Labour 52% (+6) Conservative 24% (-5) Liberal Democrat 10% (-3) Green 5% (+1) SNP 5% (+2) Reform UK 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 28-29 Sept
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
Whoops
Lead below 30 points.
Conference bounce for Truss?
Why are Lib Dems taking a hammering - they didn’t aid and abet the bad budget! 😠
Libdems the only challengers throughout Blue wall so why don’t they share the Tory slump? Something whiffs about these polls to me, I think they are Mickey Mouse polls, I don’t trust them as being remotely permanent.
There has been ephemeral polling glitches before, Hague wiped out Blair’s lead during Labour conference week one year, voter frustration with not liking being unable to put petrol in car. It was all short lived, polls went straight back to normal a few weeks later.
Without that foundation in fact Lib Dems should not be dropping by a quarter, they should be going up with blue wall voters switching from Tory to them, I refuse to believe these polls are for keeps, I choose to believe it will be back to a Lab lead about 10 in a few weeks and Lib Dems back to 12+. You can’t believe something is for real when its not founded in fact. Do you see what I mean.
Suppose LibDems had a 20% share in every seat. They would get zero seats with a 20% share. Look at the Greens. 5% share, 1 seat.
Suppose LibDems had a 50% share in 50 seats and a 2% share in the other 600 seats. They would get 50 seat with an overall share of just 6%. Look at the SNP. 5% share, 51 seats.
As voters get wiser to tactical voting and Labour becomes more LibDem friendly, I think that LibDem supporters in Labour seats are declaring that they will vote Labour at a General Election, and in Tory/LibDem marginals, Labour supporters are declaring for the LibDems to get the Tories out.
That is why, as a LibDem, I'm pleased to see the national LibDem share remain around 10%. I know it is a LOT higher in Tory/LibDem marginals. So it must be a LOT lower in the many Tory/Labour marginals - which is good news for anti-Tory voters, who are the large majority.
I don’t really want to argue with this thought out piece of Barnesian thinking, but I don’t believe it as much as I want to.
Lib Dems jump from third to win with 30% swings because the people there just can’t make the leap to Labour, so why would they tell pollsters something different right now?
I have my own theory. I think the polls are wrong now for the same reason polls are always wrong, underestimating Trump and Bolsonaro for two recent examples - the pollsters are now struggling for balanced and honest samples, Truss and Tories have a lot more support than shown waiting in the polling station, it’s just hiding off grid now or lying to pollsters out of sense of embarrassment.
One poll today greens up 1 to 5 Lib Dem down 3 to 10? That tells you there’s inherent vice in the poll. I would believe your theory over mine if less of the Tory plunge broke for Labour and more of it to Lib Dem.
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
Another troll. Go away
He's not a troll for pointing out that quite a few of us are wondering if we want to die over the sovereignty of Luhansk
You're a fucking appeaser.
You might as well moan about a "quarrel in a far away country, between people of whom we know nothing."
I know plenty of super eligible, for some unknown reason still single women in their 40s/50s. They go on tons of online apps to try to find dates and here are some observations they have made:
1. People lie. 2. It's always worth having a (daytime, very public) coffee with someone. 3. There are plenty of women per single men at that age and the men somehow manage to remind the women of that. 4. It is surprising perhaps (I have scrolled with them - not a euphemism) at how few actual "right" men there are when you dissect each one and apply what seemed to me to be reasonable criteria.
The whole dating paradigm has ISTM changed with the internet. As someone sensibly put it:
Before: before you went on a date with someone you knew there was a spark and you then worked out if you had common interests. Now: before you go on a date with someone you know all there is to know about common interests but you don't know whether there is a spark.
Super eligible in your 40s and 50s?
I've mostly posted about how selective women are (and they are a lot more selective than men), but the one thing the data absolutely demonstrates on male fussiness is that men prefer women under 40 (and, tbh, usually under 30), no matter how old they are. Let me repeat that. No matter how old they are.
While there are a myriad of reasons why women reject men - height, looks, status, employment, colour of his hair, whether or not he talks with an accent, god knows... men are almost universally alike in thinking younger = better, presumably for the evolutionary reason of fertility. Bluntly, men are programmed, at a genetic level, to find fertility attractive.
The problem with that is that the older men, generally, will not want kids. Despite them being genetically attracted to the most fertile (i.e. young) women. Particularly if it is not their first time! The younger women, generally, will want kids. As mentioned by @Leon earlier.
Perhaps you are right. Although I am very nearly 40 and would very much like kids. So it would almost certainly have to be with someone several years younger than me at this point, unless IVF etc. So next year you will be able to count me in the ranks of the middle aged men looking for a twenty something wife - simply because of biology.
I brought up the data simply because I feel like I've been laying the data on women a bit this evening and wanted to even the score with regards to how picky (and unrealistic) men are being.
When Topping says he knows loads of eligible women in their 40s and 50s, who are dating men but getting dumped/ghosted, I think it's quite probable that the men are behaving in this way because they have their eye on a younger model. And that's for biological reasons, backed up by the data.
Fwiw, the only women I have ever really loved (all two of them!) are 40 or older now, and I would marry either of them in a heartbeat if they would have me back. However I'm also aware that if I want to have kids, which I probably do, neither of them are an option any more.
Men do have the advantage of time but not recommended to wait, although you are clearly not doing it deliberately. My first child was born when I was 31 and the third when I was 40. I wish I had started 5 years earlier! I certainly feel exhausted from it all now aged 45.
Not that I know much about dating anymore but I would think best to use the trump cards that come to you at age 40. Maturity and stability. Lots of women are looking for that!
And money. A brutal truth. Women really like a man with money
Charm, most of all - an old-fashioned word, but the best. Beautiful (inside and/or outside) women like men who are charming. Very few men are charming, sadly - they lack charm and are ignorant of what women want. But you know this.
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
Another troll. Go away
He's not a troll for pointing out that quite a few of us are wondering if we want to die over the sovereignty of Luhansk
You're a fucking appeaser.
You might as well moan about a "quarrel in a far away country, between people of whom we know nothing."
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
But there might be a middle way between "giving in to Putin" and "everyone has their eyes melted"
THAT is what I am exploring. A compromise which leaves Putin sobered but alive, and gives Ukraine much of what it wants, but not all (that is impossible)
If we demand the complete defeat of Russia and the violent end of Putin then we are pretty much guaranteeing nuclear holocaust (unless the Russian army mutinies). Putin will definitely go nuke if needs be, as will his regime
Events on the ground are running way ahead of the appeasement brigade.
Crimea is Ukraine. We can get a ceasefire when Russia is out of Ukraine.”
++++
This is the maximalist madness that will lead us to nuclear war. Crimea really is a “debatable land”. It is historically different to Lviv or Kyiv. It is much more Russian and Tatar
It was only cut away from mother Russia in the 1950s by Khrushchev
Let Russia keep Crimea (perhaps after another vote). Totally humiliating Russia means nuclear Holocaust for us all
No, maximalist madness is to say we need to march on Moscow.
Crimea voted democratically to be a part of a free and independent Ukraine. There may have been a debate once upon a time, but the debate ended the second Russia chose to solve the debate by invasion instead of democracy. They need to be repelled.
Nuclear weapons are not to prevent humiliation, they're to prevent your own nation being invaded and defeated. Russia chose this invasion, they deserve this humiliation and we need to be prepared to do whatever it takes to ensure this total humiliation proceeds in full, until Russia is prepared to seek readmittance to the human race.
Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien · 3h It’s fascinating that it seems to be mostly those who were saying in February that Russia was so strong that Ukraine should be sacrificed that are now saying that Ukraine can’t be made too strong to save poor Putin from humiliation
I know plenty of super eligible, for some unknown reason still single women in their 40s/50s. They go on tons of online apps to try to find dates and here are some observations they have made:
1. People lie. 2. It's always worth having a (daytime, very public) coffee with someone. 3. There are plenty of women per single men at that age and the men somehow manage to remind the women of that. 4. It is surprising perhaps (I have scrolled with them - not a euphemism) at how few actual "right" men there are when you dissect each one and apply what seemed to me to be reasonable criteria.
The whole dating paradigm has ISTM changed with the internet. As someone sensibly put it:
Before: before you went on a date with someone you knew there was a spark and you then worked out if you had common interests. Now: before you go on a date with someone you know all there is to know about common interests but you don't know whether there is a spark.
Super eligible in your 40s and 50s?
I've mostly posted about how selective women are (and they are a lot more selective than men), but the one thing the data absolutely demonstrates on male fussiness is that men prefer women under 40 (and, tbh, usually under 30), no matter how old they are. Let me repeat that. No matter how old they are.
While there are a myriad of reasons why women reject men - height, looks, status, employment, colour of his hair, whether or not he talks with an accent, god knows... men are almost universally alike in thinking younger = better, presumably for the evolutionary reason of fertility. Bluntly, men are programmed, at a genetic level, to find fertility attractive.
The problem with that is that the older men, generally, will not want kids. Despite them being genetically attracted to the most fertile (i.e. young) women. Particularly if it is not their first time! The younger women, generally, will want kids. As mentioned by @Leon earlier.
Perhaps you are right. Although I am very nearly 40 and would very much like kids. So it would almost certainly have to be with someone several years younger than me at this point, unless IVF etc. So next year you will be able to count me in the ranks of the middle aged men looking for a twenty something wife - simply because of biology.
I brought up the data simply because I feel like I've been laying the data on women a bit this evening and wanted to even the score with regards to how picky (and unrealistic) men are being.
When Topping says he knows loads of eligible women in their 40s and 50s, who are dating men but getting dumped/ghosted, I think it's quite probable that the men are behaving in this way because they have their eye on a younger model. And that's for biological reasons, backed up by the data.
Fwiw, the only women I have ever really loved (all two of them!) are 40 or older now, and I would marry either of them in a heartbeat if they would have me back. However I'm also aware that if I want to have kids, which I probably do, neither of them are an option any more.
Men do have the advantage of time but not recommended to wait, although you are clearly not doing it deliberately. My first child was born when I was 31 and the third when I was 40. I wish I had started 5 years earlier! I certainly feel exhausted from it all now aged 45.
Not that I know much about dating anymore but I would think best to use the trump cards that come to you at age 40. Maturity and stability. Lots of women are looking for that!
And money. A brutal truth. Women really like a man with money
Charm, most of all - an old-fashioned word, but the best. Beautiful (inside and/or outside) women like men who are charming. Very few men are charming, sadly - they lack charm and are ignorant of what women want. But you know this.
Yes. I can be exceptionally charming. It works. Also money, tho
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
Another troll. Go away
He's not a troll for pointing out that quite a few of us are wondering if we want to die over the sovereignty of Luhansk
PyotyrM absolutely is a troll, and you're rather descending into one too. On the classic meaning of the term, I think you're trolling us for a reaction as you feed off drama.
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
Dominic Cummings is warning that the issue of 'the threat of nuclear armaggedon' has been neglected. And it seems like he is absolutely correct. It is the worst nuclear crisis in modern history and isn't seriously blipping on the radar. It is conference season and people are arguing about a now abandoned 5p tax rise.
It reminds me of the threat of avalaunches. It goes away for decades and then people start building houses in the avalaunch zone. They put up shutters on the windows in the belief that it will mitigate the risk. But the avalaunches always eventually return, taking the newly built buildings with them.
