They were strong runners up amongst MPs/members and Mordaunt can do empathy and public speaking (if she's otherwise an empty vessel) and Sunak knows his numbers.
It will have to do.
Was it the Daily Mail that did a hatchet job on Mordaunt during the leadership campaign? Surely they must see now she'd have done a better job than Truss.
It was her Wokery, and lying about it, that sunk her.
Anyway, needs must.
Penny would have been better sticking to her guns and defending her liberal views. Trying to pander to the Wokefinder Generals did her in.
There is nothing liberal about Woke.
You need to learn and understand this.
Woke (as a noun rather than a verb and even then it’s archaic) is an invention of the Right to demonise their opponents. If you see anyone using the word it’s a tell. They’re a reactionary. It’s the right’s rebadge of “PC gone mad” for boomers.
It has been explained repeatedly to you on here, repeatedly, that it's about an obsession with classifying people by identity group and treating them as members of that group accordingly, rather than as individuals, and is therefore in direct opposition to enlightenment values.
None so blind.
The Enlightenment was financed by, and very very ambivalent or silent about, black slavery. Hume and Locke invested in slaves and plantations. Voltaire was against but did have this to say
«Leurs yeux ronds, leur nez épaté, leurs lèvres toujours grosses, leurs oreilles différemment figurées, la laine de leur tête, la mesure même de leur intelligence, mettent entre eux et les autres espèces d’hommes des différences prodigieuses »: Essai sur les moeurs, INTRODUCTION.[1]
(Their round eyes, their flattened nose, their lips which are always large, their differently shaped ears, the wool of their head, that very measure of their intelligence, place prodigious differences between them and the other species of men.)
«[Ε]t ils n’ont d’homme que la stature du corps, avec la faculté de la parole et de la pensée dans un degré très éloigné du nôtre. Tels sont ceux que j’ai vus et examinés»: Essai sur les moeurs, INTRODUCTION.[2]
(And they are not men, except in their stature, with the faculty of speech and thought at a degree far distant to ours. Such are the ones that I have seen and examined.)
«[Ε]t on peut dire que si leur intelligence n’est pas d’une autre espèce que notre entendement, elle est fort inférieure. Ils ne sont pas capables d’une grande attention; ils combinent peu, et ne paraissent faits ni pour les avantages ni pour les abus de notre philosophie»: Essai sur les moeurs, κεφ. CXLI.[3]
(And one could say that if their intelligence is not of another species than ours, then it is greatly inferior. They are not capable of paying much attention; they mingle very little, and they do not appear to be made either for the advantages or the abuses of our philosophy.)
There are historical contexts where it makes sense on all possible levels to classify people by identity group. In 1930s Germany whether someone had a GSOH, liked long walks on the beach and had read Proust in the original mattered a lot less than whether they were Jewish.
This week in Brexitland, after a poll puts the Tories on 19% it's time to ask: is the Conservative party facing extinction come the next election? I dig into the numbers and discover that the polling is even worse for the Tories than you might think: https://nicktyrone.substack.com/p/this-week-in-brexitland-october-14th
Interesting: he focusses on the percentage vote/total seats function under FPTP . And he identifies 26% as the very sudden phase transition between a serious party and a diddy little party - and the Tories are hovering around that level.
“Yesterday, I announced we were betting the economy on ‘Emperor Spirit’ at the 2.50 race at Haydock. Today I have asked the Chancellor to return early from the US to join me at the course this afternoon as we watch the delivery of our fresh plan for growth.’ https://twitter.com/Aiannucci/status/1580819188947750912/photo/1
Finally a plan! The concern however is that it's untested in current conditions.
Who was it who says 'no plan survives first contact with the enemy?'
Reality being Truss' worst enemy ...
von Moltke
I prefer the modern iteration "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the dace."
Elon - why? I know you need money but this really isn’t a good look
He’s making a right idiot of himself here, and I say that as someone who quite likes what he’s doing with SpaceX.
Sadly, appeasement towards Russia is now quite mainstream thinking in the US, across the whole political spectrum. There’s an awful lot of people suggesting that Ukraine should sue for peace, or that it’s no longer in the US interest to keep supporting Ukraine now Putin is threatening nuclear escalation.
This is, of course, exactly what Putin wants. Thankfully, most Western leaders remain behind arming Ukraine.
Thankfully another quiet night there last night, with only a handful of missiles launched, more than half of which were shot down. Steady advances by the defenders in Kherson region too, they’re now only about 5km from the airport in the West of the city, and have retaken more than half the occupied lands in the North of the region, in the past couple of weeks.
It does sound a bit 1917 out there. This story is going around:
That doesn’t sound good, if there’s any truth to it. Also reports that Russian civilians in Kherson are being told to leave - how exactly they’re supposed to leave, is a different question. The bridges are all full of holes, and even the supply barge across the river was sunk last week.
Is there any objective appraisal out there of how the Ukrainians have been treating Russians (military and civilian) in the areas they have recaptured? I have seen a few comments about atrocities but nothing on the scale of Russian crimes. Is this because the Ukrainians are more disciplined or because they are better at controlling the news?
Good question. I would suggest a combination of all of the above, and the fact that there are few enemy civilians in the war zone. Russian POWs that have been released, have generally said they were treated well.
There don't seem to be many Russian allegations of maltreatment of their prisoners by Ukraine, as you'd expect if it was happening on a large scale. The main misbehaviour seems to be filming prisoners for public gloats, which is I believe against the Geneva convention but IMO not really a serious abuse. (Allegations of Russian maltreatment of prisoners are more common but also seem sporadic rather than systematic.) There are some reports of retaliation against people who cooperated with the Russians in areas that Ukraine has recaptured - one convincing-sounding interview in an ethnically-divided town had a woman saying that first pro-Russian locals denounced pro-Ukranians and now the reverse was happening.
Why MPs should not fear the members if they ditch the hapless Truss...
Perhaps, but there is a bit of a 'you can have any colour car you want as long as its black' type answer. If the members pick the 'wrong' candidate, the party in Parliament will just replace them with who they preferred anyway. In which case, what is the point of being a party member?
Sure, Truss needs to go, but don't think for a second the members will be happy with that.
It is the responsibility of the parliamentary party to propose two sensible candidates.
Yep, if the MPs don’t want to work with one of the candidates, then they shouldn’t have been a candidate in the first place.
Doing a stich-up now, to insert the losing candidate over the heads of the membership, is possibly the worst of all worlds. The MPs either need to support the PM, or cross the floor and vote for an election.
Trouble is that about a third of Conservative MPs are batso enough to have settled on Truss as their preferred candidate. That's enough, pretty much irrespective of what other MPs think.
That's also a lot of MPs to bring onside or ignore if you want a coronation.
“Yesterday, I announced we were betting the economy on ‘Emperor Spirit’ at the 2.50 race at Haydock. Today I have asked the Chancellor to return early from the US to join me at the course this afternoon as we watch the delivery of our fresh plan for growth.’ https://twitter.com/Aiannucci/status/1580819188947750912/photo/1
Finally a plan! The concern however is that it's untested in current conditions.
Who was it who says 'no plan survives first contact with the enemy?'
Reality being Truss' worst enemy ...
von Moltke
I prefer the modern iteration "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the dace."
“Yesterday, I announced we were betting the economy on ‘Emperor Spirit’ at the 2.50 race at Haydock. Today I have asked the Chancellor to return early from the US to join me at the course this afternoon as we watch the delivery of our fresh plan for growth.’ https://twitter.com/Aiannucci/status/1580819188947750912/photo/1
Finally a plan! The concern however is that it's untested in current conditions.
Who was it who says 'no plan survives first contact with the enemy?'
Reality being Truss' worst enemy ...
von Moltke
I prefer the modern iteration "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the dace."
What if their plan is to get punched in the dace [sic]?
I think that the problem we must face is that there may not be an end to the war in Ukraine. If Russia can hold a line using mobilised troops, then surely it will, and we know it can take unlimited human losses, because Russians will not rise up against their government. It could just go on for years like this. How many billions can the US pump in to it and how much economic harm can Europe take? Is it indefinete?
The problem that people must see is that there is a very high risk of a sudden political capitulation in Europe and the US over this winter, resulting in withdrawal of political support for the funding of the war in Ukraine at the current levels. This is probably what the 'master strategist' Putin is expecting to happen. There are murmurs of it all over the place, particularly in the US.
There is no way of shutting this type of thinking down in a democracy. The Ukrainian propoganda machine has done a brilliant job to date but it cannot go on like this indefinetly. How deep and resolute is western support for Ukraine? Could the people currently waving Ukrainian flags on Council estates be swayed by the narrative that we are being bankrupted by a woke LGBTQI+ conspiracy? What about all the refugees that we have taken in and expect to be housed indefinetly, whilst a large part of Ukraine is not affected by the fighting?
The position of the French, or trying to find a solution along the lines suggested by Elon Musk, is not totally stupid. If you are going to keep supporting the war, you need to work out what your endgame is and how likely that it will be achieved, and at what cost. I would say that there are two problems, one being that it is unlikely that the war can ultimately actually be won on any conventional level; and secondly that given the political dynamics of Russia, any replacement for Putin and his regime is unlikely to be favourable to our long term interests.
Merkel unrepentant about making Germany dependent on Russian energy.
I can’t see either Suella Braverman or Boris Johnson blithely accepting a Sunak/Mourdant coronation.
Indeed, which is why Wallace is the best bet for a coronation as he has always polled well with members, he can then make Sunak Chancellor again and give Mordaunt a top job and keep Braverman in post.
A Sunak Mordaunt ticket would almost certainly see Braverman stand against it, maybe Boris too and if it went to the membership therefore Braverman or Boris would likely win it
We have been considering 2003 as the example when perhaps the better one is 1990 or 1963. We know for a fact that Sunak was right - he set out very clearly what would happen with the KT economic plan, she called it out as "project fear" and here we are.
