Howdy, Stranger!

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

It is becoming harder to see how Truss survives – politicalbetting.com

13468911

Comments

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,977
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice were the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    The MPs put him there because they knew the members wanted him.
    Which was exactly the wrong reason to put him there, but I think the real reason they put him there was that they knew he would be popular in the country especially with Leavers in Labour areas. And let us face it - they were right. He got Labour Leavers to vote Tory.
    Cyclefree said:


    Members should not choose the party leader. MPs should. If the Tories don't change this rule they will keep getting loons foisted on them.

    So, in an alternate universe, the Tory Selectorate have two candidates for leader presented to them - Margaret Thatcher and Ken Clarke. Which one is the loon?
    With Boris they chose someone who would be good at winning elections but crap at governing. With Truss they've chosen someone who appears to be crap at both. The direction of travel is not good.

    One would hope that MPs would have some idea who would be good at governing and therefore good at winning elections. One should follow the other. Ideally.

    When "winning elections" is the priority, one out of two ain't bad.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,624

    Alistair said:

    The polls said Brexit would lose...

    100% revisionist nonsense.
    Indeed it is. The momentum was clearly with Leave in the last few weeks.

    image
    What's interesting is how solidly don't knows broke towards leave in the final weeks.

    I believe that traditionally, globally, don't knows normally break towards the status quo (hence in part swingback) which normally means voting No in a referendum, or Remain here, but the movement was very firmly in the opposite direction here.
    Torrential rain on the day made some difference. Whilst the country was fairly evenly split, there is no doubt that leavers were the more passionate about it all.
    Considering turnout was considerably higher than any other election, and I believe from memory at the top end of expectations, I doubt that the weather suppressed turnout.
    We all remember @SouthamObserver odyssey…
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,992
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    If a US President cannot remain in office, the VP steps up.

    We could have a similar system, where parties have a designated Deputy PM, and they have to step up if the PM does not continue.

    Then the mandate of the new PM only comes from the GE result and the manifesto they stood on. None of this Year Zero crap we are seeing from The Truss.

    Ford as has been pointed out became US President in 1974 when Nixon resigned but was not even VP candidate in 1972, that was Agnew who had already resigned and who he had previously replaced
    That's really the precedent you wish to call back to ?

    And the only really dramatic policy reversal was the new President not being a crook.
    Ford also announced an end to US involvement in the Vietnam War. Nixon won the 1972 election on a pro war platform over the anti Vietnam War McGovern
    And ?
    Nixon would have betrayed his electoral promise in exactly the same way.

  • 148grss said:

    EPG said:

    148grss said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
    Political parties have evolved since the inception of parliament - they do (and arguably should) have a mandate from their membership to do things. If parties are untethered from their members, then what is the point of them? They are supposed to be vehicles that people can use to push ideological and political theory and policy - if you agree with the premises of party a's platform, but disagree on the edges, or feel it needs to evolve in certain places, you join it and work with it for change.

    When parties are disconnected or openly despise their own members you get parties like the Dems in the USA - not very good at wielding power, only seeking the status quo, and basically only campaigning on the pledge to not be as bad as the other guys.

    People want things to believe in, and hope for good outcomes as being participants in society and politics is important for that in the modern era.
    Hm? The Democrats implemented massive federal spending programmes under both Biden and Obama. You don't have to like them but they definitely stand for "more government".
    But they don't stand for what a majority of them members want - specific policies on healthcare, abortion, etc. Like, Obama promised to pass a legislative protection of abortion in case roe ever got over turned, and didn't. Members wanted a single payer system, or even a public option, and didn't get it. Most of the things the Dems have done have been much milder than their membership wants, and arguably the country as a whole wants. Whereas the GOP, frothing in the brain they may be, deliver for their party members and their party members hold them to account if they don't. Democrats discipline the party base, the party base discipline the GOP. One party has, if not held complete power, always been in the drivers seat as much as possible, even from a minoritarian position, and the other party... doesn't.
    This isn't right. The GOP hardly got any of its long-standing priorities enacted. They failed to repeal ObamaCare, they couldn't privatize social security, they didn't build the wall. It's just really hard to get changes through the American system, especially ones that are unpopular or work against a powerful lobby.

    Obama didn't have the votes to codify Roe vs Wade, he didn't have the votes for single payer, he didn't have the votes for a public option, so none of those things happened. Trump didn't have the votes to fund a meaningful amount of wall, the GOP never had the votes to privatize social security, McCain vetoed the repeal of ObamaCare so none of those things happened.
    The Republican priority has been making the courts more conservative and increasing the power of the individual states. Both done for a generation or more.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 4,196

    148grss said:

    EPG said:

    148grss said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
    Political parties have evolved since the inception of parliament - they do (and arguably should) have a mandate from their membership to do things. If parties are untethered from their members, then what is the point of them? They are supposed to be vehicles that people can use to push ideological and political theory and policy - if you agree with the premises of party a's platform, but disagree on the edges, or feel it needs to evolve in certain places, you join it and work with it for change.

    When parties are disconnected or openly despise their own members you get parties like the Dems in the USA - not very good at wielding power, only seeking the status quo, and basically only campaigning on the pledge to not be as bad as the other guys.

    People want things to believe in, and hope for good outcomes as being participants in society and politics is important for that in the modern era.
    Hm? The Democrats implemented massive federal spending programmes under both Biden and Obama. You don't have to like them but they definitely stand for "more government".
    But they don't stand for what a majority of them members want - specific policies on healthcare, abortion, etc. Like, Obama promised to pass a legislative protection of abortion in case roe ever got over turned, and didn't. Members wanted a single payer system, or even a public option, and didn't get it. Most of the things the Dems have done have been much milder than their membership wants, and arguably the country as a whole wants. Whereas the GOP, frothing in the brain they may be, deliver for their party members and their party members hold them to account if they don't. Democrats discipline the party base, the party base discipline the GOP. One party has, if not held complete power, always been in the drivers seat as much as possible, even from a minoritarian position, and the other party... doesn't.
    This isn't right. The GOP hardly got any of its long-standing priorities enacted. They failed to repeal ObamaCare, they couldn't privatize social security, they didn't build the wall. It's just really hard to get changes through the American system, especially ones that are unpopular or work against a powerful lobby.

    Obama didn't have the votes to codify Roe vs Wade, he didn't have the votes for single payer, he didn't have the votes for a public option, so none of those things happened. Trump didn't have the votes to fund a meaningful amount of wall, the GOP never had the votes to privatize social security, McCain vetoed the repeal of ObamaCare so none of those things happened.
    I find the filibuster one of the weirdest legislative procedures in any developed democracy.

    I can’t think of any other nation where a supermajority is essentially required in one house to pass legislation.

    What’s even weirder is it’s not even in the constitution.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,992

    148grss said:

    EPG said:

    148grss said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
    Political parties have evolved since the inception of parliament - they do (and arguably should) have a mandate from their membership to do things. If parties are untethered from their members, then what is the point of them? They are supposed to be vehicles that people can use to push ideological and political theory and policy - if you agree with the premises of party a's platform, but disagree on the edges, or feel it needs to evolve in certain places, you join it and work with it for change.

    When parties are disconnected or openly despise their own members you get parties like the Dems in the USA - not very good at wielding power, only seeking the status quo, and basically only campaigning on the pledge to not be as bad as the other guys.

    People want things to believe in, and hope for good outcomes as being participants in society and politics is important for that in the modern era.
    Hm? The Democrats implemented massive federal spending programmes under both Biden and Obama. You don't have to like them but they definitely stand for "more government".
    But they don't stand for what a majority of them members want - specific policies on healthcare, abortion, etc. Like, Obama promised to pass a legislative protection of abortion in case roe ever got over turned, and didn't. Members wanted a single payer system, or even a public option, and didn't get it. Most of the things the Dems have done have been much milder than their membership wants, and arguably the country as a whole wants. Whereas the GOP, frothing in the brain they may be, deliver for their party members and their party members hold them to account if they don't. Democrats discipline the party base, the party base discipline the GOP. One party has, if not held complete power, always been in the drivers seat as much as possible, even from a minoritarian position, and the other party... doesn't.
    This isn't right. The GOP hardly got any of its long-standing priorities enacted. They failed to repeal ObamaCare, they couldn't privatize social security, they didn't build the wall. It's just really hard to get changes through the American system, especially ones that are unpopular or work against a powerful lobby.

    Obama didn't have the votes to codify Roe vs Wade, he didn't have the votes for single payer, he didn't have the votes for a public option, so none of those things happened. Trump didn't have the votes to fund a meaningful amount of wall, the GOP never had the votes to privatize social security, McCain vetoed the repeal of ObamaCare so none of those things happened.
    And it's a bloody miracle that Biden got anything through Congress, let alone the consequential legislation he has managed.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,624

    ydoethur said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1577177068919754753?t=nZFEmrcKZIW4X5Z-hKNwBg&s=19

    Cabinet minister Penny Mordaunt tells me #TimesRadio benefits SHOULD rise with inflation: “I’ve always supported - whether it’s pensions, whether it’s our welfare system - keeping pace with inflation. It makes sense to do so. That’s what I voted for before.” 1/4

    Supposedly they need to find £20bn of spending cuts - I just don’t see any at all.