He is completely right, as he often is
I'm not sure why so many people are dismissing the possibility, and/or refusing to talk about it
My conclusion is that, for some, it is simply too horrifying to address. They'd rather think of something - ANYTHING - else
But that will not do. The wolf is at the door
Grow up. For those Europeans where the wolf has been at the door for 20 years, this is truly pathetic. Russia is finished. Its over. Even if they fired the 300 or so weapons they have left, NATO would probably be able to kill them in flight. The fact that they would fires is why we should stand firm. Cowardice gains nothing.
Exploring ways of avoiding nuclear war is not "cowardice". What is this juvenile nonsense? This armchair warrior abuse?
You decided to go and live in the Baltics, right next to Putin; that was your call. From London the balance of risks seems different
You are a notorious bed-wetter though. I think you'll find most of your fellow Londoners and Britons acknowledge we are living through dangerous times but support the government's line on Ukraine (if on not much else).
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
Another troll. Go away
He's not a troll for pointing out that quite a few of us are wondering if we want to die over the sovereignty of Luhansk
You're a fucking appeaser.
You might as well moan about a "quarrel in a far away country, between people of whom we know nothing."
"fucking appeaser"
It's ludicrous hysteria. Ironically
It is true, you are a fucking appeaser..
If you knew anything you'd know appeasement never works.
Before you know it Putin's expansionism will have reached Western Europe.
Read that New Yorker article, we need to find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
One of those ways might be to assassinate Putin, but there are other ways, that may well be along the lines suggested by Musk.
I happen to think Musk’s intervention very poorly timed. It is really up to the Ukrainians right now, and they don’t need that twit weighing in, but it may indeed come to it that we need to find something Putin can sign up to.
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
Another troll. Go away
He's not a troll for pointing out that quite a few of us are wondering if we want to die over the sovereignty of Luhansk
"You're not thinking right. Putin will not use a tactical nuke to win a battle, he will drop one to sow total chaos in western economies and polities (which are already close to bank runs, etc), and he will do it to freak us out. It might well work."
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
Another troll. Go away
He's not a troll for pointing out that quite a few of us are wondering if we want to die over the sovereignty of Luhansk
PyotrM won’t die over the sovereignty of Luhansk. Working in a St Petersburg troll farm gets you an exemption from being conscripted.
That 30 pointer not looking like an outlier anymore.
Three and Voda merge would be a powerhouse. They already merged in Australia
Well you’d better enjoy the polling, we don’t know for how long you’ll see it, or even in elections get it. We’ve had poll peak for Starmer, even before his years in power begin. Sure there is some switching Tory to Labour going on, but on this scale and without Lib Dems benefitting - my take it’s not all switching but Tory vote still out there driven off grid right now - the embarrassment of admitting publicly support for Truss and Kwarteng driving honesty into private of polling booth in much same way Trump and Bolsonaro defy their opinion polls.
I would say though, that “bit of turbulence” gag Kwarteng slipped into his speech today and got a belly laugh in the hall - it wasn’t meant to be a joke in my opinion.
Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien · 3h It’s fascinating that it seems to be mostly those who were saying in February that Russia was so strong that Ukraine should be sacrificed that are now saying that Ukraine can’t be made too strong to save poor Putin from humiliation
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
Another troll. Go away
He's not a troll for pointing out that quite a few of us are wondering if we want to die over the sovereignty of Luhansk
PyotyrM absolutely is a troll, and you're rather descending into one too. On the classic meaning of the term, I think you're trolling us for a reaction as you feed off drama.
If @PeterM is a troll he's not particularly good or persistent. Calm the fuck down
Hey @TheScreamingEagles did you see the Vodafone/Three news, I know this is something you'd be interested in mate.
I've been calling it for years, it was rumoured when I was at Big Red all those years ago, the new CEO is an absolute travesty though
I did, I posted about it here earlier on.
On a technical level it could work brilliantly, however Three and Vodafone have the worst customer service out of the MNOs.
I don't care about customer service, I never call the network. Even O2 has fallen down and used to be excellent.
They'd certainly have good odds of being the best indoor coverage network and would I assume, have the most masts and hence in theory the most coverage. Vodafone would get access to a lot of the good sites EE/Three have shared.
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
Another troll. Go away
He's not a troll for pointing out that quite a few of us are wondering if we want to die over the sovereignty of Luhansk
You're a fucking appeaser.
You might as well moan about a "quarrel in a far away country, between people of whom we know nothing."
"fucking appeaser"
It's ludicrous hysteria. Ironically
It is true.
If you knew anything you know appeasement never works.
Before you know it Putin's expansionism will have reached Western Europe.
It's absolutely crazy. It's so obviously manifest that anyone that can use nuclear threats to successfully take more territory will do it again. And that a line has to be drawn somewhere. Why on Earth draw that line later when the nuclear aggressor has more territory, prestige and power?
Sometimes it just seems like a desire to commit Ukrainians to a reign of terror in the occupied territories.
Read that New Yorker article, we need to find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
One of those ways might be to assassinate Putin, but there are other ways, that may well be along the lines suggested by Musk.
I happen to think Musk’s intervention very poorly timed. It is really up to the Ukrainians right now, and they don’t need that twit weighing in, but it may indeed come to it that we need to find something Putin can sign up to.
Find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
OK, Russia departs Ukraine, apologises for the invasion, pays reparations, admits they were wrong to invade and begs for forgiveness.
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
Another troll. Go away
He's not a troll for pointing out that quite a few of us are wondering if we want to die over the sovereignty of Luhansk
You're a fucking appeaser.
You might as well moan about a "quarrel in a far away country, between people of whom we know nothing."
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
Another troll. Go away
He's not a troll for pointing out that quite a few of us are wondering if we want to die over the sovereignty of Luhansk
You're a fucking appeaser.
You might as well moan about a "quarrel in a far away country, between people of whom we know nothing."
"fucking appeaser"
It's ludicrous hysteria. Ironically
It is true.
If you knew anything you know appeasement never works.
Before you know it Putin's expansionism will have reached Western Europe.
Quite right.
It is Putin who started an unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine. Putin who now illegally annexes Ukrainian territory. Putin who has everything to gain from a negotiated peace where he is permitted to keep some of his ill gotten gains.
That way is Munich for the 21st Century. That way is signalling that we will not hold the line if nations try to illegally invade and annexe their neighbours. If we set that principle, we are opening ourselves up to the inevitability of a future world war.
Read that New Yorker article, we need to find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
One of those ways might be to assassinate Putin, but there are other ways, that may well be along the lines suggested by Musk.
I happen to think Musk’s intervention very poorly timed. It is really up to the Ukrainians right now, and they don’t need that twit weighing in, but it may indeed come to it that we need to find something Putin can sign up to.
Find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
OK, Russia departs Ukraine, apologises for the invasion, pays reparations, admits they were wrong to invade and begs for forgiveness.
Read that New Yorker article, we need to find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
One of those ways might be to assassinate Putin, but there are other ways, that may well be along the lines suggested by Musk.
I happen to think Musk’s intervention very poorly timed. It is really up to the Ukrainians right now, and they don’t need that twit weighing in, but it may indeed come to it that we need to find something Putin can sign up to.
Find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
OK, Russia departs Ukraine, apologises for the invasion, pays reparations, admits they were wrong to invade and begs for forgiveness.
That'd be a start.
And if they want Crimea, it’s available for $x00bn once Russia has paid the $y00bn of reconstruction costs Ukraine needs
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
Another troll. Go away
He's not a troll for pointing out that quite a few of us are wondering if we want to die over the sovereignty of Luhansk
Where would you draw the line? Where is your "this far and no further"?
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
Another troll. Go away
He's not a troll for pointing out that quite a few of us are wondering if we want to die over the sovereignty of Luhansk
"You're not thinking right. Putin will not use a tactical nuke to win a battle, he will drop one to sow total chaos in western economies and polities (which are already close to bank runs, etc), and he will do it to freak us out. It might well work."
Only if we all react like you.
So we all have to sign up to the maximalist doctrine of the hardboiled PB warlord wankers. Give me a break
I have a question for our war mongerers. What do we do if Putin drops that tactical nuke?
It is airily suggested that we should reply with a brutal but conventional assault, wiping out the Black Sea Fleet, maybe trying to assassinate Putin. I can see the logic, but then I also hesitate
How do you think Putin will react to that? He will escalate further as he has no choice. He will launch his ICBMs, and we are in Act 2 of Threads, and then we are all dead. Well done
Hey @TheScreamingEagles did you see the Vodafone/Three news, I know this is something you'd be interested in mate.
I've been calling it for years, it was rumoured when I was at Big Red all those years ago, the new CEO is an absolute travesty though
I did, I posted about it here earlier on.
On a technical level it could work brilliantly, however Three and Vodafone have the worst customer service out of the MNOs.
I don't care about customer service, I never call the network. Even O2 has fallen down and used to be excellent.
They'd certainly have good odds of being the best indoor coverage network and would I assume, have the most masts and hence in theory the most coverage. Vodafone would get access to a lot of the good sites EE/Three have shared.
I hope you are keeping well matey.
I expect they'd have to sell some spectrum.
One of the strategies I've seen touted is that they may run two brands.
Keep Vodafone as the premium brand and a second brand as the no frills brand with less premium stuff.
Read that New Yorker article, we need to find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
One of those ways might be to assassinate Putin, but there are other ways, that may well be along the lines suggested by Musk.
I happen to think Musk’s intervention very poorly timed. It is really up to the Ukrainians right now, and they don’t need that twit weighing in, but it may indeed come to it that we need to find something Putin can sign up to.
Find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
OK, Russia departs Ukraine, apologises for the invasion, pays reparations, admits they were wrong to invade and begs for forgiveness.
That'd be a start.
Er ok. This is mere virtue signalling, frankly.
Not really, that's how vanquished aggressors are typically treated.
You have a better alternative?
If Putin wants to make peace he has a simple way to do it, depart every inch of Ukraine. Including Crimea and any other territory he has falsely and illegally annexed. Do that, and we have peace.
Those who propose Ukraine to give up on its people and land — presumably not to hurt Putin’s bruised ego or to save Ukraine from suffering — must stop using word “peace” as an euphemism to “let Russians murder and rape thousands more innocent Ukrainians, and grab more land”. https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1577011584656109568
There might come a point when we will have to stop our ears to the Cries of Ukraine. Horrible but true
Had Musk said that, he would at least have been honest, even if wrong.
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
Another troll. Go away
He's not a troll for pointing out that quite a few of us are wondering if we want to die over the sovereignty of Luhansk
"You're not thinking right. Putin will not use a tactical nuke to win a battle, he will drop one to sow total chaos in western economies and polities (which are already close to bank runs, etc), and he will do it to freak us out. It might well work."
Only if we all react like you.
So we all have to sign up to the maximalist doctrine of the hardboiled PB warlord wankers. Give me a break
I have a question for our war mongerers. What do we do if Putin drops that tactical nuke?
It is airily suggested that we should reply with a brutal but conventional assault, wiping out the Black Sea Fleet, maybe trying to assassinate Putin. I can see the logic, but then I also hesitate
How do you think Putin will react to that? He will escalate further as he has no choice. He will launch his ICBMs, and we are in Act 2 of Threads, and then we are all dead. Well done
That's a chance we have to take. We all die eventually, what's the problem? Better the risk of that than the alternative.
