, and almost nothing going right there seem to be no easy wins at all for government.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,945
    kamski said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Russian maths.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1572476671277826051
    Shoigu claims just 5,900+ Russian troops killed. Real number of KIA is certainly much, much higher. Meanwhile he claims 100,000 Ukrainian casualties, including 60,000 KIA — “half the Ukrainian army.”

    It does make it hard to take their threats seriously when every word they say is an obvious lie.

    Why the f*ck would they need to mobilise more people if they've only lost that many troops?

    Doesn't even make sense to someone trying to shill for the regime.
    Something like: the Russian military are doing so well that NATO wants to move from just propping up Ukraine to directly attacking Russia. So they need a partial mobilisation to deter/be ready for desperate NATO's next unprovoked escalation.
    After the end of the Cold War some Soviet war plans were revealed.

    A number of their plans posited replying to a surprise attack from NATO.

    A surprise attack which -

    1) caused no losses in the Warsaw Pact forces.
    2) took no East bloc territory.
    3) did not involve alerting most of NATO forces

    This kind of double think has a history….
  • kamskikamski Posts: 2,602
    ydoethur said:

    FPT:

    Mr. Doethur, but the English union occurred over a thousand years ago whereas the German and Italian states came into being just a couple of centuries or so ago. I think that makes quite the difference.

    You could argue that there has been a German state since the early Middle Ages, just a highly decentralised one.

    If you did take that argument, you could note that the capital of the aforesaid state was split off from it in 1806 when it became the capital of the new Empire of Austria and the northern German states began the path that would lead to unification in 1871.
    Is this one of those times when someone says "you could argue" because even they know that what follows is silly.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,945
    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The use of nuclear weapons by Russia will make things much worse for Russia.

    It's almost like it's pointless to have them.
    Well, it is if the other side have them.

    Paradoxically, however, if only one side has them it's really urgent the other side get them to make them pointless.

    If only the Yanks had had nuclear weapons in 1949-50, they would surely have used them in Korea and then invaded China.
    If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, Putin wouldn’t have invaded.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 844
    rkrkrk said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Electoral calculus currently gives 70% chance lab majority

    You can get 3/1

    If you expect Liz to be a cluster fuck, this is value

    Yeah - I think that's probably the best value bet for now.

    Lab for most seats at 1.83 looks good to me also. Even if Liz Truss is being underestimated, she has a big poll deficit to turnaround to win most seats.
    Agreed. Labour most seats in a hung parliament seems most likely. All the seat calculators and the rest of it I suspect underestimate the logistics that Labour faces at the next election - remember that in 2010 Cameron started closer to Labour and his personal ratings compared with Brown were better than Truss's are compared with Sir Keir - and certainly nowhere near to St Tony vs Major.
  • Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Electoral calculus currently gives 70% chance lab majority

    You can get 3/1

    If you expect Liz to be a cluster fuck, this is value

    Blair won 145 seats in 1997. A Lab majority next time out requires a win of 124 seats, plus about half a dozen more for boundary change affects.

    Do we think Starmer is 90% of Blair?
    No, and a Labour majority feels like a big ask. But, and its a big but, the tide is going out on the government and leaving them beached on a sandbank.

    On one side the red wall has woken up to the reality that they have been scammed. With levelling up to be dead on Friday and the various promised Brexit unicorns not arriving, polling and byelection results already show a wholesale reversion back to Labour in so many Tory 2019 seats.

    On the other side the more southern and more rural seats who traditionally vote Tory wonder whatever happened to the Tory Party. A resurgence of LibDems winning here across swathes of the south and shires looks to be a reasonable proposition.

    So whilst I agree that a Starmer majority would be a stretch, I do think it will take a radical shift to keep Truss in Downing Street.
    If you put in anything like current polling into a seat calculator then you get a small Labour majority or as near as as the central case. That's with the new boundaries and without allowing for anti Tory tactical voting. So to argue that a Labour majority is far fetched amounts to saying that current polling is midterm blues and the gap will close or go the other way by the election. That is certainly one plausible story, but another story is that the economic picture is going to get much worse before it gets better, and so Labour's lead could increase further at some point before any swing back starts to happen. I think a Labour majority is underpriced. I would put it as something like 40/40/20 for Lab/NOM/Con and 70/30 as Lab leader is PM.
    Like I said, the tide has beached the Tories. Anything is possible in politics (especially the things supposedly impossible...!) so a Labour majority absolutely is in scope. A Tory majority much less so but there is a way back for them in theory.

    For me the Trussteam have two major issues:
    1 Disconnection from reality. The latest cabinet team seem even less clued up than their predecessors which is impressive. You can't defy reality for long before it demolishes whatever baseless rhetoric you are peddling
    2 That belittling sneer so many of them speak with. An absolute dripping disdain for anyone who isn't them. Even if they find themselves lucky with a couple of policies which manage to resonate, the sneering will remove whatever political points they should get.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054

    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Electoral calculus currently gives 70% chance lab majority

    You can get 3/1

    If you expect Liz to be a cluster fuck, this is value

    Blair won 145 seats in 1997. A Lab majority next time out requires a win of 124 seats, plus about half a dozen more for boundary change affects.

    Do we think Starmer is 90% of Blair?
    I don't think that Truss is as politically inept as made out, but clearly some people think she is twice as bad as Major, and then Starmer doesn't have to be as good as Blair to achieve the same advantage over Truss as Blair had over Major.
    But Truss goes into the election around 70 seats better off than Major did in ‘97. Starmer needs all of those 130 seats for a squeaky majority of one.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 844

    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Electoral calculus currently gives 70% chance lab majority

    You can get 3/1

    If you expect Liz to be a cluster fuck, this is value

    Blair won 145 seats in 1997. A Lab majority next time out requires a win of 124 seats, plus about half a dozen more for boundary change affects.

    Do we think Starmer is 90% of Blair?
    I don't think that Truss is as politically inept as made out, but clearly some people think she is twice as bad as Major, and then Starmer doesn't have to be as good as Blair to achieve the same advantage over Truss as Blair had over Major.
    Major had Black Wednesday.
  • Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Electoral calculus currently gives 70% chance lab majority

    You can get 3/1

    If you expect Liz to be a cluster fuck, this is value

    Blair won 145 seats in 1997. A Lab majority next time out requires a win of 124 seats, plus about half a dozen more for boundary change affects.

    Do we think Starmer is 90% of Blair?
    No, and a Labour majority feels like a big ask. But, and its a big but, the tide is going out on the government and leaving them beached on a sandbank.

    On one side the red wall has woken up to the reality that they have been scammed. With levelling up to be dead on Friday and the various promised Brexit unicorns not arriving, polling and byelection results already show a wholesale reversion back to Labour in so many Tory 2019 seats.

    On the other side the more southern and more rural seats who traditionally vote Tory wonder whatever happened to the Tory Party. A resurgence of LibDems winning here across swathes of the south and shires looks to be a reasonable proposition.

    So whilst I agree that a Starmer majority would be a stretch, I do think it will take a radical shift to keep Truss in Downing Street.
    If you put in anything like current polling into a seat calculator then you get a small Labour majority or as near as as the central case. That's with the new boundaries and without allowing for anti Tory tactical voting. So to argue that a Labour majority is far fetched amounts to saying that current polling is midterm blues and the gap will close or go the other way by the election. That is certainly one plausible story, but another story is that the economic picture is going to get much worse before it gets better, and so Labour's lead could increase further at some point before any swing back starts to happen. I think a Labour majority is underpriced. I would put it as something like 40/40/20 for Lab/NOM/Con and 70/30 as Lab leader is PM.
    Like I said, the tide has beached the Tories. Anything is possible in politics (especially the things supposedly impossible...!) so a Labour majority absolutely is in scope. A Tory majority much less so but there is a way back for them in theory.