However, can the Tories really accept *any* of the failed leadership candidates as a unity figure? So I can see your point about Ben Wallace - someone who doesn't want the leadership, is widely regarded as competent and moral, and would I assume put together a cabinet of all the talents (stop laughing at the back).
But how do they persuade someone who has no desire to be leader / PM to do so? There is duty and patriotism, but those do not compel most people to put themselves through the horrible experience that will be leading the Tories to a respectable defeat.
“Yesterday, I announced we were betting the economy on ‘Emperor Spirit’ at the 2.50 race at Haydock. Today I have asked the Chancellor to return early from the US to join me at the course this afternoon as we watch the delivery of our fresh plan for growth.’ https://twitter.com/Aiannucci/status/1580819188947750912/photo/1
Finally a plan! The concern however is that it's untested in current conditions.
Who was it who says 'no plan survives first contact with the enemy?'
Reality being Truss' worst enemy ...
von Moltke
I prefer the modern iteration "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the dace."
What if their plan is to get punched in the dace [sic]?
“Yesterday, I announced we were betting the economy on ‘Emperor Spirit’ at the 2.50 race at Haydock. Today I have asked the Chancellor to return early from the US to join me at the course this afternoon as we watch the delivery of our fresh plan for growth.’ https://twitter.com/Aiannucci/status/1580819188947750912/photo/1
Finally a plan! The concern however is that it's untested in current conditions.
Who was it who says 'no plan survives first contact with the enemy?'
Reality being Truss' worst enemy ...
von Moltke
I prefer the modern iteration "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the dace."
What if their plan is to get punched in the dace [sic]?
In that case, everything is going swimmingly.
If in a way that E L James would have thought "no, that's too weird..."
I think that the problem we must face is that there may not be an end to the war in Ukraine. If Russia can hold a line using mobilised troops, then surely it will, and we know it can take unlimited human losses, because Russians will not rise up against their government. It could just go on for years like this. How many billions can the US pump in to it and how much economic harm can Europe take? Is it indefinete?
The problem that people must see is that there is a very high risk of a sudden political capitulation in Europe and the US over this winter, resulting in withdrawal of political support for the funding of the war in Ukraine at the current levels. This is probably what the 'master strategist' Putin is expecting to happen. There are murmurs of it all over the place, particularly in the US.
There is no way of shutting this type of thinking down in a democracy. The Ukrainian propoganda machine has done a brilliant job to date but it cannot go on like this indefinetly. How deep and resolute is western support for Ukraine? Could the people currently waving Ukrainian flags on Council estates be swayed by the narrative that we are being bankrupted by a woke LGBTQI+ conspiracy? What about all the refugees that we have taken in and expect to be housed indefinetly, whilst a large part of Ukraine is not affected by the fighting?
The position of the French, or trying to find a solution along the lines suggested by Elon Musk, is not totally stupid. If you are going to keep supporting the war, you need to work out what your endgame is and how likely that it will be achieved, and at what cost. I would say that there are two problems, one being that it is unlikely that the war can ultimately actually be won on any conventional level; and secondly that given the political dynamics of Russia, any replacement for Putin and his regime is unlikely to be favourable to our long term interests.
That sort of talk will get you put on Restriction of Privileges or maybe sent to Kherson in a Stroibat.
Elon - why? I know you need money but this really isn’t a good look
He’s making a right idiot of himself here, and I say that as someone who quite likes what he’s doing with SpaceX.
Sadly, appeasement towards Russia is now quite mainstream thinking in the US, across the whole political spectrum. There’s an awful lot of people suggesting that Ukraine should sue for peace, or that it’s no longer in the US interest to keep supporting Ukraine now Putin is threatening nuclear escalation.
This is, of course, exactly what Putin wants. Thankfully, most Western leaders remain behind arming Ukraine.
Thankfully another quiet night there last night, with only a handful of missiles launched, more than half of which were shot down. Steady advances by the defenders in Kherson region too, they’re now only about 5km from the airport in the West of the city, and have retaken more than half the occupied lands in the North of the region, in the past couple of weeks.
It does sound a bit 1917 out there. This story is going around:
That doesn’t sound good, if there’s any truth to it. Also reports that Russian civilians in Kherson are being told to leave - how exactly they’re supposed to leave, is a different question. The bridges are all full of holes, and even the supply barge across the river was sunk last week.
Is there any objective appraisal out there of how the Ukrainians have been treating Russians (military and civilian) in the areas they have recaptured? I have seen a few comments about atrocities but nothing on the scale of Russian crimes. Is this because the Ukrainians are more disciplined or because they are better at controlling the news?
There's the video of the Russian with the broken back on top of a wrecked BTR getting punched in the face by UAF. There's probably plenty going on on both sides. No saints on the battlefied no matter who the combatants are.
Yep agreed. I think I would be more concerned about eth Ukrainians if there were none of these reports/leaks. To me it would indicate they had a very tight hold on information which might be hiding all manner of abuses. It is unrealistic to think it doesn't happen. The question is whether it is a matter of military policy as it appears to be by the Russians.
Funny how four recent Tory leaders on the trot have self destructed quite unnecessarily. They will all be kicking themselves to the grave.
Cameron called an unnecessary referendum
May called an unnecessary election
Johnson had an unnecessary booze up
Truss had an unnecessary budget
Cameron won an unexpected general election and could build on 5 years of competent government. Instead he swung policies down the callous route and lived in fear of the kipper. Had he carried on a Torified version of the coalition programme and told Farage to do one, wouldn't they have demolished Corbyn in 2020 and still be in office?
They were strong runners up amongst MPs/members and Mordaunt can do empathy and public speaking (if she's otherwise an empty vessel) and Sunak knows his numbers.
It will have to do.
Was it the Daily Mail that did a hatchet job on Mordaunt during the leadership campaign? Surely they must see now she'd have done a better job than Truss.
It was her Wokery, and lying about it, that sunk her.
Anyway, needs must.
Penny would have been better sticking to her guns and defending her liberal views. Trying to pander to the Wokefinder Generals did her in.
There is nothing liberal about Woke.
You need to learn and understand this.
Woke (as a noun rather than a verb and even then it’s archaic) is an invention of the Right to demonise their opponents. If you see anyone using the word it’s a tell. They’re a reactionary. It’s the right’s rebadge of “PC gone mad” for boomers.
It has been explained repeatedly to you on here, repeatedly, that it's about an obsession with classifying people by identity group and treating them as members of that group accordingly, rather than as individuals, and is therefore in direct opposition to enlightenment values.
None so blind.
So it refers to PB Tories? Huge if true.
I all seriousness through, no it doesn’t. You are being intellectually dishonest with yourself as well as me (“repeatedly”???). What “Woke” is is a reactionary shibboleth to demonise anyone who dares to stray from a right wing view of history and culture.
There is no intellectually coherent definition of the snarling use of the word “woke” that fits the people that it applies to. Going to a Pride Parade (the crime of the above referenced erstwhile Tory contender in the photo) is “woke” but attending a St Patrick’s Day Parade is not “woke”. Why? Both celebrate specific identities but one is an acceptable national identity to the right but one is an unacceptable sexual identity. You are all happy to classify refugees by their membership of that group rather than as individuals. Are you “woke”? Clearly not.
The intellectually depth of some of the posters on here would shame a paddling pool.
Polling heavily favours Truss being replaced and Sunak's numbers look v. good:
"As for her potential replacements, 43 per cent of the public said that Sunak would make a better PM, with just 18 per cent saying Truss would be better than the former chancellor. Asked the same question of Boris Johnson, 35 per cent of Britons thought he would be better than Truss and 28 per cent said he would be worse."
I think public support is there for Tories to do this.
I think it is, but almost entirely on the basis of "God, this is awful" rather than any longing for Sunak. The risk is that he (or someone else) takes over, takes responsibility for a dose of nasty medicine, and then becomes as unpopular as Truss. What do the Tories do then - try yet someone else?
Politically, they may be better off having Truss take all the hits while inflation peaks, change after the local elections, and then claim credit for the new lreader when inflation starts to come down.
I don't get how a party that ummed and arred over ousting the least suitable PM in modern times (Boris Johnson) is supposed to get rid of Truss completely before the new year. She should be given the May locals at least.
Good! The one thing the markets really like at the moment is dither and the prospect that the government are about to uturn on the uturn. Its calmly reassuring to bond traders.
They were strong runners up amongst MPs/members and Mordaunt can do empathy and public speaking (if she's otherwise an empty vessel) and Sunak knows his numbers.
It will have to do.
Was it the Daily Mail that did a hatchet job on Mordaunt during the leadership campaign? Surely they must see now she'd have done a better job than Truss.
It was her Wokery, and lying about it, that sunk her.
Anyway, needs must.
Penny would have been better sticking to her guns and defending her liberal views. Trying to pander to the Wokefinder Generals did her in.
There is nothing liberal about Woke.
You need to learn and understand this.
Woke (as a noun rather than a verb and even then it’s archaic) is an invention of the Right to demonise their opponents. If you see anyone using the word it’s a tell. They’re a reactionary. It’s the right’s rebadge of “PC gone mad” for boomers.
It has been explained repeatedly to you on here, repeatedly, that it's about an obsession with classifying people by identity group and treating them as members of that group accordingly, rather than as individuals, and is therefore in direct opposition to enlightenment values.
None so blind.
No, it is about being able to recognise systemic prejudice in society, particularly unconscious prejudice.
The problem is that people do not agree what they mean by "Woke". Of course, the worst and most socially divisive form of identity politics is nationalism, as seen in Russia at present.
Going in to a discussion about what is 'woke' is futile because it means whatever you want it to mean. Both of the definitions given above are reasonable.