Hey @TheScreamingEagles did you see the Vodafone/Three news, I know this is something you'd be interested in mate.
I've been calling it for years, it was rumoured when I was at Big Red all those years ago, the new CEO is an absolute travesty though
I did, I posted about it here earlier on.
On a technical level it could work brilliantly, however Three and Vodafone have the worst customer service out of the MNOs.
I don't care about customer service, I never call the network. Even O2 has fallen down and used to be excellent.
They'd certainly have good odds of being the best indoor coverage network and would I assume, have the most masts and hence in theory the most coverage. Vodafone would get access to a lot of the good sites EE/Three have shared.
I hope you are keeping well matey.
I expect they'd have to sell some spectrum.
One of the strategies I've seen touted is that they may run two brands.
Keep Vodafone as the premium brand and a second brand as the no frills brand with less premium stuff.
I'm good thank you, yourself?
It is highly unlikely they will run two brands. I expect Three will disappear as it did in Oz. Vodafone are very against polluting their own brand - this was one of the issues that was discussed when I was there. They were very wary of losing "Big Red".
I know plenty of super eligible, for some unknown reason still single women in their 40s/50s. They go on tons of online apps to try to find dates and here are some observations they have made:
1. People lie. 2. It's always worth having a (daytime, very public) coffee with someone. 3. There are plenty of women per single men at that age and the men somehow manage to remind the women of that. 4. It is surprising perhaps (I have scrolled with them - not a euphemism) at how few actual "right" men there are when you dissect each one and apply what seemed to me to be reasonable criteria.
The whole dating paradigm has ISTM changed with the internet. As someone sensibly put it:
Before: before you went on a date with someone you knew there was a spark and you then worked out if you had common interests. Now: before you go on a date with someone you know all there is to know about common interests but you don't know whether there is a spark.
Super eligible in your 40s and 50s?
I've mostly posted about how selective women are (and they are a lot more selective than men), but the one thing the data absolutely demonstrates on male fussiness is that men prefer women under 40 (and, tbh, usually under 30), no matter how old they are. Let me repeat that. No matter how old they are.
While there are a myriad of reasons why women reject men - height, looks, status, employment, colour of his hair, whether or not he talks with an accent, god knows... men are almost universally alike in thinking younger = better, presumably for the evolutionary reason of fertility. Bluntly, men are programmed, at a genetic level, to find fertility attractive.
The problem with that is that the older men, generally, will not want kids. Despite them being genetically attracted to the most fertile (i.e. young) women. Particularly if it is not their first time! The younger women, generally, will want kids. As mentioned by @Leon earlier.
Perhaps you are right. Although I am very nearly 40 and would very much like kids. So it would almost certainly have to be with someone several years younger than me at this point, unless IVF etc. So next year you will be able to count me in the ranks of the middle aged men looking for a twenty something wife - simply because of biology.
I brought up the data simply because I feel like I've been laying the data on women a bit this evening and wanted to even the score with regards to how picky (and unrealistic) men are being.
When Topping says he knows loads of eligible women in their 40s and 50s, who are dating men but getting dumped/ghosted, I think it's quite probable that the men are behaving in this way because they have their eye on a younger model. And that's for biological reasons, backed up by the data.
Fwiw, the only women I have ever really loved (all two of them!) are 40 or older now, and I would marry either of them in a heartbeat if they would have me back. However I'm also aware that if I want to have kids, which I probably do, neither of them are an option any more.
Men do have the advantage of time but not recommended to wait, although you are clearly not doing it deliberately. My first child was born when I was 31 and the third when I was 40. I wish I had started 5 years earlier! I certainly feel exhausted from it all now aged 45.
Not that I know much about dating anymore but I would think best to use the trump cards that come to you at age 40. Maturity and stability. Lots of women are looking for that!
I would say that it is best to find the right partner and not bother otherwise. I keep seeing situations where people get sucked in to toxic relationships and then children come along and the situation goes very bad. I used to play football with some guys and bad relationships were driving them mad, there were lots of stories in the whatsapp group about suicide etc. I also saw situations where affluent, well to do people get caught up in this type of problem. If you look at the Arthur Labinjo-Hughes case, two out of the three people involved had middle class backgrounds. My own feeling is that we don't have any great personal responsibility to keep the human race going, that will happen automatically. It is best not to have children unless you are going to be totally committed to them and completely trust the other parent, otherwise it is just going to be an endless world of pain. You could always be a mentor for a child in care, or adopt someone, at any point in your life.
I know plenty of super eligible, for some unknown reason still single women in their 40s/50s. They go on tons of online apps to try to find dates and here are some observations they have made:
1. People lie. 2. It's always worth having a (daytime, very public) coffee with someone. 3. There are plenty of women per single men at that age and the men somehow manage to remind the women of that. 4. It is surprising perhaps (I have scrolled with them - not a euphemism) at how few actual "right" men there are when you dissect each one and apply what seemed to me to be reasonable criteria.
The whole dating paradigm has ISTM changed with the internet. As someone sensibly put it:
Before: before you went on a date with someone you knew there was a spark and you then worked out if you had common interests. Now: before you go on a date with someone you know all there is to know about common interests but you don't know whether there is a spark.
Super eligible in your 40s and 50s?
I've mostly posted about how selective women are (and they are a lot more selective than men), but the one thing the data absolutely demonstrates on male fussiness is that men prefer women under 40 (and, tbh, usually under 30), no matter how old they are. Let me repeat that. No matter how old they are.
While there are a myriad of reasons why women reject men - height, looks, status, employment, colour of his hair, whether or not he talks with an accent, god knows... men are almost universally alike in thinking younger = better, presumably for the evolutionary reason of fertility. Bluntly, men are programmed, at a genetic level, to find fertility attractive.
That suggests the fundamental problem isn't that women are being too choosy, but that all the men are competing for the attention of one quarter of the women. Obviously three-quarters of the guys are going to get left out in that situation.
Read that New Yorker article, we need to find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
One of those ways might be to assassinate Putin, but there are other ways, that may well be along the lines suggested by Musk.
I happen to think Musk’s intervention very poorly timed. It is really up to the Ukrainians right now, and they don’t need that twit weighing in, but it may indeed come to it that we need to find something Putin can sign up to.
Find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
OK, Russia departs Ukraine, apologises for the invasion, pays reparations, admits they were wrong to invade and begs for forgiveness.
That'd be a start.
Er ok. This is mere virtue signalling, frankly.
Not really, that's how vanquished aggressors are typically treated.
You have a better alternative?
If Putin wants to make peace he has a simple way to do it, depart every inch of Ukraine. Including Crimea and any other territory he has falsely and illegally annexed. Do that, and we have peace.
This is just garbage.
Personally I want the Ukrainians to march on Moscow, but it’s not going to happen.
We need to figure out ways for Putin (or his replacement) to step back.
When the time is right.
For now, it is really down to Ukraine’s ability to push them back as far as they can. Facts on the ground etc.
Its funny that not long ago Leon was lambasting how much we wasted pandering to those who losing their minds over Covid, and saying we should have been more prepared to take risks. He even said that atheism was the problem, since atheists weren't prepared to risk life, which was an odd and extremely wrong point from the PoV of this atheist.
Now flash forward to this and he's back into chief headless chicken mode. Absolutely unprepared to risk anything, we must do the wrong thing because otherwise there's a risk that people might die.
Hey @TheScreamingEagles did you see the Vodafone/Three news, I know this is something you'd be interested in mate.
I've been calling it for years, it was rumoured when I was at Big Red all those years ago, the new CEO is an absolute travesty though
I did, I posted about it here earlier on.
On a technical level it could work brilliantly, however Three and Vodafone have the worst customer service out of the MNOs.
I don't care about customer service, I never call the network. Even O2 has fallen down and used to be excellent.
They'd certainly have good odds of being the best indoor coverage network and would I assume, have the most masts and hence in theory the most coverage. Vodafone would get access to a lot of the good sites EE/Three have shared.
I hope you are keeping well matey.
I expect they'd have to sell some spectrum.
One of the strategies I've seen touted is that they may run two brands.
Keep Vodafone as the premium brand and a second brand as the no frills brand with less premium stuff.
I'm good thank you, yourself?
It is highly unlikely they will run two brands. I expect Three will disappear as it did in Oz. Vodafone are very against polluting their own brand - this was one of the issues that was discussed when I was there. They were very wary of losing "Big Red".
I am not great, got the COV
Another aspect is that Vodafone have the highest bar for credit checks whereas Three have the lowest bar for credit checks out of the MNOs.
Sorry to hear about the Covid-19.
I'm getting Covid-19 next weekend, when I get my booster.
Hey @TheScreamingEagles did you see the Vodafone/Three news, I know this is something you'd be interested in mate.
I've been calling it for years, it was rumoured when I was at Big Red all those years ago, the new CEO is an absolute travesty though
I did, I posted about it here earlier on.
On a technical level it could work brilliantly, however Three and Vodafone have the worst customer service out of the MNOs.
I don't care about customer service, I never call the network. Even O2 has fallen down and used to be excellent.
They'd certainly have good odds of being the best indoor coverage network and would I assume, have the most masts and hence in theory the most coverage. Vodafone would get access to a lot of the good sites EE/Three have shared.
I hope you are keeping well matey.
I expect they'd have to sell some spectrum.
One of the strategies I've seen touted is that they may run two brands.
Keep Vodafone as the premium brand and a second brand as the no frills brand with less premium stuff.
I'm good thank you, yourself?
It is highly unlikely they will run two brands. I expect Three will disappear as it did in Oz. Vodafone are very against polluting their own brand - this was one of the issues that was discussed when I was there. They were very wary of losing "Big Red".
I am not great, got the COV
As you say this has been coming for a while. Having said that, one would have thought that Vodafone and Three are quite complementary brands.
Read that New Yorker article, we need to find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
One of those ways might be to assassinate Putin, but there are other ways, that may well be along the lines suggested by Musk.
I happen to think Musk’s intervention very poorly timed. It is really up to the Ukrainians right now, and they don’t need that twit weighing in, but it may indeed come to it that we need to find something Putin can sign up to.
Find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
OK, Russia departs Ukraine, apologises for the invasion, pays reparations, admits they were wrong to invade and begs for forgiveness.
That'd be a start.
Er ok. This is mere virtue signalling, frankly.
Not really, that's how vanquished aggressors are typically treated.
You have a better alternative?
If Putin wants to make peace he has a simple way to do it, depart every inch of Ukraine. Including Crimea and any other territory he has falsely and illegally annexed. Do that, and we have peace.
This is just garbage.
Personally I want the Ukrainians to march on Moscow, but it’s not going to happen.
We need to figure out ways for Putin (or his replacement) to step back.
When the time is right.
For now, it is really down to Ukraine’s ability to push them back as far as they can. Facts on the ground etc.
What's the garbage?
The way to step back is to say that Russia is withdrawing back into Russian territory.
That is the only sustainable way back. Staying in Ukraine's territory means a continuation of war. Going back to Russia, leaving Crimea and the other occupied territories, ends it.
Labour 52% (+6) Conservative 24% (-5) Liberal Democrat 10% (-3) Green 5% (+1) SNP 5% (+2) Reform UK 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 28-29 Sept
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
Whoops
Lead below 30 points.