    For me the Trussteam have two major issues:
    1 Disconnection from reality. The latest cabinet team seem even less clued up than their predecessors which is impressive. You can't defy reality for long before it demolishes whatever baseless rhetoric you are peddling
    2 That belittling sneer so many of them speak with. An absolute dripping disdain for anyone who isn't them. Even if they find themselves lucky with a couple of policies which manage to resonate, the sneering will remove whatever political points they should get.
    It's interesting isn't it, and something I have noticed before. The posh Tories seem to really look down their noses at everyone, but the non-posh Tories seem to do it even more!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 24,543
    Draft papers landing in St Petersburg. It is possible Putin has misconstrued public support for war as public willingness to die in one. He has form when it comes to projecting certain beliefs onto people from afar. https://twitter.com/ian_matveev/status/1572515527599476739
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,112
    Heathener said:

    The most important thing I take from recent polling is that Labour look rock solid on 40 to 42%. Sometimes higher than 42 and only very rarely dipping below 40.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2022

    This despite a change of leader who is banging her ideological Daily Express drum. She has failed to make an impact.

    Labour will win the next General Election with an outright majority.

    The equally important thing to take from the polling is that the Tories consistently had that sort of figure right up until they didn't, and that the election is two years away. Next government? Labour led 65%; Tory led 35%.
  • ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The use of nuclear weapons by Russia will make things much worse for Russia.

    It's almost like it's pointless to have them.
    Well, it is if the other side have them.

    Paradoxically, however, if only one side has them it's really urgent the other side get them to make them pointless.

    If only the Yanks had had nuclear weapons in 1949-50, they would surely have used them in Korea and then invaded China.
    If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, Putin wouldn’t have invaded.
    What do you think the chances were of the former USSR allowing a newly minted Ukraine to retain Soviet nuclear weapons and the West going along with it, more or less than 1%?
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Electoral calculus currently gives 70% chance lab majority

    You can get 3/1

    If you expect Liz to be a cluster fuck, this is value

    Blair won 145 seats in 1997. A Lab majority next time out requires a win of 124 seats, plus about half a dozen more for boundary change affects.

    Do we think Starmer is 90% of Blair?
    I don't think that Truss is as politically inept as made out, but clearly some people think she is twice as bad as Major, and then Starmer doesn't have to be as good as Blair to achieve the same advantage over Truss as Blair had over Major.
    But Truss goes into the election around 70 seats better off than Major did in ‘97. Starmer needs all of those 130 seats for a squeaky majority of one.
    But if you put current polling into seat calculators it looks like a small Labour majority. So are you arguing that the polling will inevitably change in a direction that favours the Tories, or that the seat calculators are incorrectly mapping party support into seats? It has to be at least one of those.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,994
    edited September 21
    https://www.thenational.scot/news/22398750.tory-mp-david-duguid-given-scotland-office-minister-job-endorsing-liz-truss-leader/?ref=ebbn

    Specially for @RochdalePioneers if he hasn't noticed.

    'A SCOTTISH Conservative MP who left the UK Government in a reshuffle last year is returning to the Scotland Office as a junior minister, it has been confirmed.

    David Duguid, MP for Banff and Buchan, previously served as a junior minister in the department but was taken off the brief and given a fisheries envoy position by Boris Johnson last September.

    He quit that job during the exodus from Johnson’s government this summer, describing the Prime Minister’s position as “untenable”.

    His return to government comes after he publicly declared his support for Liz Truss during the Conservative leadership election – something his party leader Douglas Ross, and Scotland Secretary Alister Jack, chose not to do.'
  • ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The use of nuclear weapons by Russia will make things much worse for Russia.

    It's almost like it's pointless to have them.
    Well, it is if the other side have them.

    Paradoxically, however, if only one side has them it's really urgent the other side get them to make them pointless.

    If only the Yanks had had nuclear weapons in 1949-50, they would surely have used them in Korea and then invaded China.
    If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, Putin wouldn’t have invaded.
    What do you think the chances were of the former USSR allowing a newly minted Ukraine to retain Soviet nuclear weapons and the West going along with it, more or less than 1%?
    If the Ukrainians had insisted on keeping their weapons? More.

    Once people have weapons, compelling them to disarm is virtually impossible. Whether the USSR or USA wanted to "allow" it is neither here nor there, any more than it is them "allowing" Pakistan or North Korea to have them.
  • algarkirk said:

    I'm one of the habitual Tory voters whose VI switched to Labour from Patersongate onwards.

    It is simply too early to say what would happen in a GE, and how that group would vote if there were one.

    But the issues that would make the difference from the Tory point of view are: Courage, integrity, respect for parliament and the rule of law, not pandering to extremes, concern both for wealth creation and the needs of those who need help, modesty, competence and honesty.

    And from the SKS point of view: Can he keep the extremes in their box.

    Interesting times. And with so much to possibly go/stay wrong, and almost nothing going right there seem to be no easy wins at all for government.

    I will be watching your evolving views as a potential bellwether. Whither Algarkirk goes the country! 😉
  • DriverDriver Posts: 844
    edited September 21

    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Electoral calculus currently gives 70% chance lab majority

    You can get 3/1

    If you expect Liz to be a cluster fuck, this is value

    Blair won 145 seats in 1997. A Lab majority next time out requires a win of 124 seats, plus about half a dozen more for boundary change affects.

    Do we think Starmer is 90% of Blair?
    No, and a Labour majority feels like a big ask. But, and its a big but, the tide is going out on the government and leaving them beached on a sandbank.

    On one side the red wall has woken up to the reality that they have been scammed. With levelling up to be dead on Friday and the various promised Brexit unicorns not arriving, polling and byelection results already show a wholesale reversion back to Labour in so many Tory 2019 seats.

    On the other side the more southern and more rural seats who traditionally vote Tory wonder whatever happened to the Tory Party. A resurgence of LibDems winning here across swathes of the south and shires looks to be a reasonable proposition.

    So whilst I agree that a Starmer majority would be a stretch, I do think it will take a radical shift to keep Truss in Downing Street.
    If you put in anything like current polling into a seat calculator then you get a small Labour majority or as near as as the central case. That's with the new boundaries and without allowing for anti Tory tactical voting. So to argue that a Labour majority is far fetched amounts to saying that current polling is midterm blues and the gap will close or go the other way by the election. That is certainly one plausible story, but another story is that the economic picture is going to get much worse before it gets better, and so Labour's lead could increase further at some point before any swing back starts to happen. I think a Labour majority is underpriced. I would put it as something like 40/40/20 for Lab/NOM/Con and 70/30 as Lab leader is PM.
    Like I said, the tide has beached the Tories. Anything is possible in politics (especially the things supposedly impossible...!) so a Labour majority absolutely is in scope. A Tory majority much less so but there is a way back for them in theory.

    For me the Trussteam have two major issues:
    1 Disconnection from reality. The latest cabinet team seem even less clued up than their predecessors which is impressive. You can't defy reality for long before it demolishes whatever baseless rhetoric you are peddling
    2 That belittling sneer so many of them speak with. An absolute dripping disdain for anyone who isn't them. Even if they find themselves lucky with a couple of policies which manage to resonate, the sneering will remove whatever political points they should get.
    Yes, but you speak as someone who hates her. You're not remotely a floating voter.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 6,509
    edited September 21
    I think Labour will be satisfied with the polling. The main thing with a new PM is to avoid a substantial bounce and there isn't much sign of one at the moment. I'm a Truss sceptic but hubris is never wise in politics. A dash for growth might work in time for an election before the cards come crashing down.