    The easiest way to fill that £20bn gap is going to be reversing their corporation tax cut - I just don’t see any other solution that works…
    So everything the state spends money on is necessary and implemented in the best possible way?
    The Tory party has been cutting things for 12 years via austerity and then random “money saving”.

    Quick question point me at some Government spending where you can see £100m of easy to make savings…

    I will exclude only foreign aid because that is so obvious (and wrong) that it’s an easy get out…
    That’s *exactly* the wrong way to look at it. £100m makes no difference in the scheme of things.

    I would look at:

    - reforming housing benefit (and selectively building social property for short term stays)
    - Linking pensions to earnings only not the triple lock
    - Redesigning in work benefits so they are not abused by firms looking to underpay staff

    None of it will be easy. But the impact would be large
    You are right on housing benefit and pensions. I don't know enough about in work benefits to say either way.

    However, housing benefit reforms hits landlords and house prices hardest. Triple lock hits pensioners hardest.

    These are the Tory party client votes that are sacred.
    Nothing is sacred. The triple lock has only been around for a decade.Change needs to be sold

    Oh, is that how they plan to raise money for the tax cuts?
    Keep the triple lock but roll NI into Income Tax, abolish the reduced rate for dividends; tax all income at the same rates.

    Those rates can probably lower than the 33.25% & 43.25% that are the current
    combined ICT+NI rates on earned income.

    Start taxing wealth and gradually shift the balance of taxation away from income, towards wealth.
    The reduced rate of dividends is because they are paid out of taxed income (corporation tax). The theory is the rate between pre-tax income and cash in the shareholders’ hands should be equivalent for PAYE and dividend income
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,308
    Barnesian said:

    I've just found the following article I wrote in 1988 for the Barnes LibDem (then S&LD) local leaflet. Plus ça change.




    We swept the board at the next local election removing a Tory Councillor who had been there for 16 years. Here is her response:



    Vicious politics here in Barnes!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,574

    The Truss/Tory line to take now is to avoid the distraction of the mini-budget, and respond to every question by emphasising the energy support scheme. "If we hadn't intervened, the average household would be facing energy bills of £6,000 this winter", is the response I keep hearing.

    The thing is, this isn't really true, is it? If bills had actually gone up to £6,000. there's no way millions of families could have found an average of £500 a month to pay their bill. So something would have had to give, whatever.

    Also, didn't she oppose freezing the energy cap?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/09/liz-truss-stands-firm-on-tax-cuts-over-support-for-energy-bills

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/16/trusss-attacks-on-sturgeon-likely-to-dominate-scottish-hustings
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,850
    148grss said:

    HYUFD said:

    148grss said:

    EPG said:

    148grss said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
    Political parties have evolved since the inception of parliament - they do (and arguably should) have a mandate from their membership to do things. If parties are untethered from their members, then what is the point of them? They are supposed to be vehicles that people can use to push ideological and political theory and policy - if you agree with the premises of party a's platform, but disagree on the edges, or feel it needs to evolve in certain places, you join it and work with it for change.

    When parties are disconnected or openly despise their own members you get parties like the Dems in the USA - not very good at wielding power, only seeking the status quo, and basically only campaigning on the pledge to not be as bad as the other guys.

    People want things to believe in, and hope for good outcomes as being participants in society and politics is important for that in the modern era.
    Hm? The Democrats implemented massive federal spending programmes under both Biden and Obama. You don't have to like them but they definitely stand for "more government".
    But they don't stand for what a majority of them members want - specific policies on healthcare, abortion, etc. Like, Obama promised to pass a legislative protection of abortion in case roe ever got over turned, and didn't. Members wanted a single payer system, or even a public option, and didn't get it. Most of the things the Dems have done have been much milder than their membership wants, and arguably the country as a whole wants. Whereas the GOP, frothing in the brain they may be, deliver for their party members and their party members hold them to account if they don't. Democrats discipline the party base, the party base discipline the GOP. One party has, if not held complete power, always been in the drivers seat as much as possible, even from a minoritarian position, and the other party... doesn't.
    Democrat primary voters could have elected Bernie Sanders as their Presidential candidate in 2016 or 2020 who did want single payer healthcare. Instead they chose the centrists Hillary and Biden, their choice
    In the primaries Biden did say he would back a public option, and walked that back. Also Biden is historically unpopular, having dipped below even Trump at points, and is doing worse amongst Dem voters than Trump was doing against GOP voters.
    His approval is 0.1% ahead of Reagan at the same point in his presidency. Sure, it's not good but he has recovered a little from the 30s.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,294
    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done

    Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"

    Bless
    If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
    Brexit is done in as much as we left.

    Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.

    So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
    So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
    Nonsense. That is the point, we are not dealing with the EU like the other 200 countries because there is so much not done re Brexit. If we had properly Brexited that would be true, but we haven't. Hence Brexit is not done
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    CD13 said:

    Politicians get away with a lot until they 'jump the shark'. Boris got away with being lazy, arrogant, and out for number one, but he took the piss too obviously when he enjoyed parties at number ten while preaching the opposite. That one crime was unforgivable.

    Corbyn got away with being as thick as pigshit, because he meant well. However, siding with Putin when he did means he's forever yesterday's man.

    Liz managed to achieve her own finale by proposing to reduce taxes on the rich. Even it could be justified by evidence, it fails the fairness measure. "She's taking the piss." You do that only once.

    I think this is a very good point. Strengths also become weaknesses over time (eg decisiveness into arrogant pig headedness).

    It builds and builds. And eventually you lose credibility and even your good ideas dont get a look in.

    Truss is coming in on the back of a 12 year government and a PM who lost confidence of his MPs because he was mired in incompetence and sleaze.

    She responded, in public perception, by deciding the real problem was rich people weren't rich enough. She screwed herself by not seeing it would look that way.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,522

    148grss said:

    EPG said:

    148grss said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
    Political parties have evolved since the inception of parliament - they do (and arguably should) have a mandate from their membership to do things. If parties are untethered from their members, then what is the point of them? They are supposed to be vehicles that people can use to push ideological and political theory and policy - if you agree with the premises of party a's platform, but disagree on the edges, or feel it needs to evolve in certain places, you join it and work with it for change.

    When parties are disconnected or openly despise their own members you get parties like the Dems in the USA - not very good at wielding power, only seeking the status quo, and basically only campaigning on the pledge to not be as bad as the other guys.

    People want things to believe in, and hope for good outcomes as being participants in society and politics is important for that in the modern era.
    Hm? The Democrats implemented massive federal spending programmes under both Biden and Obama. You don't have to like them but they definitely stand for "more government".
    But they don't stand for what a majority of them members want - specific policies on healthcare, abortion, etc. Like, Obama promised to pass a legislative protection of abortion in case roe ever got over turned, and didn't. Members wanted a single payer system, or even a public option, and didn't get it. Most of the things the Dems have done have been much milder than their membership wants, and arguably the country as a whole wants. Whereas the GOP, frothing in the brain they may be, deliver for their party members and their party members hold them to account if they don't. Democrats discipline the party base, the party base discipline the GOP. One party has, if not held complete power, always been in the drivers seat as much as possible, even from a minoritarian position, and the other party... doesn't.
    This isn't right. The GOP hardly got any of its long-standing priorities enacted. They failed to repeal ObamaCare, they couldn't privatize social security, they didn't build the wall. It's just really hard to get changes through the American system, especially ones that are unpopular or work against a powerful lobby.

    Obama didn't have the votes to codify Roe vs Wade, he didn't have the votes for single payer, he didn't have the votes for a public option, so none of those things happened. Trump didn't have the votes to fund a meaningful amount of wall, the GOP never had the votes to privatize social security, McCain vetoed the repeal of ObamaCare so none of those things happened.
    The Republican priority has been making the courts more conservative and increasing the power of the individual states. Both done for a generation or more.
    They definitely made progress on the courts but if they've been trying to increase the power of individual states then it's a total failure. The federal government is more consequential than it's ever been.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,477
    Pulpstar said:

    148grss said:

    HYUFD said:

    148grss said:

    EPG said:

    148grss said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
    Political parties have evolved since the inception of parliament - they do (and arguably should) have a mandate from their membership to do things. If parties are untethered from their members, then what is the point of them? They are supposed to be vehicles that people can use to push ideological and political theory and policy - if you agree with the premises of party a's platform, but disagree on the edges, or feel it needs to evolve in certain places, you join it and work with it for change.

    When parties are disconnected or openly despise their own members you get parties like the Dems in the USA - not very good at wielding power, only seeking the status quo, and basically only campaigning on the pledge to not be as bad as the other guys.

    People want things to believe in, and hope for good outcomes as being participants in society and politics is important for that in the modern era.
    Hm? The Democrats implemented massive federal spending programmes under both Biden and Obama. You don't have to like them but they definitely stand for "more government".
    But they don't stand for what a majority of them members want - specific policies on healthcare, abortion, etc. Like, Obama promised to pass a legislative protection of abortion in case roe ever got over turned, and didn't. Members wanted a single payer system, or even a public option, and didn't get it. Most of the things the Dems have done have been much milder than their membership wants, and arguably the country as a whole wants. Whereas the GOP, frothing in the brain they may be, deliver for their party members and their party members hold them to account if they don't. Democrats discipline the party base, the party base discipline the GOP. One party has, if not held complete power, always been in the drivers seat as much as possible, even from a minoritarian position, and the other party... doesn't.
    Democrat primary voters could have elected Bernie Sanders as their Presidential candidate in 2016 or 2020 who did want single payer healthcare. Instead they chose the centrists Hillary and Biden, their choice
    In the primaries Biden did say he would back a public option, and walked that back. Also Biden is historically unpopular, having dipped below even Trump at points, and is doing worse amongst Dem voters than Trump was doing against GOP voters.
    His approval is 0.1% ahead of Reagan at the same point in his presidency. Sure, it's not good but he has recovered a little from the 30s.
    Partly because he started throwing the party base policy wins - student debt relief and some spending on green infrastructure. Pre those, biggest dips were with younger voters, since he has regained it has been amongst younger voters again.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,316
    Not much sign of a conference bounce for the tories then!
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    edited October 2022
    Why doesn't Liz Truss say in this interview that she trusts her Chancellor when repeatedly invited to say so?