Conference bounce for Truss?
Why are Lib Dems taking a hammering - they didn’t aid and abet the bad budget! 😠
Libdems the only challengers throughout Blue wall so why don’t they share the Tory slump? Something whiffs about these polls to me, I think they are Mickey Mouse polls, I don’t trust them as being remotely permanent.
There has been ephemeral polling glitches before, Hague wiped out Blair’s lead during Labour conference week one year, voter frustration with not liking being unable to put petrol in car. It was all short lived, polls went straight back to normal a few weeks later.
Without that foundation in fact Lib Dems should not be dropping by a quarter, they should be going up with blue wall voters switching from Tory to them, I refuse to believe these polls are for keeps, I choose to believe it will be back to a Lab lead about 10 in a few weeks and Lib Dems back to 12+. You can’t believe something is for real when its not founded in fact. Do you see what I mean.
Suppose LibDems had a 20% share in every seat. They would get zero seats with a 20% share. Look at the Greens. 5% share, 1 seat.
Suppose LibDems had a 50% share in 50 seats and a 2% share in the other 600 seats. They would get 50 seat with an overall share of just 6%. Look at the SNP. 5% share, 51 seats.
As voters get wiser to tactical voting and Labour becomes more LibDem friendly, I think that LibDem supporters in Labour seats are declaring that they will vote Labour at a General Election, and in Tory/LibDem marginals, Labour supporters are declaring for the LibDems to get the Tories out.
That is why, as a LibDem, I'm pleased to see the national LibDem share remain around 10%. I know it is a LOT higher in Tory/LibDem marginals. So it must be a LOT lower in the many Tory/Labour marginals - which is good news for anti-Tory voters, who are the large majority.
I don’t really want to argue with this thought out piece of Barnesian thinking, but I don’t believe it as much as I want to.
Lib Dems jump from third to win with 30% swings because the people there just can’t make the leap to Labour, so why would they tell pollsters something different right now? [The LibDem share at the start of the by-election campaigns was quite low. It was the incredible amount of resource that the LibDems threw into the by-election campaigns that produced the 30% swings. It wasn't low hanging fruit.]
I have my own theory. I think the polls are wrong now for the same reason polls are always wrong, underestimating Trump and Bolsonaro for two recent examples - the pollsters are now struggling for balanced and honest samples, Truss and Tories have a lot more support than shown waiting in the polling station, it’s just hiding off grid now or lying to pollsters out of sense of embarrassment. [An excellent point. Though you would expect an embarrassed Tory who supports Truss to lie by saying LibDem rather than Labour wouldn't you?]
One poll today greens up 1 to 5 Lib Dem down 3 to 10? That tells you there’s inherent vice in the poll. I would believe your theory over mine if less of the Tory plunge broke for Labour and more of it to Lib Dem. [ Most constituencies are Tory/Labour fights so switching from Tory to Labour would make more sense if you were a fed up Tory? And MOE is about +/- 2%]
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
Another troll. Go away
He's not a troll for pointing out that quite a few of us are wondering if we want to die over the sovereignty of Luhansk
"You're not thinking right. Putin will not use a tactical nuke to win a battle, he will drop one to sow total chaos in western economies and polities (which are already close to bank runs, etc), and he will do it to freak us out. It might well work."
Only if we all react like you.
So we all have to sign up to the maximalist doctrine of the hardboiled PB warlord wankers. Give me a break
I have a question for our war mongerers. What do we do if Putin drops that tactical nuke?
It is airily suggested that we should reply with a brutal but conventional assault, wiping out the Black Sea Fleet, maybe trying to assassinate Putin. I can see the logic, but then I also hesitate
How do you think Putin will react to that? He will escalate further as he has no choice. He will launch his ICBMs, and we are in Act 2 of Threads, and then we are all dead. Well done
Personally I don’t believe that we should retaliate militarily. If the attack is not on NATO we should not escalate by attacking. There is a grey area if fallout were to cause damage to NATO countries.
What we should do is ensure Russia is an international pariah. Completely disconnected from the financial system. Maximum and extremely stringent sanctions, including sanctions on anyone who continues to deal with Russia. No visas, no international trade, no membership of international organisations, zip, nada.
This will be aided significantly if China and India will come on side. Certainly there has been an indication that a lot of neutral countries in the global south will see nuclear use as a step too far. Work needs to be done to get Beijing and Delhi on board.
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
Seems like Game Theory 101 to me.
Exactly: the only way to prevent your opponent escalating is to make it clear that you don't worry about the apocalypse.
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
Another troll. Go away
He's not a troll for pointing out that quite a few of us are wondering if we want to die over the sovereignty of Luhansk
"You're not thinking right. Putin will not use a tactical nuke to win a battle, he will drop one to sow total chaos in western economies and polities (which are already close to bank runs, etc), and he will do it to freak us out. It might well work."
Only if we all react like you.
So we all have to sign up to the maximalist doctrine of the hardboiled PB warlord wankers. Give me a break
I have a question for our war mongerers. What do we do if Putin drops that tactical nuke?
It is airily suggested that we should reply with a brutal but conventional assault, wiping out the Black Sea Fleet, maybe trying to assassinate Putin. I can see the logic, but then I also hesitate
How do you think Putin will react to that? He will escalate further as he has no choice. He will launch his ICBMs, and we are in Act 2 of Threads, and then we are all dead. Well done
That's a chance we have to take. We all die eventually, what's the problem? Better the risk of that than the alternative.
The alternative is that we give Putin a bit of what he wants, but not much. He will still be humiliated, his army mauled, his treasury exhausted, Russia weakened. Ukraine will not get Crimea back but then Crimea is not obviously Ukrainian so whatever
A messy and bloody war will come to a messy, unsatisfying end. Like Korea. And, as with Korea, the world will avoid nuclear holocaust
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
Another troll. Go away
He's not a troll for pointing out that quite a few of us are wondering if we want to die over the sovereignty of Luhansk
What you seem incapable of understanding is that not standing up now increases the likelihood of it happening again.
Its funny that not long ago Leon was lambasting how much we wasted pandering to those who losing their minds over Covid, and saying we should have been more prepared to take risks. He even said that atheism was the problem, since atheists weren't prepared to risk life, which was an odd and extremely wrong point from the PoV of this atheist.
Now flash forward to this and he's back into chief headless chicken mode. Absolutely unprepared to risk anything, we must do the wrong thing because otherwise there's a risk that people might die.
No, just no.
You must have missed his “headless chicken” week with a man-cold. Jeeeezuz.
The most interesting thing about the reaction to Elon Musk’s peace plan might be what it says about Russian and Ukrainian views of how the war is going. Russian media broadcast news of Musk’s ideas without criticism.
Whereas in Ukraine there is universal condemnation, which has even reached to Zelensky.
I am the father of daughters, btw, so I'm not talking my book. It astounds me: the misanthrophy on here. "These men are stupid dim misogynist layabouts who deserve to have no sex"
No, a lot of them are perfectly pleasant and would really like a nice girlfriend - just one - but technology and society have evolved in a pernicious way that really harms their chances. How is this difficult to understand, and why is sympathy so limited?!
Low status men have always struggled to find partners. This is not a new phenomenon. It's just that in the Internet age, they get to see high status men having sex with beautiful women.
But you are wrong. The numbers of men going without sex have surged
"About 1 in 3 men ages 18 to 24 years reported no sexual activity in the past year, according to a new study
Between 2000-2002 and 2016-2018, past-year sexual inactivity rose from almost 19 percent to almost 31 percent among men ages 18 to 24, according to researchers led by Dr. Peter Ueda, a postdoctoral researcher at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden."
Read that New Yorker article, we need to find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
One of those ways might be to assassinate Putin, but there are other ways, that may well be along the lines suggested by Musk.
I happen to think Musk’s intervention very poorly timed. It is really up to the Ukrainians right now, and they don’t need that twit weighing in, but it may indeed come to it that we need to find something Putin can sign up to.
Find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
OK, Russia departs Ukraine, apologises for the invasion, pays reparations, admits they were wrong to invade and begs for forgiveness.
That'd be a start.
Er ok. This is mere virtue signalling, frankly.
Not really, that's how vanquished aggressors are typically treated.
You have a better alternative?
If Putin wants to make peace he has a simple way to do it, depart every inch of Ukraine. Including Crimea and any other territory he has falsely and illegally annexed. Do that, and we have peace.
This is just garbage.
Personally I want the Ukrainians to march on Moscow, but it’s not going to happen.
We need to figure out ways for Putin (or his replacement) to step back.
When the time is right.
For now, it is really down to Ukraine’s ability to push them back as far as they can. Facts on the ground etc.
What's the garbage?
The way to step back is to say that Russia is withdrawing back into Russian territory.
That is the only sustainable way back. Staying in Ukraine's territory means a continuation of war. Going back to Russia, leaving Crimea and the other occupied territories, ends it.
In this, as with everything, you are a purist who cannot cope with shades of grey.
Ukraine may well accept something along the lines of Musk’s suggestion, just as India has accepted partition of Kashmir, and the Koreas accepted division of their country too.
Read that New Yorker article, we need to find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
One of those ways might be to assassinate Putin, but there are other ways, that may well be along the lines suggested by Musk.
I happen to think Musk’s intervention very poorly timed. It is really up to the Ukrainians right now, and they don’t need that twit weighing in, but it may indeed come to it that we need to find something Putin can sign up to.
Find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
OK, Russia departs Ukraine, apologises for the invasion, pays reparations, admits they were wrong to invade and begs for forgiveness.
That'd be a start.
Er ok. This is mere virtue signalling, frankly.
Not really, that's how vanquished aggressors are typically treated.
You have a better alternative?
If Putin wants to make peace he has a simple way to do it, depart every inch of Ukraine. Including Crimea and any other territory he has falsely and illegally annexed. Do that, and we have peace.
This is just garbage.
Personally I want the Ukrainians to march on Moscow, but it’s not going to happen.
We need to figure out ways for Putin (or his replacement) to step back.
When the time is right.
For now, it is really down to Ukraine’s ability to push them back as far as they can. Facts on the ground etc.
The way for his replacement to step back is to blame the whole thing on Gollum in exchange for release of sanctions and the restoration of Russia from pariah status.
Hey @TheScreamingEagles did you see the Vodafone/Three news, I know this is something you'd be interested in mate.
I've been calling it for years, it was rumoured when I was at Big Red all those years ago, the new CEO is an absolute travesty though
I did, I posted about it here earlier on.
On a technical level it could work brilliantly, however Three and Vodafone have the worst customer service out of the MNOs.
I don't care about customer service, I never call the network. Even O2 has fallen down and used to be excellent.
They'd certainly have good odds of being the best indoor coverage network and would I assume, have the most masts and hence in theory the most coverage. Vodafone would get access to a lot of the good sites EE/Three have shared.
I hope you are keeping well matey.
I expect they'd have to sell some spectrum.
One of the strategies I've seen touted is that they may run two brands.
Keep Vodafone as the premium brand and a second brand as the no frills brand with less premium stuff.
I'm good thank you, yourself?
It is highly unlikely they will run two brands. I expect Three will disappear as it did in Oz. Vodafone are very against polluting their own brand - this was one of the issues that was discussed when I was there. They were very wary of losing "Big Red".