    On Putin's mobilisation:

    1)Why the delay from the message that was supposed to go out yesterday? Seems like behind the scenes disagreements going on which could be the most significant revelation of all.

    2)What sort of shape will these reservists be in? They've already been offering substantial money to go to the front lines and people haven't taken the bait so much so that Russia's resorted to recruiting prisoners.

    3)What are they going to be equipped with and how will they be sufficiently supplied?

    4)How is it going to be paid for? There's already talk about major spending cuts and the economic pain is only just beginning.

    5)This is presumably a signal to the west of Putin's 'indomitable will' so it's time to negotiate. Frankly I think we should keep calling his bluff no least given the shenanigans over the broadcast. It's worth remembering that if Putin is at an 8 on the escalation scale Nato is at about 3. No elite fighter jets for Ukraine, no ATACMS and certainly not a no fly zone or boots on the ground or blockade of Russian ships. We have plenty to up the ante with.

    I have been bullish on the outcome of the war since a few weeks in. That said it would be wrong not to be a little nervous about hundreds of thousands of men being mobilised. Could they make a difference at least in terms of holding the current lines? Yes but given the lack of kit and the fact they have no answer to American precision guided artillery a lot of them will surely die or be maimed in the process and they probably know it. I suspect this is an army that has more chance of marching on Moscow than Kyiv.
  • Carnyx said:

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/22398750.tory-mp-david-duguid-given-scotland-office-minister-job-endorsing-liz-truss-leader/?ref=ebbn

    Specially for @RochdalePioneers if he hasn't noticed.

    'A SCOTTISH Conservative MP who left the UK Government in a reshuffle last year is returning to the Scotland Office as a junior minister, it has been confirmed.

    David Duguid, MP for Banff and Buchan, previously served as a junior minister in the department but was taken off the brief and given a fisheries envoy position by Boris Johnson last September.

    He quit that job during the exodus from Johnson’s government this summer, describing the Prime Minister’s position as “untenable”.

    His return to government comes after he publicly declared his support for Liz Truss during the Conservative leadership election – something his party leader Douglas Ross, and Scotland Secretary Alister Jack, chose not to do.'

    Don't worry, I noticed. Once a fawning lickspittle, always a fawning lickspittle.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 844

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Electoral calculus currently gives 70% chance lab majority

    You can get 3/1

    If you expect Liz to be a cluster fuck, this is value

    Blair won 145 seats in 1997. A Lab majority next time out requires a win of 124 seats, plus about half a dozen more for boundary change affects.

    Do we think Starmer is 90% of Blair?
    I don't think that Truss is as politically inept as made out, but clearly some people think she is twice as bad as Major, and then Starmer doesn't have to be as good as Blair to achieve the same advantage over Truss as Blair had over Major.
    But Truss goes into the election around 70 seats better off than Major did in ‘97. Starmer needs all of those 130 seats for a squeaky majority of one.
    But if you put current polling into seat calculators it looks like a small Labour majority. So are you arguing that the polling will inevitably change in a direction that favours the Tories, or that the seat calculators are incorrectly mapping party support into seats? It has to be at least one of those.
    Seat calculators become less accurate at bigger swings, as they don't take into consideration logistics.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,945

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The use of nuclear weapons by Russia will make things much worse for Russia.

    It's almost like it's pointless to have them.
    Well, it is if the other side have them.

    Paradoxically, however, if only one side has them it's really urgent the other side get them to make them pointless.

    If only the Yanks had had nuclear weapons in 1949-50, they would surely have used them in Korea and then invaded China.
    If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, Putin wouldn’t have invaded.
    What do you think the chances were of the former USSR allowing a newly minted Ukraine to retain Soviet nuclear weapons and the West going along with it, more or less than 1%?
    The Ukrainians gave up the weapons, mainly because they didn’t have the money to maintain them. There was a technological issue since they were multi stage thermonuclear weapons which require serious technological support.

    If they had decided to rework the plutonium into some simple single stage designs, how could they have been stopped? Imposing sanctions, when they had never been part of the non proliferation treaties?

    The Russia was in no mood or condition to invade anyone at that point.
  • The most likely GE outcomes in order, IMO: minority Labour government; majority Tory government; majority Labour government; minority Tory government.

    There needs to be a very narrow landing patch for the Tories to stay in power without a majority - it involves DUP and Tory numbers being sufficient. I'd say that is less likely than either Labour or the Tories winning an overall majority.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,140
    Scott_xP said:

    Draft papers landing in St Petersburg. It is possible Putin has misconstrued public support for war as public willingness to die in one. He has form when it comes to projecting certain beliefs onto people from afar. https://twitter.com/ian_matveev/status/1572515527599476739

    Draft papers? you would have thought the bastard could at least have taken the trouble to do a fair copy.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,226

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The use of nuclear weapons by Russia will make things much worse for Russia.

    It's almost like it's pointless to have them.
    Well, it is if the other side have them.

    Paradoxically, however, if only one side has them it's really urgent the other side get them to make them pointless.

    If only the Yanks had had nuclear weapons in 1949-50, they would surely have used them in Korea and then invaded China.
    If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, Putin wouldn’t have invaded.
    What do you think the chances were of the former USSR allowing a newly minted Ukraine to retain Soviet nuclear weapons and the West going along with it, more or less than 1%?
    A lot higher than 1%: deals would probably have been done.

    But the technical problems Ukraine would have faced in maintaining increasingly-aged warheads and the related delivery systems were massive and costly. Ukraine volunteering to get rid of their nukes was a brave move, and the west's inability to keep their side of the deal shameful.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 42,730
    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The use of nuclear weapons by Russia will make things much worse for Russia.

    It's almost like it's pointless to have them.
    Well, it is if the other side have them.

    Paradoxically, however, if only one side has them it's really urgent the other side get them to make them pointless.

    If only the Yanks had had nuclear weapons in 1949-50, they would surely have used them in Korea and then invaded China.
    The story of that is well worth recalling in the light of today's problems.
    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/how-korean-war-almost-went-nuclear-180955324/
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 18,315
    @Richard_Nabavi - John Redwood's Diary has him listing some 'EU red tape' he wants to go. I'd be interested to read whether you think any of these is valid.


    The Business Secretary could abolish the droit du suite and VAT impositions the EU used to divert part of the global art market from London to New York.Maybe they thought it would help Paris but it just made the whole EU less competitive.

    He could lower costs of buying a home by removing anti money laundering checks from any U.K. citizen buying and selling their main home and using a U.K. regulated bank. He could make energy certificates for homes a matter of choice for buyers and sellers.

    He could work with Defra to use farm grants to promote growing more food here and to foster investment in more glasshouses and new farming techniques instead of subsidising wilding policies, and relying on more imports from the EU.

    He could simplify the expensive bureaucracy created by the EU data protection legislation.

    He could repeal the EU Ports Regulation which was widely opposed by our ports when it was introduced. It gets in the way of port investment and expansion.

    He could repeal the railway rules which require the separation of track ownership from train ownership.Integrated ownership of routes by private companies should be an option.

    He with the Treasury should allow more people self employed tax status, removing the penal elements of IR 35.

    He should repeal the on line digital tax.


    https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/09/20/time-to-reverse-eu-damage-to-our-industries-and-economy/
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The use of nuclear weapons by Russia will make things much worse for Russia.

    It's almost like it's pointless to have them.
    Well, it is if the other side have them.

    Paradoxically, however, if only one side has them it's really urgent the other side get them to make them pointless.