My own definition is that it represents the prioritisation of removing prejudice over the respect for individual rights and freedoms. Personally I regard myself as 'woke sceptical' because I acknowledge and agree with the goal of removing prejudice in society but think that in doing so individual rights and freedoms should not be compromised.
Elon - why? I know you need money but this really isn’t a good look
He’s making a right idiot of himself here, and I say that as someone who quite likes what he’s doing with SpaceX.
Sadly, appeasement towards Russia is now quite mainstream thinking in the US, across the whole political spectrum. There’s an awful lot of people suggesting that Ukraine should sue for peace, or that it’s no longer in the US interest to keep supporting Ukraine now Putin is threatening nuclear escalation.
This is, of course, exactly what Putin wants. Thankfully, most Western leaders remain behind arming Ukraine.
Thankfully another quiet night there last night, with only a handful of missiles launched, more than half of which were shot down. Steady advances by the defenders in Kherson region too, they’re now only about 5km from the airport in the West of the city, and have retaken more than half the occupied lands in the North of the region, in the past couple of weeks.
It does sound a bit 1917 out there. This story is going around:
That doesn’t sound good, if there’s any truth to it. Also reports that Russian civilians in Kherson are being told to leave - how exactly they’re supposed to leave, is a different question. The bridges are all full of holes, and even the supply barge across the river was sunk last week.
Is there any objective appraisal out there of how the Ukrainians have been treating Russians (military and civilian) in the areas they have recaptured? I have seen a few comments about atrocities but nothing on the scale of Russian crimes. Is this because the Ukrainians are more disciplined or because they are better at controlling the news?
They’re better at the PR game without a shadow of a doubt. Whether that means they are managing to keep any wrongdoing under wraps or that they are more disciplined because they rely on western public opinion I couldn’t say. Maybe neither and they just treat their prisoners better.
If they were treating prisoners like the Russians do the West would not be supporting them in the way they are
War is war, and awful things always happen in wars. I’m sure that, if there were serious atrocities on the Ukranian side, some Western media will have picked it up.
They were strong runners up amongst MPs/members and Mordaunt can do empathy and public speaking (if she's otherwise an empty vessel) and Sunak knows his numbers.
It will have to do.
Was it the Daily Mail that did a hatchet job on Mordaunt during the leadership campaign? Surely they must see now she'd have done a better job than Truss.
It was her Wokery, and lying about it, that sunk her.
Anyway, needs must.
Penny would have been better sticking to her guns and defending her liberal views. Trying to pander to the Wokefinder Generals did her in.
There is nothing liberal about Woke.
You need to learn and understand this.
Woke (as a noun rather than a verb and even then it’s archaic) is an invention of the Right to demonise their opponents. If you see anyone using the word it’s a tell. They’re a reactionary. It’s the right’s rebadge of “PC gone mad” for boomers.
It has been explained repeatedly to you on here, repeatedly, that it's about an obsession with classifying people by identity group and treating them as members of that group accordingly, rather than as individuals, and is therefore in direct opposition to enlightenment values.
None so blind.
No, it is about being able to recognise systemic prejudice in society, particularly unconscious prejudice.
The problem is that people do not agree what they mean by "Woke". Of course, the worst and most socially divisive form of identity politics is nationalism, as seen in Russia at present.
They were strong runners up amongst MPs/members and Mordaunt can do empathy and public speaking (if she's otherwise an empty vessel) and Sunak knows his numbers.
It will have to do.
Was it the Daily Mail that did a hatchet job on Mordaunt during the leadership campaign? Surely they must see now she'd have done a better job than Truss.
It was her Wokery, and lying about it, that sunk her.
Anyway, needs must.
Penny would have been better sticking to her guns and defending her liberal views. Trying to pander to the Wokefinder Generals did her in.
There is nothing liberal about Woke.
You need to learn and understand this.
Woke (as a noun rather than a verb and even then it’s archaic) is an invention of the Right to demonise their opponents. If you see anyone using the word it’s a tell. They’re a reactionary. It’s the right’s rebadge of “PC gone mad” for boomers.
It has been explained repeatedly to you on here, repeatedly, that it's about an obsession with classifying people by identity group and treating them as members of that group accordingly, rather than as individuals, and is therefore in direct opposition to enlightenment values.
None so blind.
So it refers to PB Tories? Huge if true.
I all seriousness through, no it doesn’t. You are being intellectually dishonest with yourself as well as me (“repeatedly”???). What “Woke” is is a reactionary shibboleth to demonise anyone who dares to stray from a right wing view of history and culture.
There is no intellectually coherent definition of the snarling use of the word “woke” that fits the people that it applies to. Going to a Pride Parade (the crime of the above referenced erstwhile Tory contender in the photo) is “woke” but attending a St Patrick’s Day Parade is not “woke”. Why? Both celebrate specific identities but one is an acceptable national identity to the right but one is an unacceptable sexual identity. You are all happy to classify refugees by their membership of that group rather than as individuals. Are you “woke”? Clearly not.
The intellectually depth of some of the posters on here would shame a paddling pool.
You're too thick to understand. And I thought you were one of the brighter ones.
Elon - why? I know you need money but this really isn’t a good look
He’s making a right idiot of himself here, and I say that as someone who quite likes what he’s doing with SpaceX.
Sadly, appeasement towards Russia is now quite mainstream thinking in the US, across the whole political spectrum. There’s an awful lot of people suggesting that Ukraine should sue for peace, or that it’s no longer in the US interest to keep supporting Ukraine now Putin is threatening nuclear escalation.
This is, of course, exactly what Putin wants. Thankfully, most Western leaders remain behind arming Ukraine.
Thankfully another quiet night there last night, with only a handful of missiles launched, more than half of which were shot down. Steady advances by the defenders in Kherson region too, they’re now only about 5km from the airport in the West of the city, and have retaken more than half the occupied lands in the North of the region, in the past couple of weeks.
It does sound a bit 1917 out there. This story is going around:
That doesn’t sound good, if there’s any truth to it. Also reports that Russian civilians in Kherson are being told to leave - how exactly they’re supposed to leave, is a different question. The bridges are all full of holes, and even the supply barge across the river was sunk last week.
Is there any objective appraisal out there of how the Ukrainians have been treating Russians (military and civilian) in the areas they have recaptured? I have seen a few comments about atrocities but nothing on the scale of Russian crimes. Is this because the Ukrainians are more disciplined or because they are better at controlling the news?
There's the video of the Russian with the broken back on top of a wrecked BTR getting punched in the face by UAF. There's probably plenty going on on both sides. No saints on the battlefied no matter who the combatants are.
Yep agreed. I think I would be more concerned about eth Ukrainians if there were none of these reports/leaks. To me it would indicate they had a very tight hold on information which might be hiding all manner of abuses. It is unrealistic to think it doesn't happen. The question is whether it is a matter of military policy as it appears to be by the Russians.
I think that UAF command attempts to maintain a very high level of discipline when it comes to treatment of surrendered (per the Hague/Geneva definitions) combatants. Nothing would fracture the support they rely on from the Alliance of Super Friends quicker than a series of videos showing them wasting PoWs/Wounded.
The Russians don't have to give a fuck what anybody else thinks and probably couldn't enforce it if they did so they do what they always do.
I don't get how a party that ummed and arred over ousting the least suitable PM in modern times (Boris Johnson) is supposed to get rid of Truss completely before the new year. She should be given the May locals at least.
The markets were not in freefall when BoZo was dumped
I don't get how a party that ummed and arred over ousting the least suitable PM in modern times (Boris Johnson) is supposed to get rid of Truss completely before the new year. She should be given the May locals at least.
Economic collapse and the intervention of the IMF "Just put more jumpers on" response to people freezing in their homes "City traders need electricity more than you" response to emergency blackouts "Poor people are stupid and need to learn to cook" comments from ministers as the cold and hungry riot in the cities
That is what they face if they leave Truss in place to the May locals.
Polling heavily favours Truss being replaced and Sunak's numbers look v. good:
"As for her potential replacements, 43 per cent of the public said that Sunak would make a better PM, with just 18 per cent saying Truss would be better than the former chancellor. Asked the same question of Boris Johnson, 35 per cent of Britons thought he would be better than Truss and 28 per cent said he would be worse."
I think public support is there for Tories to do this.
I think it is, but almost entirely on the basis of "God, this is awful" rather than any longing for Sunak. The risk is that he (or someone else) takes over, takes responsibility for a dose of nasty medicine, and then becomes as unpopular as Truss. What do the Tories do then - try yet someone else?
Politically, they may be better off having Truss take all the hits while inflation peaks, change after the local elections, and then claim credit for the new lreader when inflation starts to come down.
Nice try. Labour are now pivoting to retain Truss, or undermine whoever the Tories look like they will pick in lieu.
Don't worry, I get it - it's politics - but it's also transparent as hell.
Elon - why? I know you need money but this really isn’t a good look
He’s making a right idiot of himself here, and I say that as someone who quite likes what he’s doing with SpaceX.
Sadly, appeasement towards Russia is now quite mainstream thinking in the US, across the whole political spectrum. There’s an awful lot of people suggesting that Ukraine should sue for peace, or that it’s no longer in the US interest to keep supporting Ukraine now Putin is threatening nuclear escalation.
This is, of course, exactly what Putin wants. Thankfully, most Western leaders remain behind arming Ukraine.
Thankfully another quiet night there last night, with only a handful of missiles launched, more than half of which were shot down. Steady advances by the defenders in Kherson region too, they’re now only about 5km from the airport in the West of the city, and have retaken more than half the occupied lands in the North of the region, in the past couple of weeks.
It does sound a bit 1917 out there. This story is going around:
That doesn’t sound good, if there’s any truth to it. Also reports that Russian civilians in Kherson are being told to leave - how exactly they’re supposed to leave, is a different question. The bridges are all full of holes, and even the supply barge across the river was sunk last week.