I am not great, got the COV
Another aspect is that Vodafone have the highest bar for credit checks whereas Three have the lowest bar for credit checks out of the MNOs.
Sorry to hear about the Covid-19.
I'm getting Covid-19 next weekend, when I get my booster.
I got guaranteed credit check passes with Vodafone, it was lovely.
Thanks mate, not feeling too good. Hope it goes well
Read that New Yorker article, we need to find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
One of those ways might be to assassinate Putin, but there are other ways, that may well be along the lines suggested by Musk.
I happen to think Musk’s intervention very poorly timed. It is really up to the Ukrainians right now, and they don’t need that twit weighing in, but it may indeed come to it that we need to find something Putin can sign up to.
Find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
OK, Russia departs Ukraine, apologises for the invasion, pays reparations, admits they were wrong to invade and begs for forgiveness.
That'd be a start.
Er ok. This is mere virtue signalling, frankly.
Not really, that's how vanquished aggressors are typically treated.
You have a better alternative?
If Putin wants to make peace he has a simple way to do it, depart every inch of Ukraine. Including Crimea and any other territory he has falsely and illegally annexed. Do that, and we have peace.
This is just garbage.
Personally I want the Ukrainians to march on Moscow, but it’s not going to happen.
We need to figure out ways for Putin (or his replacement) to step back.
When the time is right.
For now, it is really down to Ukraine’s ability to push them back as far as they can. Facts on the ground etc.
The way for his replacement to step back is to blame the whole thing on Gollum in exchange for release of sanctions and the restoration of Russia from pariah status.
I mean, this is indeed the West’s preferred outcome. Complete Russian withdrawal, presumably under a post-Putin regime.
But while we can hope, and even militate to make it more likely, we cannot guarantee it, and must be ready for other scenarios.
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
Another troll. Go away
He's not a troll for pointing out that quite a few of us are wondering if we want to die over the sovereignty of Luhansk
"You're not thinking right. Putin will not use a tactical nuke to win a battle, he will drop one to sow total chaos in western economies and polities (which are already close to bank runs, etc), and he will do it to freak us out. It might well work."
Only if we all react like you.
So we all have to sign up to the maximalist doctrine of the hardboiled PB warlord wankers. Give me a break
I have a question for our war mongerers. What do we do if Putin drops that tactical nuke?
It is airily suggested that we should reply with a brutal but conventional assault, wiping out the Black Sea Fleet, maybe trying to assassinate Putin. I can see the logic, but then I also hesitate
How do you think Putin will react to that? He will escalate further as he has no choice. He will launch his ICBMs, and we are in Act 2 of Threads, and then we are all dead. Well done
Putin cannot get a full mobilization of his population because the people around him value the lives of their Moscow and St Petersburg sons. How is he meant to get a nuclear attack past them?
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
Another troll. Go away
He's not a troll for pointing out that quite a few of us are wondering if we want to die over the sovereignty of Luhansk
What you seem incapable of understanding is that not standing up now increases the likelihood of it happening again.
"Standing up now"
This macho talk is adolescent wank. We are not in a playground fight, we are discussing the end of civilisation. We may have to cede more than is comfortable, but so will Putin. That is the way to peace. It won't be pretty, but Act 2 of Threads is infinitely uglier, and as for Act 3....
Its funny that not long ago Leon was lambasting how much we wasted pandering to those who losing their minds over Covid, and saying we should have been more prepared to take risks. He even said that atheism was the problem, since atheists weren't prepared to risk life, which was an odd and extremely wrong point from the PoV of this atheist.
Now flash forward to this and he's back into chief headless chicken mode. Absolutely unprepared to risk anything, we must do the wrong thing because otherwise there's a risk that people might die.
No, just no.
Is that the same @Leon who was also holing up in Penarth to avoid 'the plague' in March 2020?
Edit: No sorry, that was @Eadric. Completely different poster. My bad.
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
Another troll. Go away
He's not a troll for pointing out that quite a few of us are wondering if we want to die over the sovereignty of Luhansk
What you seem incapable of understanding is that not standing up now increases the likelihood of it happening again.
"Standing up now"
This macho talk is adolescent wank. We are not in a playground fight, we are discussing the end of civilisation. We may have to cede more than is comfortable, but so will Putin. That is the way to peace. It won't be pretty, but Act 2 of Threads is infinitely uglier, and as for Act 3....
Fucksake. Who suggested Threads to him? Come on - who was it? Time to own up now!
Read that New Yorker article, we need to find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
One of those ways might be to assassinate Putin, but there are other ways, that may well be along the lines suggested by Musk.
I happen to think Musk’s intervention very poorly timed. It is really up to the Ukrainians right now, and they don’t need that twit weighing in, but it may indeed come to it that we need to find something Putin can sign up to.
Find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
OK, Russia departs Ukraine, apologises for the invasion, pays reparations, admits they were wrong to invade and begs for forgiveness.
That'd be a start.
Er ok. This is mere virtue signalling, frankly.
Not really, that's how vanquished aggressors are typically treated.
You have a better alternative?
If Putin wants to make peace he has a simple way to do it, depart every inch of Ukraine. Including Crimea and any other territory he has falsely and illegally annexed. Do that, and we have peace.
This is just garbage.
Personally I want the Ukrainians to march on Moscow, but it’s not going to happen.
We need to figure out ways for Putin (or his replacement) to step back.
When the time is right.
For now, it is really down to Ukraine’s ability to push them back as far as they can. Facts on the ground etc.
What's the garbage?
The way to step back is to say that Russia is withdrawing back into Russian territory.
That is the only sustainable way back. Staying in Ukraine's territory means a continuation of war. Going back to Russia, leaving Crimea and the other occupied territories, ends it.
In this, as with everything, you are a purist who cannot cope with shades of grey.
Ukraine may well accept something along the lines of Musk’s suggestion, just as India has accepted partition of Kashmir, and the Koreas accepted division of their country too.
If Ukraine accepts something like that, because realpolitik forces their hand, then that is a shame but something that might have to be accepted.
But there is absolutely no reason that will have to happen. It absolutely may be possible to vanquish the invaders and send them home entirely, without partition, just as happened in many wars before like for example Vietnam, Afghanistan twice and more.
If Putin wants an exit, then one exists, withdraw. The bigger problem is if he doesn't, in which case we should help aid Ukraine with whatever it takes to convince the Russians via military means to go home to their own nation. There is no reason to give Putin an exit other than a complete and 100% withdrawal of his invasion forces, unless that is no longer an option, which can't be said yet.
Read that New Yorker article, we need to find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
One of those ways might be to assassinate Putin, but there are other ways, that may well be along the lines suggested by Musk.
I happen to think Musk’s intervention very poorly timed. It is really up to the Ukrainians right now, and they don’t need that twit weighing in, but it may indeed come to it that we need to find something Putin can sign up to.
Find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
OK, Russia departs Ukraine, apologises for the invasion, pays reparations, admits they were wrong to invade and begs for forgiveness.
That'd be a start.
Er ok. This is mere virtue signalling, frankly.
Not really, that's how vanquished aggressors are typically treated.
You have a better alternative?
If Putin wants to make peace he has a simple way to do it, depart every inch of Ukraine. Including Crimea and any other territory he has falsely and illegally annexed. Do that, and we have peace.
This is just garbage.
Personally I want the Ukrainians to march on Moscow, but it’s not going to happen.
We need to figure out ways for Putin (or his replacement) to step back.
When the time is right.
For now, it is really down to Ukraine’s ability to push them back as far as they can. Facts on the ground etc.
The way for his replacement to step back is to blame the whole thing on Gollum in exchange for release of sanctions and the restoration of Russia from pariah status.
I mean, this is indeed the West’s preferred outcome. Complete Russian withdrawal, presumably under a post-Putin regime.
But while we can hope, and even militate to make it more likely, we cannot guarantee it, and must be ready for other scenarios.
If you read that through Putin’s lens it tells you why Russia bombed the pipelines. With no means of exporting gas after a ceasefire occurs there is little incentive within Russia to remove Putin and return things to how they were before because without those pipelines it’s not possible to earn hard currency exporting gas.
The most interesting thing about the reaction to Elon Musk’s peace plan might be what it says about Russian and Ukrainian views of how the war is going. Russian media broadcast news of Musk’s ideas without criticism.
Whereas in Ukraine there is universal condemnation, which has even reached to Zelensky.
I am the father of daughters, btw, so I'm not talking my book. It astounds me: the misanthrophy on here. "These men are stupid dim misogynist layabouts who deserve to have no sex"
No, a lot of them are perfectly pleasant and would really like a nice girlfriend - just one - but technology and society have evolved in a pernicious way that really harms their chances. How is this difficult to understand, and why is sympathy so limited?!
Low status men have always struggled to find partners. This is not a new phenomenon. It's just that in the Internet age, they get to see high status men having sex with beautiful women.
But you are wrong. The numbers of men going without sex have surged
"About 1 in 3 men ages 18 to 24 years reported no sexual activity in the past year, according to a new study
Between 2000-2002 and 2016-2018, past-year sexual inactivity rose from almost 19 percent to almost 31 percent among men ages 18 to 24, according to researchers led by Dr. Peter Ueda, a postdoctoral researcher at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden."
Read that New Yorker article, we need to find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
One of those ways might be to assassinate Putin, but there are other ways, that may well be along the lines suggested by Musk.
I happen to think Musk’s intervention very poorly timed. It is really up to the Ukrainians right now, and they don’t need that twit weighing in, but it may indeed come to it that we need to find something Putin can sign up to.
Find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
OK, Russia departs Ukraine, apologises for the invasion, pays reparations, admits they were wrong to invade and begs for forgiveness.
That'd be a start.
Er ok. This is mere virtue signalling, frankly.
Not really, that's how vanquished aggressors are typically treated.
You have a better alternative?
If Putin wants to make peace he has a simple way to do it, depart every inch of Ukraine. Including Crimea and any other territory he has falsely and illegally annexed. Do that, and we have peace.
This is just garbage.
Personally I want the Ukrainians to march on Moscow, but it’s not going to happen.
We need to figure out ways for Putin (or his replacement) to step back.
When the time is right.
For now, it is really down to Ukraine’s ability to push them back as far as they can. Facts on the ground etc.
What's the garbage?
The way to step back is to say that Russia is withdrawing back into Russian territory.
That is the only sustainable way back. Staying in Ukraine's territory means a continuation of war. Going back to Russia, leaving Crimea and the other occupied territories, ends it.
In this, as with everything, you are a purist who cannot cope with shades of grey.
Ukraine may well accept something along the lines of Musk’s suggestion, just as India has accepted partition of Kashmir, and the Koreas accepted division of their country too.
India has most certainly NOT accepted the status quo in Kashmir. It claims the entire territory, including the bits occupied by China. It is still illegal to bring maps into India showing the de facto Indo-Pak border through Kashmir.
Read that New Yorker article, we need to find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
One of those ways might be to assassinate Putin, but there are other ways, that may well be along the lines suggested by Musk.
I happen to think Musk’s intervention very poorly timed. It is really up to the Ukrainians right now, and they don’t need that twit weighing in, but it may indeed come to it that we need to find something Putin can sign up to.
Find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
OK, Russia departs Ukraine, apologises for the invasion, pays reparations, admits they were wrong to invade and begs for forgiveness.