    If only the Yanks had had nuclear weapons in 1949-50, they would surely have used them in Korea and then invaded China.
    If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, Putin wouldn’t have invaded.
    What do you think the chances were of the former USSR allowing a newly minted Ukraine to retain Soviet nuclear weapons and the West going along with it, more or less than 1%?
    The Ukrainians gave up the weapons, mainly because they didn’t have the money to maintain them. There was a technological issue since they were multi stage thermonuclear weapons which require serious technological support.

    If they had decided to rework the plutonium into some simple single stage designs, how could they have been stopped? Imposing sanctions, when they had never been part of the non proliferation treaties?

    The Russia was in no mood or condition to invade anyone at that point.
    Oh to be a fly on the wall at the Russian nuclear weapons station right now.

    What state do we think the weapons might be in, after 33 years of neglect that was signed off as serviceable every week or month?

    I still think that the most likely place for a Russian nuke to go off, is in its own silo.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,473

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The use of nuclear weapons by Russia will make things much worse for Russia.

    It's almost like it's pointless to have them.
    Well, it is if the other side have them.

    Paradoxically, however, if only one side has them it's really urgent the other side get them to make them pointless.

    If only the Yanks had had nuclear weapons in 1949-50, they would surely have used them in Korea and then invaded China.
    If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, Putin wouldn’t have invaded.
    What do you think the chances were of the former USSR allowing a newly minted Ukraine to retain Soviet nuclear weapons and the West going along with it, more or less than 1%?
    The Ukrainians gave up the weapons, mainly because they didn’t have the money to maintain them. There was a technological issue since they were multi stage thermonuclear weapons which require serious technological support.

    If they had decided to rework the plutonium into some simple single stage designs, how could they have been stopped? Imposing sanctions, when they had never been part of the non proliferation treaties?

    The Russia was in no mood or condition to invade anyone at that point.
    Given Ukraine's industrial and scientific contributions to Soviet strategic weapons programmes they had a pretty good claim to a share of them.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    Ashes in a 46 day window.

    TRIGGER WARNING

    JUST IN 🚨
    The packed schedule is to accommodate The Hundred.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,692
    >>> BETTING POST <<<

    I can't believe I couldn't find odds on these Russian referenda in Donetsk and Luhansk.

    The results are on a knife edge as far as I can tell.

    Shadsy et al. - please sort.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,178
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Draft papers landing in St Petersburg. It is possible Putin has misconstrued public support for war as public willingness to die in one. He has form when it comes to projecting certain beliefs onto people from afar. https://twitter.com/ian_matveev/status/1572515527599476739

    Draft papers? you would have thought the bastard could at least have taken the trouble to do a fair copy.
    They might be to put round internal doors to exclude air currents.

    Not been to St p but I am told the entire city shares one central heating system
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054
    Pulpstar said:

    Ashes in a 46 day window.

    TRIGGER WARNING

    JUST IN 🚨
    The packed schedule is to accommodate The Hundred.

    That looks worse than the 2023 F1 schedule!
  • Pulpstar said:

    Ashes in a 46 day window.

    TRIGGER WARNING

    JUST IN 🚨
    The packed schedule is to accommodate The Hundred.

    That's plenty for the new three-day Test match format
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378

    The most likely GE outcomes in order, IMO: minority Labour government; majority Tory government; majority Labour government; minority Tory government.

    There needs to be a very narrow landing patch for the Tories to stay in power without a majority - it involves DUP and Tory numbers being sufficient. I'd say that is less likely than either Labour or the Tories winning an overall majority.

    I'm of the opinion theres a chance also of Tories on, say, 290 to 300 seats being put in/left in on a minority for 6 months of further weakening before bringing it down, rather than try and run a minority with a galaxy of guest stars
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 34,749
    edited September 21

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The use of nuclear weapons by Russia will make things much worse for Russia.

    It's almost like it's pointless to have them.
    Well, it is if the other side have them.

    Paradoxically, however, if only one side has them it's really urgent the other side get them to make them pointless.

    If only the Yanks had had nuclear weapons in 1949-50, they would surely have used them in Korea and then invaded China.
    If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, Putin wouldn’t have invaded.
    What do you think the chances were of the former USSR allowing a newly minted Ukraine to retain Soviet nuclear weapons and the West going along with it, more or less than 1%?
    If the Ukrainians had insisted on keeping their weapons? More.

    Once people have weapons, compelling them to disarm is virtually impossible. Whether the USSR or USA wanted to "allow" it is neither here nor there, any more than it is them "allowing" Pakistan or North Korea to have them.
    You think that the nukes in Ukraine were an independent asset pre 1991 and that it was just a case of handing over the key to the launch site canteens? To use a tedious PBism, it's a view.

    At that point no one really knew wheter Ukraine would be truly independent, pro west or continue as a pro Russia satelite. It suited everyone at the time not to have probably imperfectly maintained nuclear weapons rotting away in a state that could have gone in several unpredictable directions.
  • The most likely GE outcomes in order, IMO: minority Labour government; majority Tory government; majority Labour government; minority Tory government.

    There needs to be a very narrow landing patch for the Tories to stay in power without a majority - it involves DUP and Tory numbers being sufficient. I'd say that is less likely than either Labour or the Tories winning an overall majority.

    I'm of the opinion theres a chance also of Tories on, say, 290 to 300 seats being put in/left in on a minority for 6 months of further weakening before bringing it down, rather than try and run a minority with a galaxy of guest stars
    I would assume that in those circumstances they would refuse to take office and there would be another GE.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,994

    @Richard_Nabavi - John Redwood's Diary has him listing some 'EU red tape' he wants to go. I'd be interested to read whether you think any of these is valid.


    The Business Secretary could abolish the droit du suite and VAT impositions the EU used to divert part of the global art market from London to New York.Maybe they thought it would help Paris but it just made the whole EU less competitive.

    He could lower costs of buying a home by removing anti money laundering checks from any U.K. citizen buying and selling their main home and using a U.K. regulated bank. He could make energy certificates for homes a matter of choice for buyers and sellers.

    He could work with Defra to use farm grants to promote growing more food here and to foster investment in more glasshouses and new farming techniques instead of subsidising wilding policies, and relying on more imports from the EU.

    He could simplify the expensive bureaucracy created by the EU data protection legislation.

    He could repeal the EU Ports Regulation which was widely opposed by our ports when it was introduced. It gets in the way of port investment and expansion.

    He could repeal the railway rules which require the separation of track ownership from train ownership.Integrated ownership of routes by private companies should be an option.

    He with the Treasury should allow more people self employed tax status, removing the penal elements of IR 35.

    He should repeal the on line digital tax.


    https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/09/20/time-to-reverse-eu-damage-to-our-industries-and-economy/

    Wasn't the separation of train operators from track owners a John Major requirement in the first place? (BTW a mistake that was realised by the Stockton and Darlington Railway two centuries ago, and promptly reversed.)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746

    Pulpstar said:

    Ashes in a 46 day window.

    TRIGGER WARNING

    JUST IN 🚨
    The packed schedule is to accommodate The Hundred.

    That's plenty for the new three-day Test match format
    Given the seeming dominance of bowling over batting generally at the moment in test cricket you might be right.
  • ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The use of nuclear weapons by Russia will make things much worse for Russia.

    It's almost like it's pointless to have them.
    Well, it is if the other side have them.

    Paradoxically, however, if only one side has them it's really urgent the other side get them to make them pointless.

    If only the Yanks had had nuclear weapons in 1949-50, they would surely have used them in Korea and then invaded China.
    If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, Putin wouldn’t have invaded.
    What do you think the chances were of the former USSR allowing a newly minted Ukraine to retain Soviet nuclear weapons and the West going along with it, more or less than 1%?
    If the Ukrainians had insisted on keeping their weapons? More.