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1577253162590707715

    ETA Doesn't back Mordaunt either. Rats in sack.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,074
    148grss said:

    HYUFD said:

    148grss said:

    EPG said:

    148grss said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
    Political parties have evolved since the inception of parliament - they do (and arguably should) have a mandate from their membership to do things. If parties are untethered from their members, then what is the point of them? They are supposed to be vehicles that people can use to push ideological and political theory and policy - if you agree with the premises of party a's platform, but disagree on the edges, or feel it needs to evolve in certain places, you join it and work with it for change.

    When parties are disconnected or openly despise their own members you get parties like the Dems in the USA - not very good at wielding power, only seeking the status quo, and basically only campaigning on the pledge to not be as bad as the other guys.

    People want things to believe in, and hope for good outcomes as being participants in society and politics is important for that in the modern era.
    Hm? The Democrats implemented massive federal spending programmes under both Biden and Obama. You don't have to like them but they definitely stand for "more government".
    But they don't stand for what a majority of them members want - specific policies on healthcare, abortion, etc. Like, Obama promised to pass a legislative protection of abortion in case roe ever got over turned, and didn't. Members wanted a single payer system, or even a public option, and didn't get it. Most of the things the Dems have done have been much milder than their membership wants, and arguably the country as a whole wants. Whereas the GOP, frothing in the brain they may be, deliver for their party members and their party members hold them to account if they don't. Democrats discipline the party base, the party base discipline the GOP. One party has, if not held complete power, always been in the drivers seat as much as possible, even from a minoritarian position, and the other party... doesn't.
    Democrat primary voters could have elected Bernie Sanders as their Presidential candidate in 2016 or 2020 who did want single payer healthcare. Instead they chose the centrists Hillary and Biden, their choice
    In the primaries Biden did say he would back a public option, and walked that back. Also Biden is historically unpopular, having dipped below even Trump at points, and is doing worse amongst Dem voters than Trump was doing against GOP voters.
    He said he would consider it, he also never said he would back a single payer system as Sanders did.

    However just 38% of US voters back single payer, Medicare for all as Bernie Sanders does

    https://americansforprosperity.org/new-poll-americans-strongly-prefer-personal-option-in-healthcare-to-single-payer-or-public-option/
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    Barnesian said:

    I've just found the following article I wrote in 1988 for the Barnes LibDem (then S&LD) local leaflet. Plus ça change.




    I wasnt around then, but the point that helping the rich is ok but helping the poor is not remains stark.
  • For Scott.

    image
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    algarkirk said:

    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1577177068919754753?t=nZFEmrcKZIW4X5Z-hKNwBg&s=19

    Cabinet minister Penny Mordaunt tells me #TimesRadio benefits SHOULD rise with inflation: “I’ve always supported - whether it’s pensions, whether it’s our welfare system - keeping pace with inflation. It makes sense to do so. That’s what I voted for before.” 1/4

    Supposedly they need to find £20bn of spending cuts - I just don’t see any at all.

    The easiest way to fill that £20bn gap is going to be reversing their corporation tax cut - I just don’t see any other solution that works…
    So everything the state spends money on is necessary and implemented in the best possible way?
    No, but there is not enough to fill the gap without severely impacting things.
    Which is the point.

    All governments suffer from mission creep. Someone has a pet project and 30 years later it is still going on with its budget increasing every year & no one asking if it is useful or necessary

    Once the state is in something it is politically difficult to get out - even in trivial ways. 150 years ago public expenditure on health, education, social welfare and pensions was trivial.

    Now any small cut to a £200bn budget on health, social welfare or pensions will lead to an unstoppable back bench revolt.

    This year the government is borrowing £190 bn. All suggestions which involve cut price paper clips won't do. Abolishing the state pension would go a long way......

    Quite so. Yes it is politically very difficult to cut the significant stuff, that's a genuine issue and growth would help.

    But 'efficiency savings' are the bankers bonuses of this - even if it's a good idea, it simply wont make much of a dent, and nor even would the state to stop doing certain things - because the untouchable stuff is bloody massive and the rest is not (eg foreign aid).
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,169
    edited October 2022

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?

    At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
    Winter will make things more difficult, but it doesn't necessarily make them impossible.

    One factor to keep in mind is that there's potential for a major civilian humanitarian crisis in Ukraine over the winter because of the damage done to civilian infrastructure. This is necessarily going to absorb a greater proportion of Ukrainian resources, while the Russians hardly give a damn about their own soldiers, let alone civilians.

    So you'd expect a lower tempo of operations over winter, but a stalemate is unlikely.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    I've just found the following article I wrote in 1988 for the Barnes LibDem (then S&LD) local leaflet. Plus ça change.




    We swept the board at the next local election removing a Tory Councillor who had been there for 16 years. Here is her response:



    Vicious politics here in Barnes!
    I like that it says it was treated with hilarity rather than outrage. Better response really.
  • kle4 said:

    Barnesian said:

    I've just found the following article I wrote in 1988 for the Barnes LibDem (then S&LD) local leaflet. Plus ça change.




    I wasnt around then, but the point that helping the rich is ok but helping the poor is not remains stark.
    Ensuring the poor are better off if they work, and the rich are better off if they work, is consistent though.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,419
    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done

    Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"

    Bless
    If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
    Brexit is done in as much as we left.

    Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.

    So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
    So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
    I have never denied that we had left, in fact I always thought I was fairly obvious about that fact and that I also feel it was a bad decision, but it is interesting how you and some other Leavers highlighted that part of my post like you had some desperate need for affirmation that what happened did indeed happen.
    If people like Scotty and you who still haven't got over losing a vote over six years ago keep lying about Brexit not being done, then naturally they will get corrected.
    I have never denied that we have Brexited but only a fool would believe that the job is finished. Sort out all the border issues, sort out N Ireland, get all the bilateral agreements fixed up, etc, etc.

    Your side has a lot to do. Stop bitching and get on with it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,850
    kjh said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done

    Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"

    Bless
    If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
    Brexit is done in as much as we left.

    Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.

    So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
    So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
    Nonsense. That is the point, we are not dealing with the EU like the other 200 countries because there is so much not done re Brexit. If we had properly Brexited that would be true, but we haven't. Hence Brexit is not done
    All goes back to the original collaborator - Diarmait mac Murchada in 1169.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    edited October 2022

    kle4 said:

    Barnesian said:

    I've just found the following article I wrote in 1988 for the Barnes LibDem (then S&LD) local leaflet. Plus ça change.




    I wasnt around then, but the point that helping the rich is ok but helping the poor is not remains stark.
    Ensuring the poor are better off if they work, and the rich are better off if they work, is consistent though.
    The rich were already working and doing very well though. They dont need more help.

    Edit: I dont want the rich to be fleeced. (I think for instance increasing the tax rate is probably counter productice) But I'm sick of hearing helping them, when they have innumerable ways of helping themselves, helps us all.

    I see no evidence of that, just moaning.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,347
    148grss said:

    Pulpstar said:

    148grss said:

    HYUFD said:

    148grss said:

    EPG said:

    148grss said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
    Political parties have evolved since the inception of parliament - they do (and arguably should) have a mandate from their membership to do things. If parties are untethered from their members, then what is the point of them? They are supposed to be vehicles that people can use to push ideological and political theory and policy - if you agree with the premises of party a's platform, but disagree on the edges, or feel it needs to evolve in certain places, you join it and work with it for change.

    When parties are disconnected or openly despise their own members you get parties like the Dems in the USA - not very good at wielding power, only seeking the status quo, and basically only campaigning on the pledge to not be as bad as the other guys.

    People want things to believe in, and hope for good outcomes as being participants in society and politics is important for that in the modern era.
    Hm? The Democrats implemented massive federal spending programmes under both Biden and Obama. You don't have to like them but they definitely stand for "more government".
    But they don't stand for what a majority of them members want - specific policies on healthcare, abortion, etc. Like, Obama promised to pass a legislative protection of abortion in case roe ever got over turned, and didn't. Members wanted a single payer system, or even a public option, and didn't get it. Most of the things the Dems have done have been much milder than their membership wants, and arguably the country as a whole wants. Whereas the GOP, frothing in the brain they may be, deliver for their party members and their party members hold them to account if they don't. Democrats discipline the party base, the party base discipline the GOP. One party has, if not held complete power, always been in the drivers seat as much as possible, even from a minoritarian position, and the other party... doesn't.
    Democrat primary voters could have elected Bernie Sanders as their Presidential candidate in 2016 or 2020 who did want single payer healthcare. Instead they chose the centrists Hillary and Biden, their choice
    In the primaries Biden did say he would back a public option, and walked that back. Also Biden is historically unpopular, having dipped below even Trump at points, and is doing worse amongst Dem voters than Trump was doing against GOP voters.
    His approval is 0.1% ahead of Reagan at the same point in his presidency. Sure, it's not good but he has recovered a little from the 30s.
    Partly because he started throwing the party base policy wins - student debt relief and some spending on green infrastructure. Pre those, biggest dips were with younger voters, since he has regained it has been amongst younger voters again.
    Biden has to work with what he has, a small majority in the House and 50:50 in the Senate. And two of those 50 don't back his main policies without much watering down. Biden needs two extra Senators and to hold the House if he wants to get things done.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,992
    This is a really interesting article.
    On one level, it's just an extended moan about the state of the US judicial system. But it's also rather more than that.