That'd be a start.
Er ok. This is mere virtue signalling, frankly.
Not really, that's how vanquished aggressors are typically treated.
You have a better alternative?
If Putin wants to make peace he has a simple way to do it, depart every inch of Ukraine. Including Crimea and any other territory he has falsely and illegally annexed. Do that, and we have peace.
This is just garbage.
Personally I want the Ukrainians to march on Moscow, but it’s not going to happen.
We need to figure out ways for Putin (or his replacement) to step back.
When the time is right.
For now, it is really down to Ukraine’s ability to push them back as far as they can. Facts on the ground etc.
The way for his replacement to step back is to blame the whole thing on Gollum in exchange for release of sanctions and the restoration of Russia from pariah status.
I mean, this is indeed the West’s preferred outcome. Complete Russian withdrawal, presumably under a post-Putin regime.
But while we can hope, and even militate to make it more likely, we cannot guarantee it, and must be ready for other scenarios.
If you read that through Putin’s lens it tells you why Russia bombed the pipelines. With no means of exporting gas after a ceasefire occurs there is little incentive within Russia to remove Putin and return things to how they were before because without those pipelines it’s not possible to earn hard currency exporting gas.
Absolutely. Nobody seriously thinks it was a US job, at the risk of inciting a particular poster.
"A friend of mine who works for Gordon Brown says he has a collection of tiny china figurines which he keeps in a shoebox - tiny sheperdesses and horses and farmers and pigs and the like. She says most nights when he’s alone with his aides and the wife he gets them out and plays “farmy-farm” with the little dolls, making the horses jump over tiny hedges etc. He even takes the miniature cows to the Number 10 toilet so they can do “Brownpats” as he makes little mooing noises.
The staff’s big fear is that he will take his “farmy-farm” set to the Commons and be caught on TV playing with it just before PMQs. He’s come pretty close already - during the non-election debate, a miniature sheep apparently fell from his breast pocket onto Ruth Kelly’s hair, and was there right through the broadcast.
Amazingly no one noticed, but they reckon it’s just a matter of time."
It spread from here, like a modest dose of knotweed
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
Another troll. Go away
He's not a troll for pointing out that quite a few of us are wondering if we want to die over the sovereignty of Luhansk
What you seem incapable of understanding is that not standing up now increases the likelihood of it happening again.
"Standing up now"
This macho talk is adolescent wank. We are not in a playground fight, we are discussing the end of civilisation. We may have to cede more than is comfortable, but so will Putin. That is the way to peace. It won't be pretty, but Act 2 of Threads is infinitely uglier, and as for Act 3....
We can discuss concerns with Putin that do not involve the territorial integrity of a neighbouring state. There may be discussions to be had about locating weapons in Ukraine, or demilitarised zones, or security guarantees - with concessions from his side also. But we cannot be seen to acquiesce in the acquisition of territory through force.
Read that New Yorker article, we need to find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
One of those ways might be to assassinate Putin, but there are other ways, that may well be along the lines suggested by Musk.
I happen to think Musk’s intervention very poorly timed. It is really up to the Ukrainians right now, and they don’t need that twit weighing in, but it may indeed come to it that we need to find something Putin can sign up to.
Find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
OK, Russia departs Ukraine, apologises for the invasion, pays reparations, admits they were wrong to invade and begs for forgiveness.
That'd be a start.
Er ok. This is mere virtue signalling, frankly.
Not really, that's how vanquished aggressors are typically treated.
You have a better alternative?
If Putin wants to make peace he has a simple way to do it, depart every inch of Ukraine. Including Crimea and any other territory he has falsely and illegally annexed. Do that, and we have peace.
This is just garbage.
Personally I want the Ukrainians to march on Moscow, but it’s not going to happen.
We need to figure out ways for Putin (or his replacement) to step back.
When the time is right.
For now, it is really down to Ukraine’s ability to push them back as far as they can. Facts on the ground etc.
What's the garbage?
The way to step back is to say that Russia is withdrawing back into Russian territory.
That is the only sustainable way back. Staying in Ukraine's territory means a continuation of war. Going back to Russia, leaving Crimea and the other occupied territories, ends it.
In this, as with everything, you are a purist who cannot cope with shades of grey.
Ukraine may well accept something along the lines of Musk’s suggestion, just as India has accepted partition of Kashmir, and the Koreas accepted division of their country too.
India has most certainly NOT accepted the status quo in Kashmir. It claims the entire territory, including the bits occupied by China. It is still illegal to bring maps into India showing the de facto Indo-Pak border through Kashmir.
Ok, put quote marks around my “accepted”.
It doesn’t change my point though, which is that Barty can virtue signal about insisting on humiliating reparations imposed on Russia by the victors at Versailles-on-Don, but reality is likely to be rather more nuanced.
That chasm between the political choices men and women make is not good for the United States.
(Has there been a simialr shift in Britain?)
Yes.
In Britain traditionally women mostly voted Tory and men normally voted Labour. That was certainly the case from 1945 through the Thatcher and Major years. Since Blair however it has been the reverse, women are more likely to vote Labour or LD, men are more likely to vote Tory
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
Another troll. Go away
He's not a troll for pointing out that quite a few of us are wondering if we want to die over the sovereignty of Luhansk
"You're not thinking right. Putin will not use a tactical nuke to win a battle, he will drop one to sow total chaos in western economies and polities (which are already close to bank runs, etc), and he will do it to freak us out. It might well work."
Only if we all react like you.
So we all have to sign up to the maximalist doctrine of the hardboiled PB warlord wankers. Give me a break
I have a question for our war mongerers. What do we do if Putin drops that tactical nuke?
It is airily suggested that we should reply with a brutal but conventional assault, wiping out the Black Sea Fleet, maybe trying to assassinate Putin. I can see the logic, but then I also hesitate
How do you think Putin will react to that? He will escalate further as he has no choice. He will launch his ICBMs, and we are in Act 2 of Threads, and then we are all dead. Well done
If we all hold our nerve and it is made clear to Putin that is the consequence of him dropping a tactical nuke, he won't drop a tactical nuke. I don't think even he wants us all dead. If he does, we're fucked anyway. If we're all wobbly, he may drop a tactical nuke believing we won't risk escalation. Then he can do what he likes.
"A friend of mine who works for Gordon Brown says he has a collection of tiny china figurines which he keeps in a shoebox - tiny sheperdesses and horses and farmers and pigs and the like. She says most nights when he’s alone with his aides and the wife he gets them out and plays “farmy-farm” with the little dolls, making the horses jump over tiny hedges etc. He even takes the miniature cows to the Number 10 toilet so they can do “Brownpats” as he makes little mooing noises.
The staff’s big fear is that he will take his “farmy-farm” set to the Commons and be caught on TV playing with it just before PMQs. He’s come pretty close already - during the non-election debate, a miniature sheep apparently fell from his breast pocket onto Ruth Kelly’s hair, and was there right through the broadcast.
Amazingly no one noticed, but they reckon it’s just a matter of time."
It spread from here, like a modest dose of knotweed
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
but what are we talking about here...we are not talking about an attack on the UK or even Eastern Europe.....we are talking about some eastern provinces of ukraine most people hadnt heard of a few months ago....you are prepared to risk nuclear annihalation for that!!
Another troll. Go away
He's not a troll for pointing out that quite a few of us are wondering if we want to die over the sovereignty of Luhansk
"You're not thinking right. Putin will not use a tactical nuke to win a battle, he will drop one to sow total chaos in western economies and polities (which are already close to bank runs, etc), and he will do it to freak us out. It might well work."
Only if we all react like you.
So we all have to sign up to the maximalist doctrine of the hardboiled PB warlord wankers. Give me a break
I have a question for our war mongerers. What do we do if Putin drops that tactical nuke?
It is airily suggested that we should reply with a brutal but conventional assault, wiping out the Black Sea Fleet, maybe trying to assassinate Putin. I can see the logic, but then I also hesitate
How do you think Putin will react to that? He will escalate further as he has no choice. He will launch his ICBMs, and we are in Act 2 of Threads, and then we are all dead. Well done
That's a chance we have to take. We all die eventually, what's the problem? Better the risk of that than the alternative.
The alternative is that we give Putin a bit of what he wants, but not much. He will still be humiliated, his army mauled, his treasury exhausted, Russia weakened. Ukraine will not get Crimea back but then Crimea is not obviously Ukrainian so whatever
A messy and bloody war will come to a messy, unsatisfying end. Like Korea. And, as with Korea, the world will avoid nuclear holocaust
No, he should not get a single bit of what he wants. If he gets anything at all, then that says that invasions to move borders are OK again in the 21st century. That will just encourage more wars and more risk of nuclear catastrophe.
Infinitely better and less risky to humiliate him completely and reinforce the message that wars of aggression are unacceptable in this age.
This 'free for all' on policy is only happening because Truss has totally abandoned the manifesto the government was actually elected on.
Abandoned, or now at war with the declinist direction it was taking us?
For a LibDem you seem to take some strange positions.
Not my position. I’m just flagging up what I think this new government is explaining - 97 - 2010 pathetic declinest Labour government, 2010 - last month more pathetic declinist government by… um… it doesn’t matter by who only the policy is completely different at long last , lean mean taxes and state means aspiration, growth, productivity, growth, and a UK and flag you can be proud in once again.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s what they are saying.
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
Seems like Game Theory 101 to me.
Exactly: the only way to prevent your opponent escalating is to make it clear that you don't worry about the apocalypse.
Because you will rain the other apocalypse on them.
Mutual.
Is Putin suicidal? Who knows? Is the entire chain of command suicidal? I doubt it.
Putin does not have a red button as I understand it. He has a briefcase with some codes that allow him to confirm it is him ordering the use of nukes and then the senior generals get involved.
"A friend of mine who works for Gordon Brown says he has a collection of tiny china figurines which he keeps in a shoebox - tiny sheperdesses and horses and farmers and pigs and the like. She says most nights when he’s alone with his aides and the wife he gets them out and plays “farmy-farm” with the little dolls, making the horses jump over tiny hedges etc. He even takes the miniature cows to the Number 10 toilet so they can do “Brownpats” as he makes little mooing noises.
The staff’s big fear is that he will take his “farmy-farm” set to the Commons and be caught on TV playing with it just before PMQs. He’s come pretty close already - during the non-election debate, a miniature sheep apparently fell from his breast pocket onto Ruth Kelly’s hair, and was there right through the broadcast.
Amazingly no one noticed, but they reckon it’s just a matter of time."
It spread from here, like a modest dose of knotweed
No, Gordon and the rocking horse was definitely Guido:
Read that New Yorker article, we need to find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
One of those ways might be to assassinate Putin, but there are other ways, that may well be along the lines suggested by Musk.
I happen to think Musk’s intervention very poorly timed. It is really up to the Ukrainians right now, and they don’t need that twit weighing in, but it may indeed come to it that we need to find something Putin can sign up to.
Find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
OK, Russia departs Ukraine, apologises for the invasion, pays reparations, admits they were wrong to invade and begs for forgiveness.
That'd be a start.
Er ok. This is mere virtue signalling, frankly.
Not really, that's how vanquished aggressors are typically treated.
You have a better alternative?