    Once people have weapons, compelling them to disarm is virtually impossible. Whether the USSR or USA wanted to "allow" it is neither here nor there, any more than it is them "allowing" Pakistan or North Korea to have them.
    You think that the nukes in Ukraine were an independent asset pre 1991 and that it was just a case of handing over the key to the launch site canteens? To use a tedious PBism, it's a view.

    At that point no one really knew wheter Ukraine would be truly independent, pro west or continue as a pro Russia sattelite. It suited everyone at the time not to have probably imperfectly maintained nuclear weapons rotting away in a state that could have gone in several unpredictable directions.
    If Ukraine had insisted upon keeping the assets, then yes short of invading Ukraine what could have been done about it?

    It suited everyone for Ukraine to disarm, which is why guarantees were made which encouraged them to do so. That those guarantees turned to dust should shame everyone involved though.
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 608
    Cicero said:

    Tallinn is hosting a series of security conferences at the moment. All of them end up with the same message: Russia is in serious trouble, and NATO needs to continue support for Ukraine.

    Why is that, especially given that (non-NATO member) Ukraine is attacking right now?
    Cicero said:

    The announcement of "partial" mobilization in Russia was greeted with a shrug. It is a sign of the scale of the problems that Russia faces, and as one analyst said to me "partial mobilization is like partial virginity, it doesn´t mean anything unless you go the whole way".

    Or in short "Our intelligence assessment was wrong, but our d*cks are so much longer than Russian d*cks, any day of the week."

    I could understand a bit of crowing from those whose intelligence assessment had been closer to the mark.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054

    The most likely GE outcomes in order, IMO: minority Labour government; majority Tory government; majority Labour government; minority Tory government.

    There needs to be a very narrow landing patch for the Tories to stay in power without a majority - it involves DUP and Tory numbers being sufficient. I'd say that is less likely than either Labour or the Tories winning an overall majority.

    I'm of the opinion theres a chance also of Tories on, say, 290 to 300 seats being put in/left in on a minority for 6 months of further weakening before bringing it down, rather than try and run a minority with a galaxy of guest stars
    I would assume that in those circumstances they would refuse to take office and there would be another GE.
    The largest party would likely have an opportunity to propose a Budget and see it voted down, in which case a second election is inevitable.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The use of nuclear weapons by Russia will make things much worse for Russia.

    It's almost like it's pointless to have them.
    Well, it is if the other side have them.

    Paradoxically, however, if only one side has them it's really urgent the other side get them to make them pointless.

    If only the Yanks had had nuclear weapons in 1949-50, they would surely have used them in Korea and then invaded China.
    If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, Putin wouldn’t have invaded.
    What do you think the chances were of the former USSR allowing a newly minted Ukraine to retain Soviet nuclear weapons and the West going along with it, more or less than 1%?
    The Ukrainians gave up the weapons, mainly because they didn’t have the money to maintain them. There was a technological issue since they were multi stage thermonuclear weapons which require serious technological support.

    If they had decided to rework the plutonium into some simple single stage designs, how could they have been stopped? Imposing sanctions, when they had never been part of the non proliferation treaties?

    The Russia was in no mood or condition to invade anyone at that point.
    Oh to be a fly on the wall at the Russian nuclear weapons station right now.

    What state do we think the weapons might be in, after 33 years of neglect that was signed off as serviceable every week or month?

    I still think that the most likely place for a Russian nuke to go off, is in its own silo.
    The truck launched and sub launched missiles might be in somewhat better shape. Anything used in Ukraine or much of Russiawards mainland Europe isnt going to be silo launched
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    Peace looks a way off...

    GB News
    @GBNEWS
    ·
    49s
    Meghan Markle and Prince Harry set to return to California without brokering a peace deal with royal family - despite 'efforts on both sides'
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,692
    Carnyx said:

    @Richard_Nabavi - John Redwood's Diary has him listing some 'EU red tape' he wants to go. I'd be interested to read whether you think any of these is valid.


    The Business Secretary could abolish the droit du suite and VAT impositions the EU used to divert part of the global art market from London to New York.Maybe they thought it would help Paris but it just made the whole EU less competitive.

    He could lower costs of buying a home by removing anti money laundering checks from any U.K. citizen buying and selling their main home and using a U.K. regulated bank. He could make energy certificates for homes a matter of choice for buyers and sellers.

    He could work with Defra to use farm grants to promote growing more food here and to foster investment in more glasshouses and new farming techniques instead of subsidising wilding policies, and relying on more imports from the EU.

    He could simplify the expensive bureaucracy created by the EU data protection legislation.

    He could repeal the EU Ports Regulation which was widely opposed by our ports when it was introduced. It gets in the way of port investment and expansion.

    He could repeal the railway rules which require the separation of track ownership from train ownership.Integrated ownership of routes by private companies should be an option.

    He with the Treasury should allow more people self employed tax status, removing the penal elements of IR 35.

    He should repeal the on line digital tax.


    https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/09/20/time-to-reverse-eu-damage-to-our-industries-and-economy/

    Wasn't the separation of train operators from track owners a John Major requirement in the first place? (BTW a mistake that was realised by the Stockton and Darlington Railway two centuries ago, and promptly reversed.)
    #s 1, 2, 4 and 6 are definitely sensible. The IR35 point is valid but I think it was a Gordon Brown thing not an EU thing wasn't it?
  • Carnyx said:

    @Richard_Nabavi - John Redwood's Diary has him listing some 'EU red tape' he wants to go. I'd be interested to read whether you think any of these is valid.


    The Business Secretary could abolish the droit du suite and VAT impositions the EU used to divert part of the global art market from London to New York.Maybe they thought it would help Paris but it just made the whole EU less competitive.

    He could lower costs of buying a home by removing anti money laundering checks from any U.K. citizen buying and selling their main home and using a U.K. regulated bank. He could make energy certificates for homes a matter of choice for buyers and sellers.

    He could work with Defra to use farm grants to promote growing more food here and to foster investment in more glasshouses and new farming techniques instead of subsidising wilding policies, and relying on more imports from the EU.

    He could simplify the expensive bureaucracy created by the EU data protection legislation.

    He could repeal the EU Ports Regulation which was widely opposed by our ports when it was introduced. It gets in the way of port investment and expansion.

    He could repeal the railway rules which require the separation of track ownership from train ownership.Integrated ownership of routes by private companies should be an option.

    He with the Treasury should allow more people self employed tax status, removing the penal elements of IR 35.

    He should repeal the on line digital tax.


    https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/09/20/time-to-reverse-eu-damage-to-our-industries-and-economy/

    Wasn't the separation of train operators from track owners a John Major requirement in the first place? (BTW a mistake that was realised by the Stockton and Darlington Railway two centuries ago, and promptly reversed.)
    Yeah like a lot of EU regulation this one has its origin in the UK. I have to say, if this is the best that Redwood can come up with then it is pretty small beer. I've just bought a property and the AML checks were hardly onerous, basically we had to do a 5 minute zoom call and show them our passport. If getting rid of that amounts to a significant Brexit bonus in Redwood's mind then he is an even bigger prat than I thought. Which is saying something!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,226
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The use of nuclear weapons by Russia will make things much worse for Russia.

    It's almost like it's pointless to have them.
    Well, it is if the other side have them.

    Paradoxically, however, if only one side has them it's really urgent the other side get them to make them pointless.