    The Supreme Court Is Blowing Up Law School, Too
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/10/supreme-court-scotus-decisions-law-school-professors.html
    ...Even law professors who maintained confidence that the Supreme Court would rise above politics are reconsidering their view after this term. “I have generally, up until now, resisted the cynicism of the ‘new legal realists’ that the Supreme Court isn’t a court, it’s just a policy council,” said Steve Sanders, a professor at Maurer School of Law. “I want my students to believe that legal argumentation, precedent, facts, and doctrine matter.” In the aftermath of this term, though, “it’s becoming increasingly difficult to deny that major constitutional decisions are almost purely about politics.”

    This realization compelled Sanders to reconsider aspects of his teaching style. “I think one of my strengths as a teacher has been that students, both conservative and progressive, see me as an honest broker who rarely injects his own opinions into teaching,” he said. “But there comes a point when you can’t have integrity as a teacher and teach these cases honestly without noting their serious flaws.” Dobbs, for instance, “is screamingly, unapologetically activist. It gives no respect to settled societal expectations, reliance interests, or the meaning of the Constitution as it’s been lived through the lives of actual people for the past 50 years.” ...
  • HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?

    At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
    Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
    Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.

    Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,574
    darkage said:

    Not much sign of a conference bounce for the tories then!

    We await the great leader's speech. Surely everything will be fine thereafter.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?

    At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
    The Ukranians are prepared for winter, and there doesn’t appear to be any appetite for a slowdown in pace, which would indeed help the enemy regroup.

    They have supply lines in place, and have been able to restrict the supply depots of the enemy to some way behind their front line - thanks HIMARS!

    On the other hand, there are numerous reports of the enemy troops being demoralised and even mutinous, with a lack of supply and spending a long time in the field. Denying the enemy that opportunity to rotate and regroup soldiers, especially as winter descends, should be a huge morale-booster to the defenders. Any conscripts ending up in Ukraine, definitely didn’t sign up for spending the winter camping in a field while being shot at, they’ll lose morale much more quickly than the regular troops.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,917

    Good afternoon

    Catching up I see the trauma the conservative party is suffering continues a pace with Truss refusing to commit to upgrading benefits in line with inflation, as is happening for pensioners, and Penny Mordaunt contradicting her

    Eric Pickles on BBC has just said there are more conservative mps who will vote down Truss on this then there were for the 45% rate

    I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period

    The other benefit with Truss gone will be the end of Kwarteng political career and that cannot come soon enough

    None of this will prevent Starmer winning in 2024 but maybe conservative mps can regain some respect by acting

    I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period

    They cannot agree, which is why you ended up with Truss.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,074

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?

    At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
    Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
    Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.

    Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
    Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490

    For Scott.

    image

    Issues arising from Brexit may not be done, so its semantics. That's not a criticism of Brexit, it's just a consequence of any change having lasting impacts.

    The government certainly says it's not done when they want a distraction.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?

    At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
    Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
    Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.

    Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
    Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
    They probable couldn't actually.

    But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,308
    edited October 2022

    kle4 said:

    Barnesian said:

    I've just found the following article I wrote in 1988 for the Barnes LibDem (then S&LD) local leaflet. Plus ça change.




    I wasnt around then, but the point that helping the rich is ok but helping the poor is not remains stark.
    Ensuring the poor are better off if they work, and the rich are better off if they work, is consistent though.
    The methods are different. You make the poorer even poorer if they don't work (so they are better off if they work). You just make the rich better off.

    It would be preferable to incentivise the poor to work by ensuring well paid jobs rather than subsidising employers who pay below living wages.

    EDIT: For instance raise the minimum wage and remove Employers NI.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000

    For Scott.

    image

    Not only is it done it is an absolutely huge waste of time. There is no clearer example of this than travelling on the Eurostar and EU roaming charges.

    Queues are now literally round the block and in GdN they have built....an exactly similar set of e-passport gates 10 yards apart one for La France and one for the UK.

    In addition it costs now £2/day for EU roaming (£5/day for EU+ roaming).

    So absolutely pointless plus costing everyone more money.

    Hurrah.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Ukr claiming they destroyed 44 enemy tanks yesterday.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,074
    edited October 2022
    Barnesian said:

    kle4 said:

    Barnesian said:

    I've just found the following article I wrote in 1988 for the Barnes LibDem (then S&LD) local leaflet. Plus ça change.




    I wasnt around then, but the point that helping the rich is ok but helping the poor is not remains stark.
    Ensuring the poor are better off if they work, and the rich are better off if they work, is consistent though.
    The methods are different. You make the poorer even poorer if they don't work (so they are better off if they work). You just make the rich better off.

    It would be preferable to incentivise the poor to work by ensuring well paid jobs rather than subsidising employers who pay below living wages.

    EDIT: For instance raise the minimum wage and remove Employers NI.
    Surprising amount of support from the public on the Vine show just now for Truss increasing benefits in line with earnings not inflation.

    Looks like that proposal has gone down much down better than her cut to the 45p top income tax rate did
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,029
    Barnesian said:

    I've just found the following article I wrote in 1988 for the Barnes LibDem (then S&LD) local leaflet. Plus ça change.




    "The Tories and the rich are terrible!"

    "Divisions being introduced into communities!"

    Um...
  • Barnesian said:

    kle4 said:

    Barnesian said:

    I've just found the following article I wrote in 1988 for the Barnes LibDem (then S&LD) local leaflet. Plus ça change.




    I wasnt around then, but the point that helping the rich is ok but helping the poor is not remains stark.
    Ensuring the poor are better off if they work, and the rich are better off if they work, is consistent though.
    The methods are different. You make the poorer even poorer if they don't work (so they are better off if they work). You just make the rich better off.

    It would be preferable to incentivise the poor to work by ensuring well paid jobs rather than subsidising employers who pay below living wages.
    We have a legal minimum/living wage which is well past the point that the state feels its appropriate to tax and take away earnings though.

    AFAIK a childless couple both working full time on minimum wage can't get any welfare, so their employment is not remotely getting "subsidised". Instead the state subsidises those who work part time or have children. Its not the employer that chose to get their employees pregnant.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000

    Ukr claiming they destroyed 44 enemy tanks yesterday.

    They did. Check out this terrifying footage of the Ukrainian army in action with extremely fast and pinpoint accurate anti-tank missiles.

    https://twitter.com/MushangweBetter/status/1576892880882323458
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?

    At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
    Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
    Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.

    Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
    Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
    They probable couldn't actually.

    But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
    'They probable couldn't actually.'

    Whiler not at Leon levels of absence of moral fibre, I have been a little nervous. However that 'probable' has reassured me no end.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,029
    kjh said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done

    Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"

    Bless
    If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
    Brexit is done in as much as we left.

    Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.

    So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
    So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
    Nonsense. That is the point, we are not dealing with the EU like the other 200 countries because there is so much not done re Brexit. If we had properly Brexited that would be true, but we haven't. Hence Brexit is not done
    If Brexit is not done, how do I contact my MEP? I clearly still have one since, according to you, we are still members of the EU.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    Nigelb said:

    This is a really interesting article.
    On one level, it's just an extended moan about the state of the US judicial system. But it's also rather more than that.

    The Supreme Court Is Blowing Up Law School, Too
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/10/supreme-court-scotus-decisions-law-school-professors.html
    ...Even law professors who maintained confidence that the Supreme Court would rise above politics are reconsidering their view after this term. “I have generally, up until now, resisted the cynicism of the ‘new legal realists’ that the Supreme Court isn’t a court, it’s just a policy council,” said Steve Sanders, a professor at Maurer School of Law. “I want my students to believe that legal argumentation, precedent, facts, and doctrine matter.” In the aftermath of this term, though, “it’s becoming increasingly difficult to deny that major constitutional decisions are almost purely about politics.”

    This realization compelled Sanders to reconsider aspects of his teaching style. “I think one of my strengths as a teacher has been that students, both conservative and progressive, see me as an honest broker who rarely injects his own opinions into teaching,” he said. “But there comes a point when you can’t have integrity as a teacher and teach these cases honestly without noting their serious flaws.” Dobbs, for instance, “is screamingly, unapologetically activist. It gives no respect to settled societal expectations, reliance interests, or the meaning of the Constitution as it’s been lived through the lives of actual people for the past 50 years.” ...

    Truth hurts sometimes.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?

    At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
    The Ukranians are prepared for winter, and there doesn’t appear to be any appetite for a slowdown in pace, which would indeed help the enemy regroup.

    They have supply lines in place, and have been able to restrict the supply depots of the enemy to some way behind their front line - thanks HIMARS!