Is there any objective appraisal out there of how the Ukrainians have been treating Russians (military and civilian) in the areas they have recaptured? I have seen a few comments about atrocities but nothing on the scale of Russian crimes. Is this because the Ukrainians are more disciplined or because they are better at controlling the news?
They’re better at the PR game without a shadow of a doubt. Whether that means they are managing to keep any wrongdoing under wraps or that they are more disciplined because they rely on western public opinion I couldn’t say. Maybe neither and they just treat their prisoners better.
If they were treating prisoners like the Russians do the West would not be supporting them in the way they are
War is war, and awful things always happen in wars. I’m sure that, if there were serious atrocities on the Ukranian side, some Western media will have picked it up.
There are plenty of manufactured attempts by the Russians to say "Look, the Ukrainians are just as bad as us..."
Which gain no traction.
But are an admission of what bastards the Russian have been.
They were strong runners up amongst MPs/members and Mordaunt can do empathy and public speaking (if she's otherwise an empty vessel) and Sunak knows his numbers.
It will have to do.
Was it the Daily Mail that did a hatchet job on Mordaunt during the leadership campaign? Surely they must see now she'd have done a better job than Truss.
It was her Wokery, and lying about it, that sunk her.
Anyway, needs must.
Penny would have been better sticking to her guns and defending her liberal views. Trying to pander to the Wokefinder Generals did her in.
There is nothing liberal about Woke.
You need to learn and understand this.
Woke (as a noun rather than a verb and even then it’s archaic) is an invention of the Right to demonise their opponents. If you see anyone using the word it’s a tell. They’re a reactionary. It’s the right’s rebadge of “PC gone mad” for boomers.
It has been explained repeatedly to you on here, repeatedly, that it's about an obsession with classifying people by identity group and treating them as members of that group accordingly, rather than as individuals, and is therefore in direct opposition to enlightenment values.
None so blind.
No, it is about being able to recognise systemic prejudice in society, particularly unconscious prejudice.
The problem is that people do not agree what they mean by "Woke". Of course, the worst and most socially divisive form of identity politics is nationalism, as seen in Russia at present.
Going in to a discussion about what is 'woke' is futile because it means whatever you want it to mean. Both of the definitions given above are reasonable.
My own definition is that it represents the prioritisation of removing prejudice over the respect for individual rights and freedoms. Personally I regard myself as 'woke sceptical' because I acknowledge and agree with the goal of removing prejudice in society but think that in doing so individual rights and freedoms should not be compromised.
I don't get how a party that ummed and arred over ousting the least suitable PM in modern times (Boris Johnson) is supposed to get rid of Truss completely before the new year. She should be given the May locals at least.
The markets were not in freefall when BoZo was dumped
They can't afford to dick around this time
They're not in freefall, bond rates were back to 4% (Which is fine in the context of rapidly rising US rates). The corp tax and 45p were both errors in the mini-budget, with the NI change already pre-baked and the lower rate of income tax simply brought forward a year (So the ongoing cost was baked)
If the corp u-turn is announced that should satiate the markets.
Elon - why? I know you need money but this really isn’t a good look
He’s making a right idiot of himself here, and I say that as someone who quite likes what he’s doing with SpaceX.
Sadly, appeasement towards Russia is now quite mainstream thinking in the US, across the whole political spectrum. There’s an awful lot of people suggesting that Ukraine should sue for peace, or that it’s no longer in the US interest to keep supporting Ukraine now Putin is threatening nuclear escalation.
This is, of course, exactly what Putin wants. Thankfully, most Western leaders remain behind arming Ukraine.
Thankfully another quiet night there last night, with only a handful of missiles launched, more than half of which were shot down. Steady advances by the defenders in Kherson region too, they’re now only about 5km from the airport in the West of the city, and have retaken more than half the occupied lands in the North of the region, in the past couple of weeks.
It does sound a bit 1917 out there. This story is going around:
That doesn’t sound good, if there’s any truth to it. Also reports that Russian civilians in Kherson are being told to leave - how exactly they’re supposed to leave, is a different question. The bridges are all full of holes, and even the supply barge across the river was sunk last week.
Is there any objective appraisal out there of how the Ukrainians have been treating Russians (military and civilian) in the areas they have recaptured? I have seen a few comments about atrocities but nothing on the scale of Russian crimes. Is this because the Ukrainians are more disciplined or because they are better at controlling the news?
They’re better at the PR game without a shadow of a doubt. Whether that means they are managing to keep any wrongdoing under wraps or that they are more disciplined because they rely on western public opinion I couldn’t say. Maybe neither and they just treat their prisoners better.
If they were treating prisoners like the Russians do the West would not be supporting them in the way they are
War is war, and awful things always happen in wars. I’m sure that, if there were serious atrocities on the Ukranian side, some Western media will have picked it up.
There have been tales of Russian collaborators in the recaptured areas being shot out of hand, but not many.
Could be several reasons for that:
1) The Ukrainians are more disciplined than the Russians;
2) They are taking over their own territory and their own people, to protect them, while the avowed war aim of the Russians is to wipe Ukraine off the map (or 'genocide' as we call it);
3) There are fewer Russian collaborators than there are Ukrainians resisting the Russians;
4) Any Russian collaborators have fled with the Russian army;
5) It isn't actually the job of the AFU to deal with crimes in the occupied territories so a separate unit, that isn't under combat stress, is dealing with them more appropriately;
6) The Ukrainians have a more effective comms operation and are keeping any atrocities by their army under wraps, whereas Russia is actually literally flaunting them on TV;
7) There aren't many people in the reconquered areas due to having fled the fighting anyway.
It's probably in most cases a mixture of several of those, but that would explain it.
I don't get how a party that ummed and arred over ousting the least suitable PM in modern times (Boris Johnson) is supposed to get rid of Truss completely before the new year. She should be given the May locals at least.
The markets were not in freefall when BoZo was dumped
They can't afford to dick around this time
They're not in freefall, bond rates were back to 4% (Which is fine in the context of rapidly rising US rates). The corp tax and 45p were both errors in the mini-budget, with the NI change already pre-baked and the lower rate of income tax simply brought forward a year (So the ongoing cost was baked)
If the corp u-turn is announced that should satiate the markets.
In truth, I don't think any of them were "errors".
The error was junking the OBR forecast, and then adding fuel to the fire by saying there's more tax cuts to come, which spooked the markets into thinking HMG didn't give a shit about debt or the deficit and those who did would be silenced.
I don't get how a party that ummed and arred over ousting the least suitable PM in modern times (Boris Johnson) is supposed to get rid of Truss completely before the new year. She should be given the May locals at least.
The MPs know her better than anyone which is presumably why they voted against her in such numbers. They know what lies ahead if she stays in office. Even if she genuflects before the Anti Growth Coalition and bins Krazy Kwasi's stinker of a mini-budget the next fiasco will only be weeks and she fill the intevening days with low key cringe moments.
There is no way to square the politics and economics.
If KT do what is necessary to stabilise the economy, they are politically finished.
If they stick to their policies, the economy is ruined.
That should not be a difficult choice for Tory MPs who never wanted Truss anyway
The most likely scenario is that they take the worst side of both options.
1) They make a massive u-turn but so ineptly message why and what they will do next that the markets take fright anyway. 2) They sneer at their own MPs the way that JRM has sneered at the OBR, the IMF, the markets, the BBC etc etc to blame everyone else. They can get nothing through the Commons as Tory MPs won't let them. But the same MPs come under immense attack from angry media types who wanted "A True Tory Budget" and get frit.
Britain spirals downwards. An unfeeling sneering government with no political power or control blaming all and sundry as we spiral through economic ruin towards darkness, cold and hunger.
I don't get how a party that ummed and arred over ousting the least suitable PM in modern times (Boris Johnson) is supposed to get rid of Truss completely before the new year. She should be given the May locals at least.
The markets were not in freefall when BoZo was dumped
They can't afford to dick around this time
They're not in freefall, bond rates were back to 4% (Which is fine in the context of rapidly rising US rates). The corp tax and 45p were both errors in the mini-budget, with the NI change already pre-baked and the lower rate of income tax simply brought forward a year (So the ongoing cost was baked)
If the corp u-turn is announced that should satiate the markets.
In truth, I don't think any of them were "errors".
The error was junking the OBR forecast, and then adding fuel to the fire by saying there's more tax cuts to come, which spooked the markets into thinking HMG didn't give a shit about debt or the deficit and those who did would be silenced.
45p was a political error, corp tax created an ongoing hole in the (very tight) finances.
Funny how four recent Tory leaders on the trot have self destructed quite unnecessarily. They will all be kicking themselves to the grave.
Cameron called an unnecessary referendum
May called an unnecessary election
Johnson had an unnecessary booze up
Truss had an unnecessary budget
Cameron won an unexpected general election and could build on 5 years of competent government. Instead he swung policies down the callous route and lived in fear of the kipper. Had he carried on a Torified version of the coalition programme and told Farage to do one, wouldn't they have demolished Corbyn in 2020 and still be in office?
Ignoring that one leaving led to another three of the four could have been reasonably popular and might have stayed in office for ten years or more.
Funny how four recent Tory leaders on the trot have self destructed quite unnecessarily. They will all be kicking themselves to the grave.
Cameron called an unnecessary referendum
May called an unnecessary election
Johnson had an unnecessary booze up
Truss had an unnecessary budget
Cameron won an unexpected general election and could build on 5 years of competent government. Instead he swung policies down the callous route and lived in fear of the kipper. Had he carried on a Torified version of the coalition programme and told Farage to do one, wouldn't they have demolished Corbyn in 2020 and still be in office?
You think they should have gone back on the manifesto commitment to hold a referendum even though Labour and the Lib Dems were supporting it?
Elon - why? I know you need money but this really isn’t a good look
He’s making a right idiot of himself here, and I say that as someone who quite likes what he’s doing with SpaceX.