    If only the Yanks had had nuclear weapons in 1949-50, they would surely have used them in Korea and then invaded China.
    If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, Putin wouldn’t have invaded.
    What do you think the chances were of the former USSR allowing a newly minted Ukraine to retain Soviet nuclear weapons and the West going along with it, more or less than 1%?
    The Ukrainians gave up the weapons, mainly because they didn’t have the money to maintain them. There was a technological issue since they were multi stage thermonuclear weapons which require serious technological support.

    If they had decided to rework the plutonium into some simple single stage designs, how could they have been stopped? Imposing sanctions, when they had never been part of the non proliferation treaties?

    The Russia was in no mood or condition to invade anyone at that point.
    Oh to be a fly on the wall at the Russian nuclear weapons station right now.

    What state do we think the weapons might be in, after 33 years of neglect that was signed off as serviceable every week or month?

    I still think that the most likely place for a Russian nuke to go off, is in its own silo.
    That's an easy thing to say, but AIUI from the mid-1990s Russia prioritised its strategic missile systems (including conventional and nuclear payloads). There is a non-negligible chance that their nuclear systems are in far better shape than their conventional military. Or not.

    But allegedly taking soldiers from the missile systems to fight in the war is a slight indication they might not be.
  • Carnyx said:

    @Richard_Nabavi - John Redwood's Diary has him listing some 'EU red tape' he wants to go. I'd be interested to read whether you think any of these is valid.


    The Business Secretary could abolish the droit du suite and VAT impositions the EU used to divert part of the global art market from London to New York.Maybe they thought it would help Paris but it just made the whole EU less competitive.

    He could lower costs of buying a home by removing anti money laundering checks from any U.K. citizen buying and selling their main home and using a U.K. regulated bank. He could make energy certificates for homes a matter of choice for buyers and sellers.

    He could work with Defra to use farm grants to promote growing more food here and to foster investment in more glasshouses and new farming techniques instead of subsidising wilding policies, and relying on more imports from the EU.

    He could simplify the expensive bureaucracy created by the EU data protection legislation.

    He could repeal the EU Ports Regulation which was widely opposed by our ports when it was introduced. It gets in the way of port investment and expansion.

    He could repeal the railway rules which require the separation of track ownership from train ownership.Integrated ownership of routes by private companies should be an option.

    He with the Treasury should allow more people self employed tax status, removing the penal elements of IR 35.

    He should repeal the on line digital tax.


    https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/09/20/time-to-reverse-eu-damage-to-our-industries-and-economy/

    Wasn't the separation of train operators from track owners a John Major requirement in the first place? (BTW a mistake that was realised by the Stockton and Darlington Railway two centuries ago, and promptly reversed.)
    AIUI Major wanted to recreate the Big 4 companies. GWR PLC would run all trains and manage their infrastructure. Some berk in the Treasury had been on a course about game strategies and insisted instead on both competition and blind bidding for franchises.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,112

    algarkirk said:

    I'm one of the habitual Tory voters whose VI switched to Labour from Patersongate onwards.

    It is simply too early to say what would happen in a GE, and how that group would vote if there were one.

    But the issues that would make the difference from the Tory point of view are: Courage, integrity, respect for parliament and the rule of law, not pandering to extremes, concern both for wealth creation and the needs of those who need help, modesty, competence and honesty.

    And from the SKS point of view: Can he keep the extremes in their box.

    Interesting times. And with so much to possibly go/stay wrong, and almost nothing going right there seem to be no easy wins at all for government.

    I will be watching your evolving views as a potential bellwether. Whither Algarkirk goes the country! 😉
    A truly sub-optimal idea. I voted Tory in 1997. It's generally a better idea in football, racing or politics to avoid anything that is in my head. A more recent example: It seemed to me obvious that the two Tory leadership candidates with no chance were Truss (especially) and Sunak because of their tainted associated with a leadership so corrupt and self interested that even Boris was forced to go under mass resignations and howls of derision.

    How wrong can you be?

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,945
    glw said:

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The use of nuclear weapons by Russia will make things much worse for Russia.

    It's almost like it's pointless to have them.
    Well, it is if the other side have them.

    Paradoxically, however, if only one side has them it's really urgent the other side get them to make them pointless.

    If only the Yanks had had nuclear weapons in 1949-50, they would surely have used them in Korea and then invaded China.
    If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, Putin wouldn’t have invaded.
    What do you think the chances were of the former USSR allowing a newly minted Ukraine to retain Soviet nuclear weapons and the West going along with it, more or less than 1%?
    The Ukrainians gave up the weapons, mainly because they didn’t have the money to maintain them. There was a technological issue since they were multi stage thermonuclear weapons which require serious technological support.

    If they had decided to rework the plutonium into some simple single stage designs, how could they have been stopped? Imposing sanctions, when they had never been part of the non proliferation treaties?

    The Russia was in no mood or condition to invade anyone at that point.
    Given Ukraine's industrial and scientific contributions to Soviet strategic weapons programmes they had a pretty good claim to a share of them.
    IIRC they had some parts of the industrial base for mass production of multi stagers, but not all. And no money to fill the gaps. Which were plants located in Russia or other former Soviet countries.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    Truss' main effect seems to be shoring up the Labour vote while squeezing a bit of the LD vote to her. Hardly that surprising given she was once a LD
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,084
    edited September 21
    Pulpstar said:

    Ashes in a 46 day window.

    TRIGGER WARNING

    JUST IN 🚨
    The packed schedule is to accommodate The Hundred.

    There is only room for a T20 tournament or the Hundred....problem is EBC want to create their own IP that they can sell to venture capitalist / sell the franchises. while obviously the counties want friday night T20.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378

    The most likely GE outcomes in order, IMO: minority Labour government; majority Tory government; majority Labour government; minority Tory government.

    There needs to be a very narrow landing patch for the Tories to stay in power without a majority - it involves DUP and Tory numbers being sufficient. I'd say that is less likely than either Labour or the Tories winning an overall majority.

    I'm of the opinion theres a chance also of Tories on, say, 290 to 300 seats being put in/left in on a minority for 6 months of further weakening before bringing it down, rather than try and run a minority with a galaxy of guest stars
    I would assume that in those circumstances they would refuse to take office and there would be another GE.
    Very possible yes, although do they go for a few months of 'sweetening the pot' and try and undercut a VONC with their own call of a new GE after a giveaway or 10?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054
    edited September 21
    Pulpstar said:

    Peace looks a way off...

    GB News
    @GBNEWS
    ·
    49s
    Meghan Markle and Prince Harry set to return to California without brokering a peace deal with royal family - despite 'efforts on both sides'

    Yet another of the daily briefings from Team Sussex to friendly US media, over the past two weeks, about how badly they’ve been treated in the UK and by the Royal family.

    Didn’t they want privacy? More chance of peace breaking out between Moscow and Kiev.
  • ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The use of nuclear weapons by Russia will make things much worse for Russia.

    It's almost like it's pointless to have them.
    Well, it is if the other side have them.

    Paradoxically, however, if only one side has them it's really urgent the other side get them to make them pointless.

    If only the Yanks had had nuclear weapons in 1949-50, they would surely have used them in Korea and then invaded China.
    If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, Putin wouldn’t have invaded.
    What do you think the chances were of the former USSR allowing a newly minted Ukraine to retain Soviet nuclear weapons and the West going along with it, more or less than 1%?
    If the Ukrainians had insisted on keeping their weapons? More.

    Once people have weapons, compelling them to disarm is virtually impossible. Whether the USSR or USA wanted to "allow" it is neither here nor there, any more than it is them "allowing" Pakistan or North Korea to have them.
    You think that the nukes in Ukraine were an independent asset pre 1991 and that it was just a case of handing over the key to the launch site canteens? To use a tedious PBism, it's a view.