    On the other hand, there are numerous reports of the enemy troops being demoralised and even mutinous, with a lack of supply and spending a long time in the field. Denying the enemy that opportunity to rotate and regroup soldiers, especially as winter descends, should be a huge morale-booster to the defenders. Any conscripts ending up in Ukraine, definitely didn’t sign up for spending the winter camping in a field while being shot at, they’ll lose morale much more quickly than the regular troops.
    The Ukrainian flag flies over Davydov Brod in northern Kherson. Formerly a strategic hub for the Russians, there are reports that the Russians are now pulling back south and west en masse. The front is moving at a very fast rate.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,074

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?

    At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
    Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
    Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.

    Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
    Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
    They probable couldn't actually.

    But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
    It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,169
    The claimed rate of Ukrainian advance in Kherson today is insane.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1577260136908800000
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,029

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done

    Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"

    Bless
    If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
    Brexit is done in as much as we left.

    Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.

    So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
    So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
    I have never denied that we had left, in fact I always thought I was fairly obvious about that fact and that I also feel it was a bad decision, but it is interesting how you and some other Leavers highlighted that part of my post like you had some desperate need for affirmation that what happened did indeed happen.
    If people like Scotty and you who still haven't got over losing a vote over six years ago keep lying about Brexit not being done, then naturally they will get corrected.
    I have never denied that we have Brexited but only a fool would believe that the job is finished. Sort out all the border issues, sort out N Ireland, get all the bilateral agreements fixed up, etc, etc.

    Your side has a lot to do. Stop bitching and get on with it.
    I'm not a politician, but if you want a good solution, you could help rather than bitching and moaning all because you still haven't gotten over losing a vote more than six years ago.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,917
    Truss survives because there isn’t a unifying candidate ready to replace her. It’s the same reason she got the job.

    Mourdaunt: too woke
    Sunak: too disloyal (to Boris) and too taxing
    Badenoch: too early
    Gove: too sneaky
    Wallace: too hesitant
    Mogg: too Mogg
    Hunt: too remain

    Chishti?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,029
    kle4 said:

    For Scott.

    image

    Issues arising from Brexit may not be done, so its semantics. That's not a criticism of Brexit, it's just a consequence of any change having lasting impacts.

    The government certainly says it's not done when they want a distraction.
    And we should believe what the government says - why, exactly?
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?

    At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
    Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
    Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.

    Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
    Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
    They probable couldn't actually.

    But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
    It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
    Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦‍♂️

    If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,308
    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    kle4 said:

    Barnesian said:

    I've just found the following article I wrote in 1988 for the Barnes LibDem (then S&LD) local leaflet. Plus ça change.




    I wasnt around then, but the point that helping the rich is ok but helping the poor is not remains stark.
    Ensuring the poor are better off if they work, and the rich are better off if they work, is consistent though.
    The methods are different. You make the poorer even poorer if they don't work (so they are better off if they work). You just make the rich better off.

    It would be preferable to incentivise the poor to work by ensuring well paid jobs rather than subsidising employers who pay below living wages.

    EDIT: For instance raise the minimum wage and remove Employers NI.
    Surprising amount of support from the public on the Vine show just now for Truss increasing benefits in line with earnings not inflation.

    Looks like that proposal has gone down much down better than her cut to the 45p top income tax rate did
    You'd expect earnings to rise faster than inflation so it sounds more generous. You'd need to think it through.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,029
    TOPPING said:

    For Scott.

    image

    Not only is it done it is an absolutely huge waste of time. There is no clearer example of this than travelling on the Eurostar and EU roaming charges.

    Queues are now literally round the block and in GdN they have built....an exactly similar set of e-passport gates 10 yards apart one for La France and one for the UK.

    In addition it costs now £2/day for EU roaming (£5/day for EU+ roaming).

    So absolutely pointless plus costing everyone more money.

    Hurrah.
    £2 per day? Your network is ripping you off, get a better one. Or get a local SIM card.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000
    Driver said:

    kle4 said:

    For Scott.

    image

    Issues arising from Brexit may not be done, so its semantics. That's not a criticism of Brexit, it's just a consequence of any change having lasting impacts.

    The government certainly says it's not done when they want a distraction.
    And we should believe what the government says - why, exactly?
    Oh we don't. The problem is that the Brexiters did.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,477
    I find this whole King Charles going to a climate conference thing very... strange:

    https://twitter.com/stylehelen1/status/1577177857427578880?s=46&t=7jJlVNdwVFl4g8sJqvwZeg&fbclid=IwAR0bu7Dyg_AV5izKk1KG6DiSxS9SJF2Klpn_c-ZT93NQ4oTfvKyFr8OrQwM

    I'm a republican, who disagrees with monarchy, and doesn't particularly like our system of a gentleman's agreement not to flex the monarchic muscle. But this is a weird thing for the government to be doing also.

    I was talking to a friend about how this feels like two legitimacy issues rolled into one - obviously Charles isn't elected, he's King, and that de facto should be legitimising, but also in our system he is kind of supposed to defer to advice from the government. But this government is also new, and going through a legitimacy crisis of its own. Very weird...
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,347

    Good afternoon

    Catching up I see the trauma the conservative party is suffering continues a pace with Truss refusing to commit to upgrading benefits in line with inflation, as is happening for pensioners, and Penny Mordaunt contradicting her

    Eric Pickles on BBC has just said there are more conservative mps who will vote down Truss on this then there were for the 45% rate

    I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period

    The other benefit with Truss gone will be the end of Kwarteng political career and that cannot come soon enough

    None of this will prevent Starmer winning in 2024 but maybe conservative mps can regain some respect by acting

    BIG_G, do you have an impression of whether any Tory MP could command enough support for a 'coronation'?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000
    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done

    Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"

    Bless
    If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
    Brexit is done in as much as we left.

    Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.

    So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
    So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
    I have never denied that we had left, in fact I always thought I was fairly obvious about that fact and that I also feel it was a bad decision, but it is interesting how you and some other Leavers highlighted that part of my post like you had some desperate need for affirmation that what happened did indeed happen.
    If people like Scotty and you who still haven't got over losing a vote over six years ago keep lying about Brexit not being done, then naturally they will get corrected.
    I have never denied that we have Brexited but only a fool would believe that the job is finished. Sort out all the border issues, sort out N Ireland, get all the bilateral agreements fixed up, etc, etc.

    Your side has a lot to do. Stop bitching and get on with it.
    I'm not a politician, but if you want a good solution, you could help rather than bitching and moaning all because you still haven't gotten over losing a vote more than six years ago.
    Are you a Conservative? Did you stop "bitching and moaning" in 1997 when Lab won the GE?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?

    At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
    The Ukranians are prepared for winter, and there doesn’t appear to be any appetite for a slowdown in pace, which would indeed help the enemy regroup.

    They have supply lines in place, and have been able to restrict the supply depots of the enemy to some way behind their front line - thanks HIMARS!

    On the other hand, there are numerous reports of the enemy troops being demoralised and even mutinous, with a lack of supply and spending a long time in the field. Denying the enemy that opportunity to rotate and regroup soldiers, especially as winter descends, should be a huge morale-booster to the defenders. Any conscripts ending up in Ukraine, definitely didn’t sign up for spending the winter camping in a field while being shot at, they’ll lose morale much more quickly than the regular troops.
    The Ukrainian flag flies over Davydov Brod in northern Kherson. Formerly a strategic hub for the Russians, there are reports that the Russians are now pulling back south and west en masse. The front is moving at a very fast rate.
    Yes, the movement south in Kherson region is now gathering pace, as it did in Kharkiv region a couple of weeks ago.

    As someone commented on Twitter under a report of the advances, soon we’ll be seeing a T-72 swimming competition!
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,294
    edited October 2022
    Driver said:

    kjh said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done

    Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"

    Bless
    If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
    Brexit is done in as much as we left.

    Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.

    So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
    So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
    Nonsense. That is the point, we are not dealing with the EU like the other 200 countries because there is so much not done re Brexit. If we had properly Brexited that would be true, but we haven't. Hence Brexit is not done
    If Brexit is not done, how do I contact my MEP? I clearly still have one since, according to you, we are still members of the EU.
    What a twit. Getting Brexit done is not about not having an MEP. It is a bit more complicated than that otherwise a 5 year old could have done it. Leaving involved doing a lot of things and those things have not been done. Just take NI for instance. It isn't done is it? It is still outstanding isn't it?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000
    Driver said:

    TOPPING said:

    For Scott.

    image

    Not only is it done it is an absolutely huge waste of time. There is no clearer example of this than travelling on the Eurostar and EU roaming charges.

    Queues are now literally round the block and in GdN they have built....an exactly similar set of e-passport gates 10 yards apart one for La France and one for the UK.

    In addition it costs now £2/day for EU roaming (£5/day for EU+ roaming).

    So absolutely pointless plus costing everyone more money.

    Hurrah.
    £2 per day? Your network is ripping you off, get a better one. Or get a local SIM card.
    All pretty frictionless options vs the status quo ante when I had to....turn on my phone and use it.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?

    At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
    Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
    Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.

    Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
    Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
    They probable couldn't actually.

    But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
    It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
    Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦‍♂️

    If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
    Not really your decision, Bart. Nuking Ukraine with fallout overspill into Poland is not the same thing as nuking Poland. The Treaty very clearly requires an armed attack on a member state.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,308
    TOPPING said:

    Ukr claiming they destroyed 44 enemy tanks yesterday.