Sadly, appeasement towards Russia is now quite mainstream thinking in the US, across the whole political spectrum. There’s an awful lot of people suggesting that Ukraine should sue for peace, or that it’s no longer in the US interest to keep supporting Ukraine now Putin is threatening nuclear escalation.
This is, of course, exactly what Putin wants. Thankfully, most Western leaders remain behind arming Ukraine.
Thankfully another quiet night there last night, with only a handful of missiles launched, more than half of which were shot down. Steady advances by the defenders in Kherson region too, they’re now only about 5km from the airport in the West of the city, and have retaken more than half the occupied lands in the North of the region, in the past couple of weeks.
It does sound a bit 1917 out there. This story is going around:
That doesn’t sound good, if there’s any truth to it. Also reports that Russian civilians in Kherson are being told to leave - how exactly they’re supposed to leave, is a different question. The bridges are all full of holes, and even the supply barge across the river was sunk last week.
Is there any objective appraisal out there of how the Ukrainians have been treating Russians (military and civilian) in the areas they have recaptured? I have seen a few comments about atrocities but nothing on the scale of Russian crimes. Is this because the Ukrainians are more disciplined or because they are better at controlling the news?
They’re better at the PR game without a shadow of a doubt. Whether that means they are managing to keep any wrongdoing under wraps or that they are more disciplined because they rely on western public opinion I couldn’t say. Maybe neither and they just treat their prisoners better.
If they were treating prisoners like the Russians do the West would not be supporting them in the way they are
War is war, and awful things always happen in wars. I’m sure that, if there were serious atrocities on the Ukranian side, some Western media will have picked it up.
There is this, fairly neutral, statement from the International Committee of the Red Cross, who are supposed to have access to visit POWs.
2. Much of ICRC's work around POWs is confidential and dealt with in our bilateral dialogue with each party. We do not publicly share information about specific cases or the overall conditions or treatment. We are not publicly sharing the number of POWs we visit nor the number of names on lists that are shared with us by the parties to the conflict.
So, the ICRC would know, or would know if they weren't being allowed to know, but they're not telling (because if they did they'd be less likely to have access).
That said they have made some statements about being denied access, but they are fairly vague.
Polling heavily favours Truss being replaced and Sunak's numbers look v. good:
"As for her potential replacements, 43 per cent of the public said that Sunak would make a better PM, with just 18 per cent saying Truss would be better than the former chancellor. Asked the same question of Boris Johnson, 35 per cent of Britons thought he would be better than Truss and 28 per cent said he would be worse."
I think public support is there for Tories to do this.
I think it is, but almost entirely on the basis of "God, this is awful" rather than any longing for Sunak. The risk is that he (or someone else) takes over, takes responsibility for a dose of nasty medicine, and then becomes as unpopular as Truss. What do the Tories do then - try yet someone else?
Politically, they may be better off having Truss take all the hits while inflation peaks, change after the local elections, and then claim credit for the new leader when inflation starts to come down.
Nice try. Labour are now pivoting to retain Truss, or undermine whoever the Tories look like they will pick in lieu.
Don't worry, I get it - it's politics - but it's also transparent as hell.
Tbf I've always been a dove on Truss, less hostile than quite a few Tories. I think there is genuinely a tendency among Tory MPs to pin the problems of 12 years in government on her as an individual, and they won't find that replacement X solves them. But we'll see!
“Every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his n---o slaves, of what opinion or religion soever”
Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, wholly or partly drafted by Locke. Dem slaves must have thought Phew, think of the trouble we would be in if these guys weren't enlightened.
I would vote Labour if there was a GE tomorrow. I would not vote Labour if there was a council by-election tomorrow. I suspect there are many people who would do the same.
The local elections indicate that with the right candidate the Tories can still do well and it does suggest that the brand itself has not been trashed.
If however you believe that the local by-elections are telling us that the national polls are wrong and that Truss would win a GE then I think you are in for a nasty surprise.
You might believe the Conservatives are competent enough to organise the local bin collections but that doesn't mean you believe they are competent to to run the country.
The Conservative Party is not beyond hope but the Conservative Party led by Truss/Kwatang is.
This week in Brexitland, after a poll puts the Tories on 19% it's time to ask: is the Conservative party facing extinction come the next election? I dig into the numbers and discover that the polling is even worse for the Tories than you might think: https://nicktyrone.substack.com/p/this-week-in-brexitland-october-14th
Yup - there is no route to winning the election short of something ginormous that destroys Labour and all they stand for. The Tories dilemma isn't whether they should replace Truss but with whom. We saw what happens when everyone agrees the PM is a disaster and gets removed, only for the replacement to be magnitudes worse.
So the Tories have to move very carefully. Get this spectacularly wrong and they lose spectacularly. And as harsh as this is for some to read, the Tory sense of political judgement is in a very dark place. The piece talks about 40 seats. That would be a good result on some scenarios...
There is a way it gets even worse for the Tories, which is that anti-Conservative tactical voting drops their seat total still further. The Lib Dems could not do their conference because of the funeral of Elizabeth II, which has depressed their support in the polls and in the air war. However on the ground, they are continuing to do well, and can expect some very good results at the locals in May. If the "blue wall" now includes chunks of Surrey and Sussex, then the blues are in deep deep trouble.
Brexit may finally destroy the Conservatives. It would be deserved.
Funny how four recent Tory leaders on the trot have self destructed quite unnecessarily. They will all be kicking themselves to the grave.
Cameron called an unnecessary referendum
May called an unnecessary election
Johnson had an unnecessary booze up
Truss had an unnecessary budget
Cameron won an unexpected general election and could build on 5 years of competent government. Instead he swung policies down the callous route and lived in fear of the kipper. Had he carried on a Torified version of the coalition programme and told Farage to do one, wouldn't they have demolished Corbyn in 2020 and still be in office?
You think they should have gone back on the manifesto commitment to hold a referendum even though Labour and the Lib Dems were supporting it?
Yes. Euro-foaming only really became a political cancer once the referendum was unleashed. Put off an immediate referendum. Work with the EU on reforms (collaboratively, not "now look here do you know who I am" as he did). Perhaps put the new arrangement to the public at the end of the parliament or bind it into the 2020 manifesto where vs Jezbollah they were going to win anyway.
You might believe the Conservatives are competent enough to organise the local bin collections but that doesn't mean you believe they are competent to to run the country.
The Conservative Party is not beyond hope but the Conservative Party led by Truss/Kwatang is.
The Conservative local council spectacularly fucked up the bin collections here.
Resulted in the acting leader of the council personally driving round hand delivering food waste caddies before the new service went live
I don't get how a party that ummed and arred over ousting the least suitable PM in modern times (Boris Johnson) is supposed to get rid of Truss completely before the new year. She should be given the May locals at least.
The markets were not in freefall when BoZo was dumped
They can't afford to dick around this time
They're not in freefall, bond rates were back to 4% (Which is fine in the context of rapidly rising US rates). The corp tax and 45p were both errors in the mini-budget, with the NI change already pre-baked and the lower rate of income tax simply brought forward a year (So the ongoing cost was baked)
If the corp u-turn is announced that should satiate the markets.
I yield to no one in enthusiasm for pointing at the government and laughing, but couple of snippets
That needs 2/3 of Tory MPs and the ERG and the right has more than 1/3 of the parliamentary party
Former Tory MP is right in this thread - moderate Tories (with honourable exceptions) failed to stand up to the hard right and so lost their party. Now we all suffer. Past time for the UK right to realign. Past time for #electoralreform.
They were strong runners up amongst MPs/members and Mordaunt can do empathy and public speaking (if she's otherwise an empty vessel) and Sunak knows his numbers.
It will have to do.
Was it the Daily Mail that did a hatchet job on Mordaunt during the leadership campaign? Surely they must see now she'd have done a better job than Truss.
It was her Wokery, and lying about it, that sunk her.
Anyway, needs must.
Penny would have been better sticking to her guns and defending her liberal views. Trying to pander to the Wokefinder Generals did her in.
There is nothing liberal about Woke.
You need to learn and understand this.
Woke (as a noun rather than a verb and even then it’s archaic) is an invention of the Right to demonise their opponents. If you see anyone using the word it’s a tell. They’re a reactionary. It’s the right’s rebadge of “PC gone mad” for boomers.
It has been explained repeatedly to you on here, repeatedly, that it's about an obsession with classifying people by identity group and treating them as members of that group accordingly, rather than as individuals, and is therefore in direct opposition to enlightenment values.
None so blind.
No, it is about being able to recognise systemic prejudice in society, particularly unconscious prejudice.
The problem is that people do not agree what they mean by "Woke". Of course, the worst and most socially divisive form of identity politics is nationalism, as seen in Russia at present.
They were strong runners up amongst MPs/members and Mordaunt can do empathy and public speaking (if she's otherwise an empty vessel) and Sunak knows his numbers.
It will have to do.
Was it the Daily Mail that did a hatchet job on Mordaunt during the leadership campaign? Surely they must see now she'd have done a better job than Truss.
It was her Wokery, and lying about it, that sunk her.
Anyway, needs must.
Penny would have been better sticking to her guns and defending her liberal views. Trying to pander to the Wokefinder Generals did her in.
There is nothing liberal about Woke.
You need to learn and understand this.
Woke (as a noun rather than a verb and even then it’s archaic) is an invention of the Right to demonise their opponents. If you see anyone using the word it’s a tell. They’re a reactionary. It’s the right’s rebadge of “PC gone mad” for boomers.
It has been explained repeatedly to you on here, repeatedly, that it's about an obsession with classifying people by identity group and treating them as members of that group accordingly, rather than as individuals, and is therefore in direct opposition to enlightenment values.
None so blind.
So it refers to PB Tories? Huge if true.