    At that point no one really knew wheter Ukraine would be truly independent, pro west or continue as a pro Russia sattelite. It suited everyone at the time not to have probably imperfectly maintained nuclear weapons rotting away in a state that could have gone in several unpredictable directions.
    If Ukraine had insisted upon keeping the assets, then yes short of invading Ukraine what could have been done about it?

    It suited everyone for Ukraine to disarm, which is why guarantees were made which encouraged them to do so. That those guarantees turned to dust should shame everyone involved though.
    You are hereby promoted to brevet Major Hindsight.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,226
    Carnyx said:

    @Richard_Nabavi - John Redwood's Diary has him listing some 'EU red tape' he wants to go. I'd be interested to read whether you think any of these is valid.


    The Business Secretary could abolish the droit du suite and VAT impositions the EU used to divert part of the global art market from London to New York.Maybe they thought it would help Paris but it just made the whole EU less competitive.

    He could lower costs of buying a home by removing anti money laundering checks from any U.K. citizen buying and selling their main home and using a U.K. regulated bank. He could make energy certificates for homes a matter of choice for buyers and sellers.

    He could work with Defra to use farm grants to promote growing more food here and to foster investment in more glasshouses and new farming techniques instead of subsidising wilding policies, and relying on more imports from the EU.

    He could simplify the expensive bureaucracy created by the EU data protection legislation.

    He could repeal the EU Ports Regulation which was widely opposed by our ports when it was introduced. It gets in the way of port investment and expansion.

    He could repeal the railway rules which require the separation of track ownership from train ownership.Integrated ownership of routes by private companies should be an option.

    He with the Treasury should allow more people self employed tax status, removing the penal elements of IR 35.

    He should repeal the on line digital tax.


    https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/09/20/time-to-reverse-eu-damage-to-our-industries-and-economy/

    Wasn't the separation of train operators from track owners a John Major requirement in the first place? (BTW a mistake that was realised by the Stockton and Darlington Railway two centuries ago, and promptly reversed.)
    It was an EU requirement, to allow more competition with services and more cross-border services. There was nothing saying that both infrastructure and operators could not be state-owned, though.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,945

    Dynamo said:

    Cicero said:

    Tallinn is hosting a series of security conferences at the moment. All of them end up with the same message: Russia is in serious trouble, and NATO needs to continue support for Ukraine.

    Why is that, especially given that (non-NATO member) Ukraine is attacking right now?
    Cicero said:

    The announcement of "partial" mobilization in Russia was greeted with a shrug. It is a sign of the scale of the problems that Russia faces, and as one analyst said to me "partial mobilization is like partial virginity, it doesn´t mean anything unless you go the whole way".

    Or in short "Our intelligence assessment was wrong, but our d*cks are so much longer than Russian d*cks, any day of the week."

    I could understand a bit of crowing from those whose intelligence assessment had been closer to the mark.

    And to think CHB questioned why you were being called a Russian troll.

    Who exactly is Ukraine attacking right now?
    The peaceful de-nazification teams inside Greater Russia?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,746
    edited September 21
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Peace looks a way off...

    GB News
    @GBNEWS
    ·
    49s
    Meghan Markle and Prince Harry set to return to California without brokering a peace deal with royal family - despite 'efforts on both sides'

    Yet another of the daily briefings from Team Sussex to friendly US media, over the past two weeks, about how badly they’ve been treated in the UK and by the Royal family.

    Didn’t they want privacy?
    Eh ? The whole thing I find a bemusing sideshow of tittle tattle but GB News definitely isn't pro woke/Harry/Meghan.
  • algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    I'm one of the habitual Tory voters whose VI switched to Labour from Patersongate onwards.

    It is simply too early to say what would happen in a GE, and how that group would vote if there were one.

    But the issues that would make the difference from the Tory point of view are: Courage, integrity, respect for parliament and the rule of law, not pandering to extremes, concern both for wealth creation and the needs of those who need help, modesty, competence and honesty.

    And from the SKS point of view: Can he keep the extremes in their box.

    Interesting times. And with so much to possibly go/stay wrong, and almost nothing going right there seem to be no easy wins at all for government.

    I will be watching your evolving views as a potential bellwether. Whither Algarkirk goes the country! 😉
    A truly sub-optimal idea. I voted Tory in 1997. It's generally a better idea in football, racing or politics to avoid anything that is in my head. A more recent example: It seemed to me obvious that the two Tory leadership candidates with no chance were Truss (especially) and Sunak because of their tainted associated with a leadership so corrupt and self interested that even Boris was forced to go under mass resignations and howls of derision.

    How wrong can you be?

    If you voted Tory in 1997 but are currently a floating voter narrowly favouring Labour then Labour must be heading for a landslide! Especially if we control for the inevitable rightwards drift with age.
    (heads down to the bookies...).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Peace looks a way off...

    GB News
    @GBNEWS
    ·
    49s
    Meghan Markle and Prince Harry set to return to California without brokering a peace deal with royal family - despite 'efforts on both sides'

    Yet another of the daily briefings from Team Sussex to friendly US media, over the past two weeks, about how badly they’ve been treated in the UK and by the Royal family.

    Didn’t they want privacy?
    Eh ? The whole thing I find a bemusing sideshow of tittle tattle but GB News definitely isn't pro woke/Harry/Meghan.
    It’s not coming from GB News, it’s coming from an Amercian TV talk show presenter called Gayle King.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11233957/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-set-return-California-without-peace-deal-struck.html
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 1,364
    Dynamo said:

    Cicero said:

    Tallinn is hosting a series of security conferences at the moment. All of them end up with the same message: Russia is in serious trouble, and NATO needs to continue support for Ukraine.

    Why is that, especially given that (non-NATO member) Ukraine is attacking right now?
    Cicero said:

    The announcement of "partial" mobilization in Russia was greeted with a shrug. It is a sign of the scale of the problems that Russia faces, and as one analyst said to me "partial mobilization is like partial virginity, it doesn´t mean anything unless you go the whole way".

    Or in short "Our intelligence assessment was wrong, but our d*cks are so much longer than Russian d*cks, any day of the week."

    I could understand a bit of crowing from those whose intelligence assessment had been closer to the mark.

    More trolling. Do go away or I´ll set the NAFO dogs on you.
  • @Richard_Nabavi - John Redwood's Diary has him listing some 'EU red tape' he wants to go. I'd be interested to read whether you think any of these is valid.


    The Business Secretary could abolish the droit du suite and VAT impositions the EU used to divert part of the global art market from London to New York.Maybe they thought it would help Paris but it just made the whole EU less competitive.

    He could lower costs of buying a home by removing anti money laundering checks from any U.K. citizen buying and selling their main home and using a U.K. regulated bank. He could make energy certificates for homes a matter of choice for buyers and sellers.

    He could work with Defra to use farm grants to promote growing more food here and to foster investment in more glasshouses and new farming techniques instead of subsidising wilding policies, and relying on more imports from the EU.

    He could simplify the expensive bureaucracy created by the EU data protection legislation.

    He could repeal the EU Ports Regulation which was widely opposed by our ports when it was introduced. It gets in the way of port investment and expansion.

    He could repeal the railway rules which require the separation of track ownership from train ownership.Integrated ownership of routes by private companies should be an option.

    He with the Treasury should allow more people self employed tax status, removing the penal elements of IR 35.

    He should repeal the on line digital tax.


    https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/09/20/time-to-reverse-eu-damage-to-our-industries-and-economy/

    Most of those I absolutely support. Though some would need to be in combination with other revisions. IR35 is a bloody nightmare for contractors but the best way to get rid of it is simply to merge tax and NI which removes the need for it.