    They did. Check out this terrifying footage of the Ukrainian army in action with extremely fast and pinpoint accurate anti-tank missiles.

    https://twitter.com/MushangweBetter/status/1576892880882323458
    I believe that is a video game.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,029
    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done

    Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"

    Bless
    If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
    Brexit is done in as much as we left.

    Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.

    So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
    So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
    I have never denied that we had left, in fact I always thought I was fairly obvious about that fact and that I also feel it was a bad decision, but it is interesting how you and some other Leavers highlighted that part of my post like you had some desperate need for affirmation that what happened did indeed happen.
    If people like Scotty and you who still haven't got over losing a vote over six years ago keep lying about Brexit not being done, then naturally they will get corrected.
    I have never denied that we have Brexited but only a fool would believe that the job is finished. Sort out all the border issues, sort out N Ireland, get all the bilateral agreements fixed up, etc, etc.

    Your side has a lot to do. Stop bitching and get on with it.
    I'm not a politician, but if you want a good solution, you could help rather than bitching and moaning all because you still haven't gotten over losing a vote more than six years ago.
    Are you a Conservative? Did you stop "bitching and moaning" in 1997 when Lab won the GE?
    No. I was too young by a few months in 1997, but would have voted Labour then, so the question is rather irrelevant.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    TOPPING said:

    Ukr claiming they destroyed 44 enemy tanks yesterday.

    They did. Check out this terrifying footage of the Ukrainian army in action with extremely fast and pinpoint accurate anti-tank missiles.

    https://twitter.com/MushangweBetter/status/1576892880882323458
    Enough! Anybody else reposting that video game footage will spend a month in ConHome!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000
    Barnesian said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ukr claiming they destroyed 44 enemy tanks yesterday.

    They did. Check out this terrifying footage of the Ukrainian army in action with extremely fast and pinpoint accurate anti-tank missiles.

    https://twitter.com/MushangweBetter/status/1576892880882323458
    I believe that is a video game.
    Impossible. It is on twitter and was presented as evidence of Ukrainian military activity.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,345
    edited October 2022
    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    kle4 said:

    Barnesian said:

    I've just found the following article I wrote in 1988 for the Barnes LibDem (then S&LD) local leaflet. Plus ça change.




    I wasnt around then, but the point that helping the rich is ok but helping the poor is not remains stark.
    Ensuring the poor are better off if they work, and the rich are better off if they work, is consistent though.
    The methods are different. You make the poorer even poorer if they don't work (so they are better off if they work). You just make the rich better off.

    It would be preferable to incentivise the poor to work by ensuring well paid jobs rather than subsidising employers who pay below living wages.

    EDIT: For instance raise the minimum wage and remove Employers NI.
    Surprising amount of support from the public on the Vine show just now for Truss increasing benefits in line with earnings not inflation.

    Looks like that proposal has gone down much down better than her cut to the 45p top income tax rate did
    The point is you cannot increase pensioners by inflation and not other benefits and I speak as a pensioner

    Anyway she will be defeated in the HOC if she tries
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644

    148grss said:

    EPG said:

    148grss said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    148grss said:

    OllyT said:

    Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.

    Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.

    What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.

    Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.

    My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed

    [snip!]
    The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.

    The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.

    The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.

    BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
    No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...

    There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
    They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.

    There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
    My problem is that the Tory selectorate should not have been anywhere near the decision.

    We are a Parliamentary democracy and the only people with the right to select the next PM was and is Tory MPs....

    And if they had made the decision they wouldn't be in the mess they now find themselves in because the selectorate wouldn't have changed or had the chance to change Tory party policy.....
    Political parties have evolved since the inception of parliament - they do (and arguably should) have a mandate from their membership to do things. If parties are untethered from their members, then what is the point of them? They are supposed to be vehicles that people can use to push ideological and political theory and policy - if you agree with the premises of party a's platform, but disagree on the edges, or feel it needs to evolve in certain places, you join it and work with it for change.

    When parties are disconnected or openly despise their own members you get parties like the Dems in the USA - not very good at wielding power, only seeking the status quo, and basically only campaigning on the pledge to not be as bad as the other guys.

    People want things to believe in, and hope for good outcomes as being participants in society and politics is important for that in the modern era.
    Hm? The Democrats implemented massive federal spending programmes under both Biden and Obama. You don't have to like them but they definitely stand for "more government".
    But they don't stand for what a majority of them members want - specific policies on healthcare, abortion, etc. Like, Obama promised to pass a legislative protection of abortion in case roe ever got over turned, and didn't. Members wanted a single payer system, or even a public option, and didn't get it. Most of the things the Dems have done have been much milder than their membership wants, and arguably the country as a whole wants. Whereas the GOP, frothing in the brain they may be, deliver for their party members and their party members hold them to account if they don't. Democrats discipline the party base, the party base discipline the GOP. One party has, if not held complete power, always been in the drivers seat as much as possible, even from a minoritarian position, and the other party... doesn't.
    This isn't right. The GOP hardly got any of its long-standing priorities enacted. They failed to repeal ObamaCare, they couldn't privatize social security, they didn't build the wall. It's just really hard to get changes through the American system, especially ones that are unpopular or work against a powerful lobby.

    Obama didn't have the votes to codify Roe vs Wade, he didn't have the votes for single payer, he didn't have the votes for a public option, so none of those things happened. Trump didn't have the votes to fund a meaningful amount of wall, the GOP never had the votes to privatize social security, McCain vetoed the repeal of ObamaCare so none of those things happened.
    The Republican priority has been making the courts more conservative and increasing the power of the individual states. Both done for a generation or more.
    The Republican priority has been the Court only because they’ve faced the same checks and balances as the Dems and struggled to get legislation through.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,419
    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done

    Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"

    Bless
    If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
    Brexit is done in as much as we left.

    Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.

    So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
    So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
    I have never denied that we had left, in fact I always thought I was fairly obvious about that fact and that I also feel it was a bad decision, but it is interesting how you and some other Leavers highlighted that part of my post like you had some desperate need for affirmation that what happened did indeed happen.
    If people like Scotty and you who still haven't got over losing a vote over six years ago keep lying about Brexit not being done, then naturally they will get corrected.
    I have never denied that we have Brexited but only a fool would believe that the job is finished. Sort out all the border issues, sort out N Ireland, get all the bilateral agreements fixed up, etc, etc.

    Your side has a lot to do. Stop bitching and get on with it.
    I'm not a politician, but if you want a good solution, you could help rather than bitching and moaning all because you still haven't gotten over losing a vote more than six years ago.
    I think it is a colossal mistake. Why would I attempt to implement it? I am not standing in the way of those who do want it. I am not impeding them or attempting to frustrate them. I am simply having nothing to do with it.

    It is up to those who wanted this to carry it out. Sitting there crying "You did not vote for this so make it work" is probably not your most viable strategy.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,347
    148grss said:

    I find this whole King Charles going to a climate conference thing very... strange:

    https://twitter.com/stylehelen1/status/1577177857427578880?s=46&t=7jJlVNdwVFl4g8sJqvwZeg&fbclid=IwAR0bu7Dyg_AV5izKk1KG6DiSxS9SJF2Klpn_c-ZT93NQ4oTfvKyFr8OrQwM

    I'm a republican, who disagrees with monarchy, and doesn't particularly like our system of a gentleman's agreement not to flex the monarchic muscle. But this is a weird thing for the government to be doing also.

    I was talking to a friend about how this feels like two legitimacy issues rolled into one - obviously Charles isn't elected, he's King, and that de facto should be legitimising, but also in our system he is kind of supposed to defer to advice from the government. But this government is also new, and going through a legitimacy crisis of its own. Very weird...

    Why would our Tory government not make use of the soft power afforded by the Monarchy to push forward much needed action on Climate Change, unless they were ambivalent about it themselves?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,029
    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    TOPPING said:

    For Scott.

    image

    Not only is it done it is an absolutely huge waste of time. There is no clearer example of this than travelling on the Eurostar and EU roaming charges.

    Queues are now literally round the block and in GdN they have built....an exactly similar set of e-passport gates 10 yards apart one for La France and one for the UK.

    In addition it costs now £2/day for EU roaming (£5/day for EU+ roaming).

    So absolutely pointless plus costing everyone more money.

    Hurrah.
    £2 per day? Your network is ripping you off, get a better one. Or get a local SIM card.
    All pretty frictionless options vs the status quo ante when I had to....turn on my phone and use it.
    If your network doesn't value you as a customer, then you have always had the option to switch.

    But remember that "free" roaming is essentially a subsidy of richer customers, who travel more, by poorer customers, who travel less.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,758

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?

    At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
    Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
    Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.

    Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
    Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
    They probable couldn't actually.

    But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
    Go to nukemap and drop a 100kt (such as could be delivered by a Tochka) tac nuke on Kherson. The fallout doesn't get anywhere near NATO territory.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,074
    148grss said:

    I find this whole King Charles going to a climate conference thing very... strange:

    https://twitter.com/stylehelen1/status/1577177857427578880?s=46&t=7jJlVNdwVFl4g8sJqvwZeg&fbclid=IwAR0bu7Dyg_AV5izKk1KG6DiSxS9SJF2Klpn_c-ZT93NQ4oTfvKyFr8OrQwM

    I'm a republican, who disagrees with monarchy, and doesn't particularly like our system of a gentleman's agreement not to flex the monarchic muscle. But this is a weird thing for the government to be doing also.