I all seriousness through, no it doesn’t. You are being intellectually dishonest with yourself as well as me (“repeatedly”???). What “Woke” is is a reactionary shibboleth to demonise anyone who dares to stray from a right wing view of history and culture.
There is no intellectually coherent definition of the snarling use of the word “woke” that fits the people that it applies to. Going to a Pride Parade (the crime of the above referenced erstwhile Tory contender in the photo) is “woke” but attending a St Patrick’s Day Parade is not “woke”. Why? Both celebrate specific identities but one is an acceptable national identity to the right but one is an unacceptable sexual identity. You are all happy to classify refugees by their membership of that group rather than as individuals. Are you “woke”? Clearly not.
The intellectually depth of some of the posters on here would shame a paddling pool.
You're too thick to understand. And I thought you were one of the brighter ones.
What they’re now trying to work out in Downing St is whether it’s poss to regain MARKET credibility while also ensuring POLITICAL credibility. The two things are v different. Truss’s survival depends on landing in the bit of the Venn diagram where those two things overlap
I think that the problem we must face is that there may not be an end to the war in Ukraine. If Russia can hold a line using mobilised troops, then surely it will, and we know it can take unlimited human losses, because Russians will not rise up against their government. It could just go on for years like this. How many billions can the US pump in to it and how much economic harm can Europe take? Is it indefinete?
The problem that people must see is that there is a very high risk of a sudden political capitulation in Europe and the US over this winter, resulting in withdrawal of political support for the funding of the war in Ukraine at the current levels. This is probably what the 'master strategist' Putin is expecting to happen. There are murmurs of it all over the place, particularly in the US.
There is no way of shutting this type of thinking down in a democracy. The Ukrainian propoganda machine has done a brilliant job to date but it cannot go on like this indefinetly. How deep and resolute is western support for Ukraine? Could the people currently waving Ukrainian flags on Council estates be swayed by the narrative that we are being bankrupted by a woke LGBTQI+ conspiracy? What about all the refugees that we have taken in and expect to be housed indefinetly, whilst a large part of Ukraine is not affected by the fighting?
The position of the French, or trying to find a solution along the lines suggested by Elon Musk, is not totally stupid. If you are going to keep supporting the war, you need to work out what your endgame is and how likely that it will be achieved, and at what cost. I would say that there are two problems, one being that it is unlikely that the war can ultimately actually be won on any conventional level; and secondly that given the political dynamics of Russia, any replacement for Putin and his regime is unlikely to be favourable to our long term interests.
A lot of things are possible, but they are not certain.
Yes, Russia might be able to stabilise the front with conscripts, and Western resolve to support the war might crumble. But, the Ukrainians might be able to continue to make advances and the public might be more determined then you give them credit for.
So, at the moment, I think it is best to provide as much support as possible, encourage others to do the same, and we can see where we are in several months time.
Why give up on the chance of a victory for Ukraine because of your fear that it won't happen? Give them a chance.
Funny how four recent Tory leaders on the trot have self destructed quite unnecessarily. They will all be kicking themselves to the grave.
Cameron called an unnecessary referendum
May called an unnecessary election
Johnson had an unnecessary booze up
Truss had an unnecessary budget
Cameron won an unexpected general election and could build on 5 years of competent government. Instead he swung policies down the callous route and lived in fear of the kipper. Had he carried on a Torified version of the coalition programme and told Farage to do one, wouldn't they have demolished Corbyn in 2020 and still be in office?
You think they should have gone back on the manifesto commitment to hold a referendum even though Labour and the Lib Dems were supporting it?
Yes. Euro-foaming only really became a political cancer once the referendum was unleashed. Put off an immediate referendum. Work with the EU on reforms (collaboratively, not "now look here do you know who I am" as he did). Perhaps put the new arrangement to the public at the end of the parliament or bind it into the 2020 manifesto where vs Jezbollah they were going to win anyway.
Delaying it until later in the term would definitely have been a better option politically, but you're underestimating how much the "now look here do you know who I am" attitude was the norm across all the major parties. It wasn't just pandering to kippers.
Elon - why? I know you need money but this really isn’t a good look
He’s making a right idiot of himself here, and I say that as someone who quite likes what he’s doing with SpaceX.
Sadly, appeasement towards Russia is now quite mainstream thinking in the US, across the whole political spectrum. There’s an awful lot of people suggesting that Ukraine should sue for peace, or that it’s no longer in the US interest to keep supporting Ukraine now Putin is threatening nuclear escalation.
This is, of course, exactly what Putin wants. Thankfully, most Western leaders remain behind arming Ukraine.
Thankfully another quiet night there last night, with only a handful of missiles launched, more than half of which were shot down. Steady advances by the defenders in Kherson region too, they’re now only about 5km from the airport in the West of the city, and have retaken more than half the occupied lands in the North of the region, in the past couple of weeks.
It does sound a bit 1917 out there. This story is going around:
That doesn’t sound good, if there’s any truth to it. Also reports that Russian civilians in Kherson are being told to leave - how exactly they’re supposed to leave, is a different question. The bridges are all full of holes, and even the supply barge across the river was sunk last week.
Is there any objective appraisal out there of how the Ukrainians have been treating Russians (military and civilian) in the areas they have recaptured? I have seen a few comments about atrocities but nothing on the scale of Russian crimes. Is this because the Ukrainians are more disciplined or because they are better at controlling the news?
There's the video of the Russian with the broken back on top of a wrecked BTR getting punched in the face by UAF. There's probably plenty going on on both sides. No saints on the battlefied no matter who the combatants are.
Yep agreed. I think I would be more concerned about eth Ukrainians if there were none of these reports/leaks. To me it would indicate they had a very tight hold on information which might be hiding all manner of abuses. It is unrealistic to think it doesn't happen. The question is whether it is a matter of military policy as it appears to be by the Russians.
I think that UAF command attempts to maintain a very high level of discipline when it comes to treatment of surrendered (per the Hague/Geneva definitions) combatants. Nothing would fracture the support they rely on from the Alliance of Super Friends quicker than a series of videos showing them wasting PoWs/Wounded.
The Russians don't have to give a fuck what anybody else thinks and probably couldn't enforce it if they did so they do what they always do.
If I recall correctly, failure to even attempt to enforce the Laws of War, by the high command, is itself, a crime.
I don't get how a party that ummed and arred over ousting the least suitable PM in modern times (Boris Johnson) is supposed to get rid of Truss completely before the new year. She should be given the May locals at least.
The markets were not in freefall when BoZo was dumped
They can't afford to dick around this time
They're not in freefall, bond rates were back to 4% (Which is fine in the context of rapidly rising US rates). The corp tax and 45p were both errors in the mini-budget, with the NI change already pre-baked and the lower rate of income tax simply brought forward a year (So the ongoing cost was baked)
If the corp u-turn is announced that should satiate the markets.
In truth, I don't think any of them were "errors".
The error was junking the OBR forecast, and then adding fuel to the fire by saying there's more tax cuts to come, which spooked the markets into thinking HMG didn't give a shit about debt or the deficit and those who did would be silenced.
I agree. If the measures had been pre-sold, fed through the usual controls, and been accompanied by the sort of public spending cuts we expect from brutalist Conservative governments facing fiscal deficits, then I don't think the markets would have reacted badly. The markets aren't offended by the notion of taking from the poor and giving to the rich. They're just looking at risk v return on gilts and the pound relative to other options.
This week in Brexitland, after a poll puts the Tories on 19% it's time to ask: is the Conservative party facing extinction come the next election? I dig into the numbers and discover that the polling is even worse for the Tories than you might think: https://nicktyrone.substack.com/p/this-week-in-brexitland-october-14th
Yup - there is no route to winning the election short of something ginormous that destroys Labour and all they stand for. The Tories dilemma isn't whether they should replace Truss but with whom. We saw what happens when everyone agrees the PM is a disaster and gets removed, only for the replacement to be magnitudes worse.
So the Tories have to move very carefully. Get this spectacularly wrong and they lose spectacularly. And as harsh as this is for some to read, the Tory sense of political judgement is in a very dark place. The piece talks about 40 seats. That would be a good result on some scenarios...
There is a way it gets even worse for the Tories, which is that anti-Conservative tactical voting drops their seat total still further. The Lib Dems could not do their conference because of the funeral of Elizabeth II, which has depressed their support in the polls and in the air war. However on the ground, they are continuing to do well, and can expect some very good results at the locals in May. If the "blue wall" now includes chunks of Surrey and Sussex, then the blues are in deep deep trouble.
Brexit may finally destroy the Conservatives. It would be deserved.
I come back to the bigger challenges we all face immediately in front of us: Economic ruin - I'm not tossing hyperbole around, we are teetering on the edge of an IMF / World Bank event The Cold - a combination of sky-high energy prices and a shortage of supply makes keeping the heating on a challenge The Dark - despite their denials there is a very real prospect of electricity rationing The Hunger - food inflation running away, wages squeezed well below inflation and we know what they want to do to UC and disability benefits
To navigate any crisis you first need people who recognise this is a crisis - the government are in denial. You need people prepared to be creative and flexible to provide solutions - the government are zealously dogmatic. You need people who can speak the truth to people and encourage a sense of community - the government are amoral and sneeringly dismissive of all those who are struggling.
Never mind 19 - 25 points in the polls. You can take 10 further points off those if they limp along in office and the winter is a cold one.
What they’re now trying to work out in Downing St is whether it’s poss to regain MARKET credibility while also ensuring POLITICAL credibility. The two things are v different. Truss’s survival depends on landing in the bit of the Venn diagram where those two things overlap
If they thought about it for a few months they could have cut spending in a way to do both, of course that's not free owls for everyone like they tried, but at least Labour would be screaming Thatcher instead of Idiot. But perhaps even this is not true. They might just believe modern monetary theory made deficits irrelevant. Idiots.
Funny how four recent Tory leaders on the trot have self destructed quite unnecessarily. They will all be kicking themselves to the grave.