    The one I think I really disagree with is repealing the on line digital tax.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,994

    Carnyx said:

    @Richard_Nabavi - John Redwood's Diary has him listing some 'EU red tape' he wants to go. I'd be interested to read whether you think any of these is valid.


    The Business Secretary could abolish the droit du suite and VAT impositions the EU used to divert part of the global art market from London to New York.Maybe they thought it would help Paris but it just made the whole EU less competitive.

    He could lower costs of buying a home by removing anti money laundering checks from any U.K. citizen buying and selling their main home and using a U.K. regulated bank. He could make energy certificates for homes a matter of choice for buyers and sellers.

    He could work with Defra to use farm grants to promote growing more food here and to foster investment in more glasshouses and new farming techniques instead of subsidising wilding policies, and relying on more imports from the EU.

    He could simplify the expensive bureaucracy created by the EU data protection legislation.

    He could repeal the EU Ports Regulation which was widely opposed by our ports when it was introduced. It gets in the way of port investment and expansion.

    He could repeal the railway rules which require the separation of track ownership from train ownership.Integrated ownership of routes by private companies should be an option.

    He with the Treasury should allow more people self employed tax status, removing the penal elements of IR 35.

    He should repeal the on line digital tax.


    https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/09/20/time-to-reverse-eu-damage-to-our-industries-and-economy/

    Wasn't the separation of train operators from track owners a John Major requirement in the first place? (BTW a mistake that was realised by the Stockton and Darlington Railway two centuries ago, and promptly reversed.)
    AIUI Major wanted to recreate the Big 4 companies. GWR PLC would run all trains and manage their infrastructure. Some berk in the Treasury had been on a course about game strategies and insisted instead on both competition and blind bidding for franchises.
    Thanks, your memory is better than mine! There would still be some running of trains on other companies' tracks, though, much more so than pre-1947, because the duplicate lines were so heavily pruned in the Beeching era as well as before and after. (For instance, you could go from Plymouth to London on the GWR or Southern Railway - until they closed much of the route roud the north of Dartmoor.)

    So it's not an ideal that can be carried out 100% unless you don't bother with through trains, and make everyone get out and change where companies meet.

    What also sticks out like a sore thumb is that it's a very London-centric concept - someone who only thinks in tersm of travel to/from London, which was usually on a single company's track. .
  • HYUFD said:

    Truss' main effect seems to be shoring up the Labour vote while squeezing a bit of the LD vote to her. Hardly that surprising given she was once a LD

    No, it's unsurprising because she doesn't have all the personal shortcomings of Boris Johnson.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 14,717
    Dynamo said:

    Cicero said:

    Tallinn is hosting a series of security conferences at the moment. All of them end up with the same message: Russia is in serious trouble, and NATO needs to continue support for Ukraine.

    Why is that, especially given that (non-NATO member) Ukraine is attacking right now?
    Cicero said:

    The announcement of "partial" mobilization in Russia was greeted with a shrug. It is a sign of the scale of the problems that Russia faces, and as one analyst said to me "partial mobilization is like partial virginity, it doesn´t mean anything unless you go the whole way".

    Or in short "Our intelligence assessment was wrong, but our d*cks are so much longer than Russian d*cks, any day of the week."

    I could understand a bit of crowing from those whose intelligence assessment had been closer to the mark.

    I think that recovering part of your country that has been occupied by an invader, who has slaughtered thousands, is called defending.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 6,509
    Dynamo said:

    Cicero said:

    Tallinn is hosting a series of security conferences at the moment. All of them end up with the same message: Russia is in serious trouble, and NATO needs to continue support for Ukraine.

    Cicero said:

    The announcement of "partial" mobilization in Russia was greeted with a shrug. It is a sign of the scale of the problems that Russia faces, and as one analyst said to me "partial mobilization is like partial virginity, it doesn´t mean anything unless you go the whole way".

    Or in short "Our intelligence assessment was wrong, but our d*cks are so much longer than Russian d*cks, any day of the week."

    Getting intelligence assessments right isn't easy. As for the second point, in your own crude way you are quite correct. Compared to Nato Russia is a military pygmy.
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 608

    Sandpit said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Electoral calculus currently gives 70% chance lab majority

    You can get 3/1

    If you expect Liz to be a cluster fuck, this is value

    Blair won 145 seats in 1997. A Lab majority next time out requires a win of 124 seats, plus about half a dozen more for boundary change affects.

    Do we think Starmer is 90% of Blair?
    No, and a Labour majority feels like a big ask. But, and its a big but, the tide is going out on the government and leaving them beached on a sandbank.

    On one side the red wall has woken up to the reality that they have been scammed. With levelling up to be dead on Friday and the various promised Brexit unicorns not arriving, polling and byelection results already show a wholesale reversion back to Labour in so many Tory 2019 seats.

    On the other side the more southern and more rural seats who traditionally vote Tory wonder whatever happened to the Tory Party. A resurgence of LibDems winning here across swathes of the south and shires looks to be a reasonable proposition.

    So whilst I agree that a Starmer majority would be a stretch, I do think it will take a radical shift to keep Truss in Downing Street.
    If you put in anything like current polling into a seat calculator then you get a small Labour majority or as near as as the central case. That's with the new boundaries and without allowing for anti Tory tactical voting. So to argue that a Labour majority is far fetched amounts to saying that current polling is midterm blues and the gap will close or go the other way by the election. That is certainly one plausible story, but another story is that the economic picture is going to get much worse before it gets better, and so Labour's lead could increase further at some point before any swing back starts to happen. I think a Labour majority is underpriced. I would put it as something like 40/40/20 for Lab/NOM/Con and 70/30 as Lab leader is PM.
    Like I said, the tide has beached the Tories. Anything is possible in politics (especially the things supposedly impossible...!) so a Labour majority absolutely is in scope. A Tory majority much less so but there is a way back for them in theory.

    For me the Trussteam have two major issues:
    1 Disconnection from reality. The latest cabinet team seem even less clued up than their predecessors which is impressive. You can't defy reality for long before it demolishes whatever baseless rhetoric you are peddling
    2 That belittling sneer so many of them speak with. An absolute dripping disdain for anyone who isn't them. Even if they find themselves lucky with a couple of policies which manage to resonate, the sneering will remove whatever political points they should get.
    It's interesting isn't it, and something I have noticed before. The posh Tories seem to really look down their noses at everyone, but the non-posh Tories seem to do it even more!
    The latter's contempt is more bitter because they are closer to what they despise - and also they sense that they themselves are like sh*t on the shoes of the castes above them.

    See my contribution on related stuff, @OnlyLivingBoy:

    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4120748/#Comment_4120748

    Foxy retorts that Britain isn't like that and he thinks I must be in a Russky cyber-tent somewhere.

    There are some conflicts in which the adversary has contempt for the ground you walk on, but when you realise that fact and you talk about it in public their hatred for you goes through the roof. A lot could be said about that. Suffice to say it's always good to know the adversary better than he knows you.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    Pulpstar said:

    Peace looks a way off...

    GB News
    @GBNEWS
    ·
    49s
    Meghan Markle and Prince Harry set to return to California without brokering a peace deal with royal family - despite 'efforts on both sides'

    Until they stick to the terms of being non working royals and stop leaking gossip and rumour to the media there won't be
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,178
    HYUFD said:

    Truss' main effect seems to be shoring up the Labour vote while squeezing a bit of the LD vote to her. Hardly that surprising given she was once a LD

    LD mindset is not an open book to me but I wouldn't have thought that sort of biographical consideration weighed much with them.
Sign In or Register to comment.