    I was talking to a friend about how this feels like two legitimacy issues rolled into one - obviously Charles isn't elected, he's King, and that de facto should be legitimising, but also in our system he is kind of supposed to defer to advice from the government. But this government is also new, and going through a legitimacy crisis of its own. Very weird...

    Voters overall back Charles going to COP 49% to 31%.

    Interestingly Labour and LD voters are most supportive. 70% of Labour voters and 64% of LDs think Charles should have been allowed to go.

    Looks like Charles could get on better with PM Starmer than PM Truss

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1576959509515235329?s=20&t=e1hL4JJqJR1RZYCdV3L0Vw
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    kle4 said:

    Barnesian said:

    I've just found the following article I wrote in 1988 for the Barnes LibDem (then S&LD) local leaflet. Plus ça change.




    I wasnt around then, but the point that helping the rich is ok but helping the poor is not remains stark.
    Ensuring the poor are better off if they work, and the rich are better off if they work, is consistent though.
    The methods are different. You make the poorer even poorer if they don't work (so they are better off if they work). You just make the rich better off.

    It would be preferable to incentivise the poor to work by ensuring well paid jobs rather than subsidising employers who pay below living wages.

    EDIT: For instance raise the minimum wage and remove Employers NI.
    Surprising amount of support from the public on the Vine show just now for Truss increasing benefits in line with earnings not inflation.

    Looks like that proposal has gone down much down better than her cut to the 45p top income tax rate did
    That is less surprising to me. People are generally more strict on benefits, and I k ow plenty of people in work who accept asking for inflation pay increases is not a good idea overall, if tough for them.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000

    TOPPING said:

    For Scott.

    image

    Not only is it done it is an absolutely huge waste of time. There is no clearer example of this than travelling on the Eurostar and EU roaming charges.

    Queues are now literally round the block and in GdN they have built....an exactly similar set of e-passport gates 10 yards apart one for La France and one for the UK.

    In addition it costs now £2/day for EU roaming (£5/day for EU+ roaming).

    So absolutely pointless plus costing everyone more money.

    Hurrah.
    Another development is that the Government, which initially deemed all EU regulation to be still in force (with a change from "responsible to the EU" to "responsible to the UK Government", unless amended/abolished. At the end of 2023, this will flip - all regulations not explicitly transposed will cease to be valid.

    While one can understand the logic, most regulations are in fact seen by the Government as uncontentious (e.g. rules on the meaning of shipping lights at sea), so what this will primarily do is require the preparation and discussion in Committee of more than 300 Statutory Instruments, any of which can be moved to discussion in full Parliamentary session by Opposition decision (essentially an SI only goes through by committee if there is no significant opposition). The demands on the Civil Service and MPs (sitting on the SI committees) over the next year will be colossal, slowing down work on substantive new policy.
    Brexit was never going to be a disaster, although I'm sure you could find plenty of evidence that it is. It was always going to make people poorer in sometimes barely discernible ways but poorer they and we will become.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,438
    TOPPING said:

    Ukr claiming they destroyed 44 enemy tanks yesterday.

    They did. Check out this terrifying footage of the Ukrainian army in action with extremely fast and pinpoint accurate anti-tank missiles.

    https://twitter.com/MushangweBetter/status/1576892880882323458
    Good grief. They destroyed everything

    What are those Satanic missiles?!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000

    TOPPING said:

    Ukr claiming they destroyed 44 enemy tanks yesterday.

    They did. Check out this terrifying footage of the Ukrainian army in action with extremely fast and pinpoint accurate anti-tank missiles.

    https://twitter.com/MushangweBetter/status/1576892880882323458
    Enough! Anybody else reposting that video game footage will spend a month in ConHome!
    Spoilsport.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490

    Ukr claiming they destroyed 44 enemy tanks yesterday.

    Any sign of Russian managing to increase supply? There's no way they expected to lose so many.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,074
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    kle4 said:

    Barnesian said:

    I've just found the following article I wrote in 1988 for the Barnes LibDem (then S&LD) local leaflet. Plus ça change.




    I wasnt around then, but the point that helping the rich is ok but helping the poor is not remains stark.
    Ensuring the poor are better off if they work, and the rich are better off if they work, is consistent though.
    The methods are different. You make the poorer even poorer if they don't work (so they are better off if they work). You just make the rich better off.

    It would be preferable to incentivise the poor to work by ensuring well paid jobs rather than subsidising employers who pay below living wages.

    EDIT: For instance raise the minimum wage and remove Employers NI.
    Surprising amount of support from the public on the Vine show just now for Truss increasing benefits in line with earnings not inflation.

    Looks like that proposal has gone down much down better than her cut to the 45p top income tax rate did
    You'd expect earnings to rise faster than inflation so it sounds more generous. You'd need to think it through.
    No, mainly workers on average and low wages saying they didn't think those on benefits should get a bigger percentage rise in income than them
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,992
    Jonathan said:

    Good afternoon

    Catching up I see the trauma the conservative party is suffering continues a pace with Truss refusing to commit to upgrading benefits in line with inflation, as is happening for pensioners, and Penny Mordaunt contradicting her

    Eric Pickles on BBC has just said there are more conservative mps who will vote down Truss on this then there were for the 45% rate

    I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period

    The other benefit with Truss gone will be the end of Kwarteng political career and that cannot come soon enough

    None of this will prevent Starmer winning in 2024 but maybe conservative mps can regain some respect by acting

    I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period

    They cannot agree, which is why you ended up with Truss.
    Which is why Wallace, as probably the only appointable replacement.

    He has recently said he wouldn't rule out standing for the leadership, which is a big change from before.
    And he's no great threat to anyone when they get around to fighting over the remains of the party after the next election.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000
    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ukr claiming they destroyed 44 enemy tanks yesterday.

    They did. Check out this terrifying footage of the Ukrainian army in action with extremely fast and pinpoint accurate anti-tank missiles.

    https://twitter.com/MushangweBetter/status/1576892880882323458
    Good grief. They destroyed everything

    What are those Satanic missiles?!
    They are LWBAs (the MkIIs). Pretty devastating.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,029

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done

    Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"

    Bless
    If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
    Brexit is done in as much as we left.

    Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.

    So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
    So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
    I have never denied that we had left, in fact I always thought I was fairly obvious about that fact and that I also feel it was a bad decision, but it is interesting how you and some other Leavers highlighted that part of my post like you had some desperate need for affirmation that what happened did indeed happen.
    If people like Scotty and you who still haven't got over losing a vote over six years ago keep lying about Brexit not being done, then naturally they will get corrected.
    I have never denied that we have Brexited but only a fool would believe that the job is finished. Sort out all the border issues, sort out N Ireland, get all the bilateral agreements fixed up, etc, etc.

    Your side has a lot to do. Stop bitching and get on with it.
    I'm not a politician, but if you want a good solution, you could help rather than bitching and moaning all because you still haven't gotten over losing a vote more than six years ago.
    I think it is a colossal mistake. Why would I attempt to implement it?
    Because, I assume, you believe in democracy (if you don't, the entire thing is pointless anyway). By setting your face against the democratic decision of the British people, you (and here I mean the plural: former Remainers who refused to accept the decision) have stuck us with a worse solution than if you'd just put your hands up, said "ok, we lost, let's make the most of it" and worked for a solution that would have satisfied most people who voted Remain and most people who voted Leave.
  • HYUFD said:

    148grss said:

    I find this whole King Charles going to a climate conference thing very... strange:

    https://twitter.com/stylehelen1/status/1577177857427578880?s=46&t=7jJlVNdwVFl4g8sJqvwZeg&fbclid=IwAR0bu7Dyg_AV5izKk1KG6DiSxS9SJF2Klpn_c-ZT93NQ4oTfvKyFr8OrQwM

    I'm a republican, who disagrees with monarchy, and doesn't particularly like our system of a gentleman's agreement not to flex the monarchic muscle. But this is a weird thing for the government to be doing also.

    I was talking to a friend about how this feels like two legitimacy issues rolled into one - obviously Charles isn't elected, he's King, and that de facto should be legitimising, but also in our system he is kind of supposed to defer to advice from the government. But this government is also new, and going through a legitimacy crisis of its own. Very weird...

    Voters overall back Charles going to COP 49% to 31%.

    Interestingly Labour and LD voters are most supportive. 70% of Labour voters and 64% of LDs think Charles should have been allowed to go.

    Looks like Charles could get on better with PM Starmer than PM Truss

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1576959509515235329?s=20&t=e1hL4JJqJR1RZYCdV3L0Vw
    And very much so v the toxic Johnson
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,074

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?

    At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
    Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
    Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.

    Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
    Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
    They probable couldn't actually.

    But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
    It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
    Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦‍♂️

    If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
    Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?

    At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
    Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
    Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.

    Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
    Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
    They probable couldn't actually.

    But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
    Go to nukemap and drop a 100kt (such as could be delivered by a Tochka) tac nuke on Kherson. The fallout doesn't get anywhere near NATO territory.
    Not sure why Russia would nuke Kherson - it has 25 of their finest* battle groups there....

    *or what passes for them these days.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000
    Driver said:

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    TOPPING said:

    For Scott.

    image

    Not only is it done it is an absolutely huge waste of time. There is no clearer example of this than travelling on the Eurostar and EU roaming charges.