Cameron called an unnecessary referendum
May called an unnecessary election
Johnson had an unnecessary booze up
Truss had an unnecessary budget
Cameron won an unexpected general election and could build on 5 years of competent government. Instead he swung policies down the callous route and lived in fear of the kipper. Had he carried on a Torified version of the coalition programme and told Farage to do one, wouldn't they have demolished Corbyn in 2020 and still be in office?
You think they should have gone back on the manifesto commitment to hold a referendum even though Labour and the Lib Dems were supporting it?
Yes. Euro-foaming only really became a political cancer once the referendum was unleashed. Put off an immediate referendum. Work with the EU on reforms (collaboratively, not "now look here do you know who I am" as he did). Perhaps put the new arrangement to the public at the end of the parliament or bind it into the 2020 manifesto where vs Jezbollah they were going to win anyway.
Delaying it until later in the term would definitely have been a better option politically, but you're underestimating how much the "now look here do you know who I am" attitude was the norm across all the major parties. It wasn't just pandering to kippers.
That was a very direct reference to David Cameron. Many of the things he was concerned about were shared by governments across Europe. So he could have got what he wanted at least in part by working with European leaders on the refugee crisis and the migrancy crisis. Be seen as delivering a better deal for all of Europe.
Instead it was WE ARE BRITAIN GIVE US WHAT WE ARE ENTITLED TO and surprisingly enough was sent home with just his bus fare.
Funny how four recent Tory leaders on the trot have self destructed quite unnecessarily. They will all be kicking themselves to the grave.
Cameron called an unnecessary referendum
May called an unnecessary election
Johnson had an unnecessary booze up
Truss had an unnecessary budget
Yes. But they are all different; Cameron had to call a referendum; it was the failure to get a modest deal from the EU - occasional derogations, brakes, warm words etc - and a rubbishly unidealistic campaign that sank him.
TM's fate was extraordinary. When she called the GE it looked unlosable. But she did in the campaign what LT has done in government, when reviews and soft words would have done.
Both effectively were derailed by Europe. Without it the 2017 GE would not have been needed.
Johnson and Truss were not/are not being derailed by Europe, which makes a nice change. The derailment is done by having no clue at all about the duties of being PM of a government.
Neither DC nor TM were just useless; but in critical respects both Boris and LT were and are.
As a result the surprise is that SKS isn't even further ahead, offering as he does a glimpse of grown up government.
What will be fascinating of course is what happens if and when he wins and the insoluble issues all become his fault. It's time the discussion and speculation moved to that stage!
Polling heavily favours Truss being replaced and Sunak's numbers look v. good:
"As for her potential replacements, 43 per cent of the public said that Sunak would make a better PM, with just 18 per cent saying Truss would be better than the former chancellor. Asked the same question of Boris Johnson, 35 per cent of Britons thought he would be better than Truss and 28 per cent said he would be worse."
I think public support is there for Tories to do this.
I think it is, but almost entirely on the basis of "God, this is awful" rather than any longing for Sunak. The risk is that he (or someone else) takes over, takes responsibility for a dose of nasty medicine, and then becomes as unpopular as Truss. What do the Tories do then - try yet someone else?
Politically, they may be better off having Truss take all the hits while inflation peaks, change after the local elections, and then claim credit for the new leader when inflation starts to come down.
Nice try. Labour are now pivoting to retain Truss, or undermine whoever the Tories look like they will pick in lieu.
Don't worry, I get it - it's politics - but it's also transparent as hell.
Tbf I've always been a dove on Truss, less hostile than quite a few Tories. I think there is genuinely a tendency among Tory MPs to pin the problems of 12 years in government on her as an individual, and they won't find that replacement X solves them. But we'll see!
Yes - definitely clear that whoever came in was going to have big problems. I'm staggered at how badly things have gone for Truss though.
Probably the Tories best chance for 2024 is bringing Boris back and going full US Republican truth denial, us against them, black is white, labour are rigging elections etc. I just really hope they don't do it.
I don't get how a party that ummed and arred over ousting the least suitable PM in modern times (Boris Johnson) is supposed to get rid of Truss completely before the new year. She should be given the May locals at least.
The markets were not in freefall when BoZo was dumped
They can't afford to dick around this time
They're not in freefall, bond rates were back to 4% (Which is fine in the context of rapidly rising US rates). The corp tax and 45p were both errors in the mini-budget, with the NI change already pre-baked and the lower rate of income tax simply brought forward a year (So the ongoing cost was baked)
If the corp u-turn is announced that should satiate the markets.
In truth, I don't think any of them were "errors".
The error was junking the OBR forecast, and then adding fuel to the fire by saying there's more tax cuts to come, which spooked the markets into thinking HMG didn't give a shit about debt or the deficit and those who did would be silenced.
45p was a political error, corp tax created an ongoing hole in the (very tight) finances.
I think the 45p case could have been made, but you'd have needed months of prep and evidence for it first. Particularly due to its controversy. Both Osborne and Kwasi bounced it, which makes people suspicious.
If the argument was that a corp tax cut would lead to greater investment, and therefore greater growth, then great, but - again - let's see the independent analysis and fact-checking first.
Funny how four recent Tory leaders on the trot have self destructed quite unnecessarily. They will all be kicking themselves to the grave.
Cameron called an unnecessary referendum
May called an unnecessary election
Johnson had an unnecessary booze up
Truss had an unnecessary budget
Cameron won an unexpected general election and could build on 5 years of competent government. Instead he swung policies down the callous route and lived in fear of the kipper. Had he carried on a Torified version of the coalition programme and told Farage to do one, wouldn't they have demolished Corbyn in 2020 and still be in office?
You think they should have gone back on the manifesto commitment to hold a referendum even though Labour and the Lib Dems were supporting it?
Yes. Euro-foaming only really became a political cancer once the referendum was unleashed. Put off an immediate referendum. Work with the EU on reforms (collaboratively, not "now look here do you know who I am" as he did). Perhaps put the new arrangement to the public at the end of the parliament or bind it into the 2020 manifesto where vs Jezbollah they were going to win anyway.
He could have worked with the EU on reforms, rather than just pretending to, and still held the referendum (which he absolutely had to do). But he cared more about keeping us in the EU than resolving the European question, as was made clear by his flounce.
Elon - why? I know you need money but this really isn’t a good look
He’s making a right idiot of himself here, and I say that as someone who quite likes what he’s doing with SpaceX.
Sadly, appeasement towards Russia is now quite mainstream thinking in the US, across the whole political spectrum. There’s an awful lot of people suggesting that Ukraine should sue for peace, or that it’s no longer in the US interest to keep supporting Ukraine now Putin is threatening nuclear escalation.
This is, of course, exactly what Putin wants. Thankfully, most Western leaders remain behind arming Ukraine.
Thankfully another quiet night there last night, with only a handful of missiles launched, more than half of which were shot down. Steady advances by the defenders in Kherson region too, they’re now only about 5km from the airport in the West of the city, and have retaken more than half the occupied lands in the North of the region, in the past couple of weeks.
It does sound a bit 1917 out there. This story is going around:
That doesn’t sound good, if there’s any truth to it. Also reports that Russian civilians in Kherson are being told to leave - how exactly they’re supposed to leave, is a different question. The bridges are all full of holes, and even the supply barge across the river was sunk last week.
Is there any objective appraisal out there of how the Ukrainians have been treating Russians (military and civilian) in the areas they have recaptured? I have seen a few comments about atrocities but nothing on the scale of Russian crimes. Is this because the Ukrainians are more disciplined or because they are better at controlling the news?
They’re better at the PR game without a shadow of a doubt. Whether that means they are managing to keep any wrongdoing under wraps or that they are more disciplined because they rely on western public opinion I couldn’t say. Maybe neither and they just treat their prisoners better.
If they were treating prisoners like the Russians do the West would not be supporting them in the way they are
War is war, and awful things always happen in wars. I’m sure that, if there were serious atrocities on the Ukranian side, some Western media will have picked it up.
There have been tales of Russian collaborators in the recaptured areas being shot out of hand, but not many.
Could be several reasons for that:
1) The Ukrainians are more disciplined than the Russians;
2) They are taking over their own territory and their own people, to protect them, while the avowed war aim of the Russians is to wipe Ukraine off the map (or 'genocide' as we call it);
3) There are fewer Russian collaborators than there are Ukrainians resisting the Russians;
4) Any Russian collaborators have fled with the Russian army;
5) It isn't actually the job of the AFU to deal with crimes in the occupied territories so a separate unit, that isn't under combat stress, is dealing with them more appropriately;
6) The Ukrainians have a more effective comms operation and are keeping any atrocities by their army under wraps, whereas Russia is actually literally flaunting them on TV;
7) There aren't many people in the reconquered areas due to having fled the fighting anyway.
It's probably in most cases a mixture of several of those, but that would explain it.
Also,
8) Quite a few collaborators have been killed before the AFU have retaken territory by partisan activity.
9) The Ukrainians recognise there is value in capturing collaborators because they can then be used in prisoner exchanges.
I note that the Cons seem to be doing better in local byelections than they did during the nadir of Johnson. Clearly there is stronger residual support for the blue rosette than for the current face of the Govt and Lab are yet to fully persuade. I think that shouldn't come as too much of a shock.
So is this 1992? Then the local byelections very clearly showed the way things were going from some way out. I don't suggest the Cons wil retain power but a Lab majority still seems unsure (pricing in the placing of an adult in No 10). Also take a look at the Gloucester ward. In the Spring that would have been a LD gain. Now the Lab vote held up enough to allow the Con to survive. Leicester is an unusual case. The Green vote there was probably non-Hindus declining to vote for a BJP activist in a red rosette. The move to the Cons in the Indian-origin Hindu community is absolutely clear and continuing.
The LDs and Greens are clearly doing much better than the polls suggest. Focused resources or local issues?