If Putin wants to make peace he has a simple way to do it, depart every inch of Ukraine. Including Crimea and any other territory he has falsely and illegally annexed. Do that, and we have peace.
This is just garbage.
Personally I want the Ukrainians to march on Moscow, but it’s not going to happen.
We need to figure out ways for Putin (or his replacement) to step back.
When the time is right.
For now, it is really down to Ukraine’s ability to push them back as far as they can. Facts on the ground etc.
The way for his replacement to step back is to blame the whole thing on Gollum in exchange for release of sanctions and the restoration of Russia from pariah status.
I mean, this is indeed the West’s preferred outcome. Complete Russian withdrawal, presumably under a post-Putin regime.
But while we can hope, and even militate to make it more likely, we cannot guarantee it, and must be ready for other scenarios.
If you read that through Putin’s lens it tells you why Russia bombed the pipelines. With no means of exporting gas after a ceasefire occurs there is little incentive within Russia to remove Putin and return things to how they were before because without those pipelines it’s not possible to earn hard currency exporting gas.
Absolutely. Nobody seriously thinks it was a US job, at the risk of inciting a particular poster.
.... apart from the onetime Foreign Minister of Poland
"Former Polish foreign minister thanks US for damaging Nord Stream pipeline Politician suggests US was behind attack on gas pipeline"
This 'free for all' on policy is only happening because Truss has totally abandoned the manifesto the government was actually elected on.
Abandoned, or now at war with the declinist direction it was taking us?
For a LibDem you seem to take some strange positions.
Not my position. I’m just flagging up what I think this new government is explaining - 97 - 2010 pathetic declinest Labour government, 2010 - last month more pathetic declinist government by… um… it doesn’t matter by who only the policy is completely different at long last , lean mean taxes and state means aspiration, growth, productivity, growth, and a UK and flag you can be proud in once again.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s what they are saying.
97-2007 was a golden age compared to what came after. Time for a change.
There is, apparently, an 8.6% chance of Russia dropping a nuke in the next month
Meanwhie, and in that light, should you leave London?
"So, the danger of staying in London has increased by ~5-15x since March. We’d guess for most people reading this post moving out of the city for 1-3 months would still cause more value in lost productivity than the updated estimates of expected lost life hours (54 / 150), but it’s a closer call than it was previously."
For personal purposes, we probably don’t have a better decision rule than “leave major cities if any tactical nukes are dropped in Ukraine” (as this will ~10x risk)."
"83% of statistics are made up on the spot"
That guesstimate looks quite reasonable to me. There is clearly a significant risk of Putin doing this. And if he is going to do it, he will do it soon, before his army is chased into the Sea of Azov
8.6% might be a tad conservative
"In Washington, Putin’s Nuclear Threats Stir Growing Alarm In a gathering Cold War atmosphere, American officials are gaming out responses should Russia resort to battlefield nuclear weapons."
I know plenty of super eligible, for some unknown reason still single women in their 40s/50s. They go on tons of online apps to try to find dates and here are some observations they have made:
1. People lie. 2. It's always worth having a (daytime, very public) coffee with someone. 3. There are plenty of women per single men at that age and the men somehow manage to remind the women of that. 4. It is surprising perhaps (I have scrolled with them - not a euphemism) at how few actual "right" men there are when you dissect each one and apply what seemed to me to be reasonable criteria.
The whole dating paradigm has ISTM changed with the internet. As someone sensibly put it:
Before: before you went on a date with someone you knew there was a spark and you then worked out if you had common interests. Now: before you go on a date with someone you know all there is to know about common interests but you don't know whether there is a spark.
Super eligible in your 40s and 50s?
I've mostly posted about how selective women are (and they are a lot more selective than men), but the one thing the data absolutely demonstrates on male fussiness is that men prefer women under 40 (and, tbh, usually under 30), no matter how old they are. Let me repeat that. No matter how old they are.
While there are a myriad of reasons why women reject men - height, looks, status, employment, colour of his hair, whether or not he talks with an accent, god knows... men are almost universally alike in thinking younger = better, presumably for the evolutionary reason of fertility. Bluntly, men are programmed, at a genetic level, to find fertility attractive.
That suggests the fundamental problem isn't that women are being too choosy, but that all the men are competing for the attention of one quarter of the women. Obviously three-quarters of the guys are going to get left out in that situation.
Ah, but that's where you're not quite right. The data goes on to show that older men will still *talk to* women their age but still prefer younger women - hence Topping's friends in their 40s reporting their experiences.
However what we were discussing earlier was largely the epidemic of inceldom in *young* men between the ages of 18-30, where celibacy rates have risen threefold since 2008.
Now, a 29 year old male preferring a 22 year old woman will probably still talk to a 27 year old woman, and vice versa if she's into him. The mismatch occurs once you get men in their thirties, forties and even fifties and sixties still lusting after twenty-something women.
So I'm afraid your explanation doesn't quite cut it. Young men are, by and large, not having sex, because young women don't find them attractive, as evidenced by that OKcupid study, and the data from tinder and hinge, where women are swiping positively on only every 1 in 100 profile, compared to 1 in every 2 profiles for men.
Read that New Yorker article, we need to find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
One of those ways might be to assassinate Putin, but there are other ways, that may well be along the lines suggested by Musk.
I happen to think Musk’s intervention very poorly timed. It is really up to the Ukrainians right now, and they don’t need that twit weighing in, but it may indeed come to it that we need to find something Putin can sign up to.
Find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
OK, Russia departs Ukraine, apologises for the invasion, pays reparations, admits they were wrong to invade and begs for forgiveness.
That'd be a start.
Er ok. This is mere virtue signalling, frankly.
Not really, that's how vanquished aggressors are typically treated.
You have a better alternative?
If Putin wants to make peace he has a simple way to do it, depart every inch of Ukraine. Including Crimea and any other territory he has falsely and illegally annexed. Do that, and we have peace.
This is just garbage.
Personally I want the Ukrainians to march on Moscow, but it’s not going to happen.
We need to figure out ways for Putin (or his replacement) to step back.
When the time is right.
For now, it is really down to Ukraine’s ability to push them back as far as they can. Facts on the ground etc.
What's the garbage?
The way to step back is to say that Russia is withdrawing back into Russian territory.
That is the only sustainable way back. Staying in Ukraine's territory means a continuation of war. Going back to Russia, leaving Crimea and the other occupied territories, ends it.
In this, as with everything, you are a purist who cannot cope with shades of grey.
Ukraine may well accept something along the lines of Musk’s suggestion, just as India has accepted partition of Kashmir, and the Koreas accepted division of their country too.
India has most certainly NOT accepted the status quo in Kashmir. It claims the entire territory, including the bits occupied by China. It is still illegal to bring maps into India showing the de facto Indo-Pak border through Kashmir.
Ok, put quote marks around my “accepted”.
It doesn’t change my point though, which is that Barty can virtue signal about insisting on humiliating reparations imposed on Russia by the victors at Versailles-on-Don, but reality is likely to be rather more nuanced.
What makes it likely to be more nuanced? Russia is fucked, their Potemkin military can't win, can't equip their soldiers, has inferior technology and awful logistics.
Ukraine has access to better technology, vastly superior logistics, world class intelligence, an army prepared to fight to protect their homeland and leadership that is competent.
Ukraine can and will win this war, conventionally. No need for a stalemate, let alone a likely one.
"A friend of mine who works for Gordon Brown says he has a collection of tiny china figurines which he keeps in a shoebox - tiny sheperdesses and horses and farmers and pigs and the like. She says most nights when he’s alone with his aides and the wife he gets them out and plays “farmy-farm” with the little dolls, making the horses jump over tiny hedges etc. He even takes the miniature cows to the Number 10 toilet so they can do “Brownpats” as he makes little mooing noises.
The staff’s big fear is that he will take his “farmy-farm” set to the Commons and be caught on TV playing with it just before PMQs. He’s come pretty close already - during the non-election debate, a miniature sheep apparently fell from his breast pocket onto Ruth Kelly’s hair, and was there right through the broadcast.
Amazingly no one noticed, but they reckon it’s just a matter of time."
It spread from here, like a modest dose of knotweed
No, Gordon and the rocking horse was definitely Guido:
I was a determined lurker at the time. I remember it well. He said he wanted to create a ludicrous rumour about Gordon Brown, a rumour which was so bizarre it would be amusing, yet also have just enough credibility that some might believe it
He went away for half an hour, then came back with "farmy farm". It then got picked up on Guido
He failed in his task: no one believed it. However he made it sufficiently absurd that it entertained and spread, for a while
Labour 52% (+6) Conservative 24% (-5) Liberal Democrat 10% (-3) Green 5% (+1) SNP 5% (+2) Reform UK 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 28-29 Sept
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
Whoops
Lead below 30 points.
Conference bounce for Truss?
Why are Lib Dems taking a hammering - they didn’t aid and abet the bad budget! 😠
Libdems the only challengers throughout Blue wall so why don’t they share the Tory slump? Something whiffs about these polls to me, I think they are Mickey Mouse polls, I don’t trust them as being remotely permanent.
There has been ephemeral polling glitches before, Hague wiped out Blair’s lead during Labour conference week one year, voter frustration with not liking being unable to put petrol in car. It was all short lived, polls went straight back to normal a few weeks later.
Without that foundation in fact Lib Dems should not be dropping by a quarter, they should be going up with blue wall voters switching from Tory to them, I refuse to believe these polls are for keeps, I choose to believe it will be back to a Lab lead about 10 in a few weeks and Lib Dems back to 12+. You can’t believe something is for real when its not founded in fact. Do you see what I mean.
Suppose LibDems had a 20% share in every seat. They would get zero seats with a 20% share. Look at the Greens. 5% share, 1 seat.
Suppose LibDems had a 50% share in 50 seats and a 2% share in the other 600 seats. They would get 50 seat with an overall share of just 6%. Look at the SNP. 5% share, 51 seats.
As voters get wiser to tactical voting and Labour becomes more LibDem friendly, I think that LibDem supporters in Labour seats are declaring that they will vote Labour at a General Election, and in Tory/LibDem marginals, Labour supporters are declaring for the LibDems to get the Tories out.
That is why, as a LibDem, I'm pleased to see the national LibDem share remain around 10%. I know it is a LOT higher in Tory/LibDem marginals. So it must be a LOT lower in the many Tory/Labour marginals - which is good news for anti-Tory voters, who are the large majority.
I don’t really want to argue with this thought out piece of Barnesian thinking, but I don’t believe it as much as I want to.
Lib Dems jump from third to win with 30% swings because the people there just can’t make the leap to Labour, so why would they tell pollsters something different right now? [The LibDem share at the start of the by-election campaigns was quite low. It was the incredible amount of resource that the LibDems threw into the by-election campaigns that produced the 30% swings. It wasn't low hanging fruit.]
I have my own theory. I think the polls are wrong now for the same reason polls are always wrong, underestimating Trump and Bolsonaro for two recent examples - the pollsters are now struggling for balanced and honest samples, Truss and Tories have a lot more support than shown waiting in the polling station, it’s just hiding off grid now or lying to pollsters out of sense of embarrassment. [An excellent point. Though you would expect an embarrassed Tory who supports Truss to lie by saying LibDem rather than Labour wouldn't you?]