    Queues are now literally round the block and in GdN they have built....an exactly similar set of e-passport gates 10 yards apart one for La France and one for the UK.

    In addition it costs now £2/day for EU roaming (£5/day for EU+ roaming).

    So absolutely pointless plus costing everyone more money.

    Hurrah.
    £2 per day? Your network is ripping you off, get a better one. Or get a local SIM card.
    All pretty frictionless options vs the status quo ante when I had to....turn on my phone and use it.
    If your network doesn't value you as a customer, then you have always had the option to switch.

    But remember that "free" roaming is essentially a subsidy of richer customers, who travel more, by poorer customers, who travel less.
    Looked like a pretty diverse bunch queuing up at St. Pancras. Are you saying that people from Hartlepool are too dim and stupid to travel to France?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,025
    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ukr claiming they destroyed 44 enemy tanks yesterday.

    They did. Check out this terrifying footage of the Ukrainian army in action with extremely fast and pinpoint accurate anti-tank missiles.

    https://twitter.com/MushangweBetter/status/1576892880882323458
    Good grief. They destroyed everything

    What are those Satanic missiles?!
    They are LWBAs (the MkIIs). Pretty devastating.
    The age of the tank is passing/passed/already long gone like most of the tanks Russia rolled into Ukraine
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    Jonathan said:

    Truss survives because there isn’t a unifying candidate ready to replace her. It’s the same reason she got the job.

    Mourdaunt: too woke
    Sunak: too disloyal (to Boris) and too taxing
    Badenoch: too early
    Gove: too sneaky
    Wallace: too hesitant
    Mogg: too Mogg
    Hunt: too remain

    Chishti?

    Every party leader that PB thinks will fall does eventually fall, but usually much later than predicted. I think Truss is toast in the long term, but I think she’ll hang on until after losing a 2024 election. If not, I think the Tories will replace her much nearer to the election than now.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000
    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    .

    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done

    Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"

    Bless
    If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
    Brexit is done in as much as we left.

    Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.

    So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
    So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
    I have never denied that we had left, in fact I always thought I was fairly obvious about that fact and that I also feel it was a bad decision, but it is interesting how you and some other Leavers highlighted that part of my post like you had some desperate need for affirmation that what happened did indeed happen.
    If people like Scotty and you who still haven't got over losing a vote over six years ago keep lying about Brexit not being done, then naturally they will get corrected.
    I have never denied that we have Brexited but only a fool would believe that the job is finished. Sort out all the border issues, sort out N Ireland, get all the bilateral agreements fixed up, etc, etc.

    Your side has a lot to do. Stop bitching and get on with it.
    I'm not a politician, but if you want a good solution, you could help rather than bitching and moaning all because you still haven't gotten over losing a vote more than six years ago.
    I think it is a colossal mistake. Why would I attempt to implement it?
    Because, I assume, you believe in democracy (if you don't, the entire thing is pointless anyway). By setting your face against the democratic decision of the British people, you (and here I mean the plural: former Remainers who refused to accept the decision) have stuck us with a worse solution than if you'd just put your hands up, said "ok, we lost, let's make the most of it" and worked for a solution that would have satisfied most people who voted Remain and most people who voted Leave.
    So if you are a Conservative why didn't you pack up and go home in 1997 after Tony Blair won the GE?

    Do you think democracy stops at the most recent decision you agreed with?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,846
    F1: yesterday I tipped Sainz at 19 (17 plus boost) each way to win in Japan. Still think that's worth backing, but today I checked the qualifying odds and he's 7 to be fastest, third favourite.

    Which just makes his race odds look more appealing, to me anyway.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,074
    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?

    At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
    Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
    Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.

    Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
    Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
    They probable couldn't actually.

    But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
    Go to nukemap and drop a 100kt (such as could be delivered by a Tochka) tac nuke on Kherson. The fallout doesn't get anywhere near NATO territory.
    I have just liked a Dura post, first time for everything!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?

    At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
    Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
    Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.

    Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
    Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
    They probable couldn't actually.

    But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
    Go to nukemap and drop a 100kt (such as could be delivered by a Tochka) tac nuke on Kherson. The fallout doesn't get anywhere near NATO territory.
    It's not NATO territory now yet NATO has been willing to provide some support at least. Are you suggesting use of a nuke would have no impact on their considerations of what to do?

    That seems to fly in the face of the evidence of current involvement, however limited.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 4,196
    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?

    At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
    Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
    Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.

    Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
    Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
    They probable couldn't actually.

    But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
    It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
    Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦‍♂️

    If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
    Not really your decision, Bart. Nuking Ukraine with fallout overspill into Poland is not the same thing as nuking Poland. The Treaty very clearly requires an armed attack on a member state.
    Still don’t really think a tactical nuke is cause for a NATO counterattack (grey area re the fallout). To me the first step is sanctions max.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 10,150
    edited October 2022
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?

    At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
    Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
    Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.

    Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
    Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
    They probable couldn't actually.

    But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
    It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
    Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦‍♂️

    If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
    Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
    If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.

    If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.

    Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,029
    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    TOPPING said:

    For Scott.

    image

    Not only is it done it is an absolutely huge waste of time. There is no clearer example of this than travelling on the Eurostar and EU roaming charges.

    Queues are now literally round the block and in GdN they have built....an exactly similar set of e-passport gates 10 yards apart one for La France and one for the UK.

    In addition it costs now £2/day for EU roaming (£5/day for EU+ roaming).

    So absolutely pointless plus costing everyone more money.

    Hurrah.
    £2 per day? Your network is ripping you off, get a better one. Or get a local SIM card.
    All pretty frictionless options vs the status quo ante when I had to....turn on my phone and use it.
    If your network doesn't value you as a customer, then you have always had the option to switch.

    But remember that "free" roaming is essentially a subsidy of richer customers, who travel more, by poorer customers, who travel less.
    Looked like a pretty diverse bunch queuing up at St. Pancras. Are you saying that people from Hartlepool are too dim and stupid to travel to France?
    Oh, dear, oh dear, oh dear. Since you're going to make an idiot of yourself, I think I'd better leave it there before you make yourself look even worse.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,074
    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?

    At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
    Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
    Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.

    Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
    Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
    They probable couldn't actually.

    But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
    Go to nukemap and drop a 100kt (such as could be delivered by a Tochka) tac nuke on Kherson. The fallout doesn't get anywhere near NATO territory.
    It's not NATO territory now yet NATO has been willing to provide some support at least. Are you suggesting use of a nuke would have no impact on their considerations of what to do?

    That seems to fly in the face of the evidence of current involvement, however limited.
    It should lead to a blockade and complete isolation of Putin but not WW3 unless a NATO state is directly attacked
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.

    Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
    The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
    Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.

    The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.

    https://nadinbrzezinski.medium.com/logistics-collapse-945984f5d48e
    Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
    Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?

    At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
    The Ukranians are prepared for winter, and there doesn’t appear to be any appetite for a slowdown in pace, which would indeed help the enemy regroup.

    They have supply lines in place, and have been able to restrict the supply depots of the enemy to some way behind their front line - thanks HIMARS!

    On the other hand, there are numerous reports of the enemy troops being demoralised and even mutinous, with a lack of supply and spending a long time in the field. Denying the enemy that opportunity to rotate and regroup soldiers, especially as winter descends, should be a huge morale-booster to the defenders. Any conscripts ending up in Ukraine, definitely didn’t sign up for spending the winter camping in a field while being shot at, they’ll lose morale much more quickly than the regular troops.
    The Ukrainian flag flies over Davydov Brod in northern Kherson. Formerly a strategic hub for the Russians, there are reports that the Russians are now pulling back south and west en masse. The front is moving at a very fast rate.
    Yes, the movement south in Kherson region is now gathering pace, as it did in Kharkiv region a couple of weeks ago.

    As someone commented on Twitter under a report of the advances, soon we’ll be seeing a T-72 swimming competition!
    There is already footage somewhere of one doing the backstroke - after it fell off a bridge....
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000
    Driver said:

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    TOPPING said:

    Driver said:

    TOPPING said:

    For Scott.

    image

    Not only is it done it is an absolutely huge waste of time. There is no clearer example of this than travelling on the Eurostar and EU roaming charges.

    Queues are now literally round the block and in GdN they have built....an exactly similar set of e-passport gates 10 yards apart one for La France and one for the UK.

    In addition it costs now £2/day for EU roaming (£5/day for EU+ roaming).

    So absolutely pointless plus costing everyone more money.

    Hurrah.
    £2 per day? Your network is ripping you off, get a better one. Or get a local SIM card.
    All pretty frictionless options vs the status quo ante when I had to....turn on my phone and use it.
    If your network doesn't value you as a customer, then you have always had the option to switch.

    But remember that "free" roaming is essentially a subsidy of richer customers, who travel more, by poorer customers, who travel less.
    Looked like a pretty diverse bunch queuing up at St. Pancras. Are you saying that people from Hartlepool are too dim and stupid to travel to France?
    Oh, dear, oh dear, oh dear. Since you're going to make an idiot of yourself, I think I'd better leave it there before you make yourself look even worse.
    Oh dear yourself that was what you were implying. That the proles wouldn't be travelling anywhere.

    Plus what about you giving up campaigning or supporting the Cons in 1997? I mean Labour won in a democratic vote, after all.

    Or were you not old enough to vote then?
This discussion has been closed.