One poll today greens up 1 to 5 Lib Dem down 3 to 10? That tells you there’s inherent vice in the poll. I would believe your theory over mine if less of the Tory plunge broke for Labour and more of it to Lib Dem. [ Most constituencies are Tory/Labour fights so switching from Tory to Labour would make more sense if you were a fed up Tory? And MOE is about +/- 2%]
..
? 🤷♀️
If you don’t believe me Barnsy I can produce exhibit B - that is your own posts down thread where you have crunched the seat changes, Labour up 200 into 400s, Tory’s down to 125, and Libdems just 14 seats was it?
If there’s an election tomorrow, is that what’s going to happen?
Don’t believe last weeks and this weeks polls, they are not for real because the Tory vote has fled off grid to hide in the shadows of the ballot box.
Comments
It was never alleged, for example, that Gordon liked it “rough and anal” from his Chancellor.
Apologies to PBers digesting a late supper.
Lib Dems jump from third to win with 30% swings because the people there just can’t make the leap to Labour, so why would they tell pollsters something different right now?
I have my own theory. I think the polls are wrong now for the same reason polls are always wrong, underestimating Trump and Bolsonaro for two recent examples - the pollsters are now struggling for balanced and honest samples, Truss and Tories have a lot more support than shown waiting in the polling station, it’s just hiding off grid now or lying to pollsters out of sense of embarrassment.
One poll today greens up 1 to 5 Lib Dem down 3 to 10? That tells you there’s inherent vice in the poll. I would believe your theory over mine if less of the Tory plunge broke for Labour and more of it to Lib Dem.
You might as well moan about a "quarrel in a far away country, between people of whom we know nothing."
It's ludicrous hysteria. Ironically
Crimea voted democratically to be a part of a free and independent Ukraine. There may have been a debate once upon a time, but the debate ended the second Russia chose to solve the debate by invasion instead of democracy. They need to be repelled.
Nuclear weapons are not to prevent humiliation, they're to prevent your own nation being invaded and defeated. Russia chose this invasion, they deserve this humiliation and we need to be prepared to do whatever it takes to ensure this total humiliation proceeds in full, until Russia is prepared to seek readmittance to the human race.
I've been calling it for years, it was rumoured when I was at Big Red all those years ago, the new CEO is an absolute travesty though
@PhillipsPOBrien
·
3h
It’s fascinating that it seems to be mostly those who were saying in February that Russia was so strong that Ukraine should be sacrificed that are now saying that Ukraine can’t be made too strong to save poor Putin from humiliation
Hold Fast pal!
If you knew anything you'd know appeasement never works.
Before you know it Putin's expansionism will have reached Western Europe.
Read that New Yorker article, we need to find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
One of those ways might be to assassinate Putin, but there are other ways, that may well be along the lines suggested by Musk.
I happen to think Musk’s intervention very poorly timed. It is really up to the Ukrainians right now, and they don’t need that twit weighing in, but it may indeed come to it that we need to find something Putin can sign up to.
Only if we all react like you.
I would say though, that “bit of turbulence” gag Kwarteng slipped into his speech today and got a belly laugh in the hall - it wasn’t meant to be a joke in my opinion.
On a technical level it could work brilliantly, however Three and Vodafone have the worst customer service out of the MNOs.
They'd certainly have good odds of being the best indoor coverage network and would I assume, have the most masts and hence in theory the most coverage. Vodafone would get access to a lot of the good sites EE/Three have shared.
I hope you are keeping well matey.
Sometimes it just seems like a desire to commit Ukrainians to a reign of terror in the occupied territories.
OK, Russia departs Ukraine, apologises for the invasion, pays reparations, admits they were wrong to invade and begs for forgiveness.
That'd be a start.
It is Putin who started an unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine. Putin who now illegally annexes Ukrainian territory. Putin who has everything to gain from a negotiated peace where he is permitted to keep some of his ill gotten gains.
That way is Munich for the 21st Century. That way is signalling that we will not hold the line if nations try to illegally invade and annexe their neighbours. If we set that principle, we are opening ourselves up to the inevitability of a future world war.
This is mere virtue signalling, frankly.
I have a question for our war mongerers. What do we do if Putin drops that tactical nuke?
It is airily suggested that we should reply with a brutal but conventional assault, wiping out the Black Sea Fleet, maybe trying to assassinate Putin. I can see the logic, but then I also hesitate
How do you think Putin will react to that? He will escalate further as he has no choice. He will launch his ICBMs, and we are in Act 2 of Threads, and then we are all dead. Well done
One of the strategies I've seen touted is that they may run two brands.
Keep Vodafone as the premium brand and a second brand as the no frills brand with less premium stuff.
I'm good thank you, yourself?
You have a better alternative?
If Putin wants to make peace he has a simple way to do it, depart every inch of Ukraine. Including Crimea and any other territory he has falsely and illegally annexed. Do that, and we have peace.
I am not great, got the COV
Baby steps.
Personally I want the Ukrainians to march on Moscow, but it’s not going to happen.
We need to figure out ways for Putin (or his replacement) to step back.
When the time is right.
For now, it is really down to Ukraine’s ability to push them back as far as they can. Facts on the ground etc.
Now flash forward to this and he's back into chief headless chicken mode. Absolutely unprepared to risk anything, we must do the wrong thing because otherwise there's a risk that people might die.
No, just no.
Sorry to hear about the Covid-19.
I'm getting Covid-19 next weekend, when I get my booster.
Having said that, one would have thought that Vodafone and Three are quite complementary brands.
The way to step back is to say that Russia is withdrawing back into Russian territory.
That is the only sustainable way back. Staying in Ukraine's territory means a continuation of war. Going back to Russia, leaving Crimea and the other occupied territories, ends it.
What we should do is ensure Russia is an international pariah. Completely disconnected from the financial system. Maximum and extremely stringent sanctions, including sanctions on anyone who continues to deal with Russia. No visas, no international trade, no membership of international organisations, zip, nada.
This will be aided significantly if China and India will come on side. Certainly there has been an indication that a lot of neutral countries in the global south will see nuclear use as a step too far. Work needs to be done to get Beijing and Delhi on board.
A messy and bloody war will come to a messy, unsatisfying end. Like Korea. And, as with Korea, the world will avoid nuclear holocaust
Ukraine may well accept something along the lines of Musk’s suggestion, just as India has accepted partition of Kashmir, and the Koreas accepted division of their country too.
Thanks mate, not feeling too good. Hope it goes well
But while we can hope, and even militate to make it more likely, we cannot guarantee it, and must be ready for other scenarios.
This macho talk is adolescent wank. We are not in a playground fight, we are discussing the end of civilisation. We may have to cede more than is comfortable, but so will Putin. That is the way to peace. It won't be pretty, but Act 2 of Threads is infinitely uglier, and as for Act 3....
Edit: No sorry, that was @Eadric. Completely different poster. My bad.
All bollocks of course.
The perpetrators have gone on to serve in the highest corners of the Tory media-politico complex.
Every Bill, every line will have to be negotiated.
Incredible.
Time for a GE.
In 2020, Biden got 57 percent of the women's vote, and 45 percent of the men's vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#Exit_polling
That chasm between the political choices men and women make is not good for the United States.
(Has there been a simialr shift in Britain?)
If he has any spares it sounds like @Leon needs them 🤣
But there is absolutely no reason that will have to happen. It absolutely may be possible to vanquish the invaders and send them home entirely, without partition, just as happened in many wars before like for example Vietnam, Afghanistan twice and more.
If Putin wants an exit, then one exists, withdraw. The bigger problem is if he doesn't, in which case we should help aid Ukraine with whatever it takes to convince the Russians via military means to go home to their own nation. There is no reason to give Putin an exit other than a complete and 100% withdrawal of his invasion forces, unless that is no longer an option, which can't be said yet.
https://twitter.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1576685592859271168
Perhaps all hated PMs get accused of whatever the fuck that fetish is called.
Nobody seriously thinks it was a US job, at the risk of inciting a particular poster.
I found the original
"A friend of mine who works for Gordon Brown says he has a collection of tiny china figurines which he keeps in a shoebox - tiny sheperdesses and horses and farmers and pigs and the like. She says most nights when he’s alone with his aides and the wife he gets them out and plays “farmy-farm” with the little dolls, making the horses jump over tiny hedges etc. He even takes the miniature cows to the Number 10 toilet so they can do “Brownpats” as he makes little mooing noises.
The staff’s big fear is that he will take his “farmy-farm” set to the Commons and be caught on TV playing with it just before PMQs. He’s come pretty close already - during the non-election debate, a miniature sheep apparently fell from his breast pocket onto Ruth Kelly’s hair, and was there right through the broadcast.
Amazingly no one noticed, but they reckon it’s just a matter of time."
It spread from here, like a modest dose of knotweed
It doesn’t change my point though, which is that Barty can virtue signal about insisting on humiliating reparations imposed on Russia by the victors at Versailles-on-Don, but reality is likely to be rather more nuanced.
If we're all wobbly, he may drop a tactical nuke believing we won't risk escalation. Then he can do what he likes.
Infinitely better and less risky to humiliate him completely and reinforce the message that wars of aggression are unacceptable in this age.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s what they are saying.
Mutual.
Is Putin suicidal? Who knows? Is the entire chain of command suicidal? I doubt it.
Putin does not have a red button as I understand it. He has a briefcase with some codes that allow him to confirm it is him ordering the use of nukes and then the senior generals get involved.
https://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2008/08/gordon_brown_we/
"Former Polish foreign minister thanks US for damaging Nord Stream pipeline
Politician suggests US was behind attack on gas pipeline"
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/economy/former-polish-foreign-minister-thanks-us-for-damaging-nord-stream-pipeline/2696530
Time for a change.
"Get a grip"
However what we were discussing earlier was largely the epidemic of inceldom in *young* men between the ages of 18-30, where celibacy rates have risen threefold since 2008.
Now, a 29 year old male preferring a 22 year old woman will probably still talk to a 27 year old woman, and vice versa if she's into him. The mismatch occurs once you get men in their thirties, forties and even fifties and sixties still lusting after twenty-something women.
So I'm afraid your explanation doesn't quite cut it. Young men are, by and large, not having sex, because young women don't find them attractive, as evidenced by that OKcupid study, and the data from tinder and hinge, where women are swiping positively on only every 1 in 100 profile, compared to 1 in every 2 profiles for men.
Ukraine has access to better technology, vastly superior logistics, world class intelligence, an army prepared to fight to protect their homeland and leadership that is competent.
Ukraine can and will win this war, conventionally. No need for a stalemate, let alone a likely one.
I was a determined lurker at the time. I remember it well. He said he wanted to create a ludicrous rumour about Gordon Brown, a rumour which was so bizarre it would be amusing, yet also have just enough credibility that some might believe it
He went away for half an hour, then came back with "farmy farm". It then got picked up on Guido
He failed in his task: no one believed it. However he made it sufficiently absurd that it entertained and spread, for a while
Which senior Tories might that be? DM is in a universe all of its own.
If you don’t believe me Barnsy I can produce exhibit B - that is your own posts down thread where you have crunched the seat changes, Labour up 200 into 400s, Tory’s down to 125, and Libdems just 14 seats was it?
If there’s an election tomorrow, is that what’s going to happen?
Don’t believe last weeks and this weeks polls, they are not for real because the Tory vote has fled off grid to hide in the shadows of the ballot box.