If the PM can scramble her way to the Locals could a non-disastrous result (remember where they are starting from) enable her to limp onto a GE? The first 'if' in that last sentance is a huge 'if' of course.
I don't get how a party that ummed and arred over ousting the least suitable PM in modern times (Boris Johnson) is supposed to get rid of Truss completely before the new year. She should be given the May locals at least.
The markets were not in freefall when BoZo was dumped
They can't afford to dick around this time
They're not in freefall, bond rates were back to 4% (Which is fine in the context of rapidly rising US rates). The corp tax and 45p were both errors in the mini-budget, with the NI change already pre-baked and the lower rate of income tax simply brought forward a year (So the ongoing cost was baked)
If the corp u-turn is announced that should satiate the markets.
In truth, I don't think any of them were "errors".
The error was junking the OBR forecast, and then adding fuel to the fire by saying there's more tax cuts to come, which spooked the markets into thinking HMG didn't give a shit about debt or the deficit and those who did would be silenced.
Yes. Osborne cut plenty of taxes while he was Chancellor - including the highest rate of income tax and corporation tax - but he avoided market panic because he always showed his working and how he would cut the taxes and still reduce the deficit.
I disagreed with a lot of the choices he made, but he at least did the job with a minimum level of competence that avoided a disastrous loss of market confidence.
Funny how four recent Tory leaders on the trot have self destructed quite unnecessarily. They will all be kicking themselves to the grave.
Cameron called an unnecessary referendum
May called an unnecessary election
Johnson had an unnecessary booze up
Truss had an unnecessary budget
Cameron won an unexpected general election and could build on 5 years of competent government. Instead he swung policies down the callous route and lived in fear of the kipper. Had he carried on a Torified version of the coalition programme and told Farage to do one, wouldn't they have demolished Corbyn in 2020 and still be in office?
You think they should have gone back on the manifesto commitment to hold a referendum even though Labour and the Lib Dems were supporting it?
Yes. Euro-foaming only really became a political cancer once the referendum was unleashed. Put off an immediate referendum. Work with the EU on reforms (collaboratively, not "now look here do you know who I am" as he did). Perhaps put the new arrangement to the public at the end of the parliament or bind it into the 2020 manifesto where vs Jezbollah they were going to win anyway.
Delaying it until later in the term would definitely have been a better option politically, but you're underestimating how much the "now look here do you know who I am" attitude was the norm across all the major parties. It wasn't just pandering to kippers.
That was a very direct reference to David Cameron. Many of the things he was concerned about were shared by governments across Europe. So he could have got what he wanted at least in part by working with European leaders on the refugee crisis and the migrancy crisis. Be seen as delivering a better deal for all of Europe.
Instead it was WE ARE BRITAIN GIVE US WHAT WE ARE ENTITLED TO and surprisingly enough was sent home with just his bus fare.
No, it was "pretend to give us something and I can claim we've got something and that will be enough to win the referendum, then we can move on to joining the euro and Schengen because the question of membership will be settled".
Elon - why? I know you need money but this really isn’t a good look
He’s making a right idiot of himself here, and I say that as someone who quite likes what he’s doing with SpaceX.
Sadly, appeasement towards Russia is now quite mainstream thinking in the US, across the whole political spectrum. There’s an awful lot of people suggesting that Ukraine should sue for peace, or that it’s no longer in the US interest to keep supporting Ukraine now Putin is threatening nuclear escalation.
This is, of course, exactly what Putin wants. Thankfully, most Western leaders remain behind arming Ukraine.
Thankfully another quiet night there last night, with only a handful of missiles launched, more than half of which were shot down. Steady advances by the defenders in Kherson region too, they’re now only about 5km from the airport in the West of the city, and have retaken more than half the occupied lands in the North of the region, in the past couple of weeks.
It does sound a bit 1917 out there. This story is going around:
That doesn’t sound good, if there’s any truth to it. Also reports that Russian civilians in Kherson are being told to leave - how exactly they’re supposed to leave, is a different question. The bridges are all full of holes, and even the supply barge across the river was sunk last week.
Is there any objective appraisal out there of how the Ukrainians have been treating Russians (military and civilian) in the areas they have recaptured? I have seen a few comments about atrocities but nothing on the scale of Russian crimes. Is this because the Ukrainians are more disciplined or because they are better at controlling the news?
They’re better at the PR game without a shadow of a doubt. Whether that means they are managing to keep any wrongdoing under wraps or that they are more disciplined because they rely on western public opinion I couldn’t say. Maybe neither and they just treat their prisoners better.
If they were treating prisoners like the Russians do the West would not be supporting them in the way they are
War is war, and awful things always happen in wars. I’m sure that, if there were serious atrocities on the Ukranian side, some Western media will have picked it up.
There have been tales of Russian collaborators in the recaptured areas being shot out of hand, but not many.
Could be several reasons for that:
1) The Ukrainians are more disciplined than the Russians;
2) They are taking over their own territory and their own people, to protect them, while the avowed war aim of the Russians is to wipe Ukraine off the map (or 'genocide' as we call it);
3) There are fewer Russian collaborators than there are Ukrainians resisting the Russians;
4) Any Russian collaborators have fled with the Russian army;
5) It isn't actually the job of the AFU to deal with crimes in the occupied territories so a separate unit, that isn't under combat stress, is dealing with them more appropriately;
6) The Ukrainians have a more effective comms operation and are keeping any atrocities by their army under wraps, whereas Russia is actually literally flaunting them on TV;
7) There aren't many people in the reconquered areas due to having fled the fighting anyway.
It's probably in most cases a mixture of several of those, but that would explain it.
Also,
8) Quite a few collaborators have been killed before the AFU have retaken territory by partisan activity.
9) The Ukrainians recognise there is value in capturing collaborators because they can then be used in prisoner exchanges.
10) If the stories of how the pro-Russian governments in the areas taken by Russia in 2014 are vaguely true, and they behaved in the same way in the freshly occupied areas, then quite a few people may have actively changed their minds about who to support.
I don't get how a party that ummed and arred over ousting the least suitable PM in modern times (Boris Johnson) is supposed to get rid of Truss completely before the new year. She should be given the May locals at least.
The markets were not in freefall when BoZo was dumped
They can't afford to dick around this time
They're not in freefall, bond rates were back to 4% (Which is fine in the context of rapidly rising US rates). The corp tax and 45p were both errors in the mini-budget, with the NI change already pre-baked and the lower rate of income tax simply brought forward a year (So the ongoing cost was baked)
If the corp u-turn is announced that should satiate the markets.
In truth, I don't think any of them were "errors".
The error was junking the OBR forecast, and then adding fuel to the fire by saying there's more tax cuts to come, which spooked the markets into thinking HMG didn't give a shit about debt or the deficit and those who did would be silenced.
I agree. If the measures had been pre-sold, fed through the usual controls, and been accompanied by the sort of public spending cuts we expect from brutalist Conservative governments facing fiscal deficits, then I don't think the markets would have reacted badly. The markets aren't offended by the notion of taking from the poor and giving to the rich. They're just looking at risk v return on gilts and the pound relative to other options.
I don't agree with the political caricature you've given there, the Conservatives are interested in measures that maximise growth in the economy not "giving to the rich", which is a tired shibboleth, but on the rest I agree.
If you junk the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility then the markets will conclude, not irrationally, that you intend to be irresponsible with the budget.
I note that the Cons seem to be doing better in local byelections than they did during the nadir of Johnson. Clearly there is stronger residual support for the blue rosette than for the current face of the Govt and Lab are yet to fully persuade. I think that shouldn't come as too much of a shock.
So is this 1992? Then the local byelections very clearly showed the way things were going from some way out. I don't suggest the Cons wil retain power but a Lab majority still seems unsure (pricing in the placing of an adult in No 10). Also take a look at the Gloucester ward. In the Spring that would have been a LD gain. Now the Lab vote held up enough to allow the Con to survive. Leicester is an unusual case. The Green vote there was probably non-Hindus declining to vote for a BJP activist in a red rosette. The move to the Cons in the Indian-origin Hindu community is absolutely clear and continuing.
The LDs and Greens are clearly doing much better than the polls suggest. Focused resources or local issues?
If the PM can scramble her way to the Locals could a non-disastrous result (remember where they are starting from) enable her to limp onto a GE? The first 'if' in that last sentance is a huge 'if' of course.
I think they got lucky in Gloucester ward that it was FPTP - they'd have been monstered under any system. They might get lucky in a few unclear deep Lib/Lab targets but it's not a viable GE strategy. Also people are treating local elections on local issues sometimes, the dire performance of Coventry Labour council leading to a Tory gain in Sherbourne was a case in point.
Government of National Unity under PM Ed Davey to see us through to the next GE?
If I had a pound for every time someone mentioned a “ Government of National Unity” on here since 2016 I’d have enough for two pints at my local. Possibly three depending upon what I’m buying.
I think that, under the powers of the War Production Act, the US government can intervene to ensure Starlink continues to operate for Ukraine. So government's give themselves powers in war to prevent one person having so much power (or, at least, making the one person with that power the elected head of government).
Wasn't the OBR a trap set for a future Lab Government (or a necessary restraint on one). Notable that it was Kwarteng and his incredible intellligence that blundered straight into it. He clearly is a very clever man but singularly lacking in common sense and basic reasoning.
I think that, under the powers of the War Production Act, the US government can intervene to ensure Starlink continues to operate for Ukraine. So government's give themselves powers in war to prevent one person having so much power (or, at least, making the one person with that power the elected head of government).
That's what Elon has said isn't it basically - if US defense departments want to operate it they can pick up the tab and operation. It's implicitly recognised in his tweets.
The only way the Tory party can even try to save itself.
1) Ditch Truss/KK 2) Appoint someone else which can put a degree of trust. No membership vote. Rishi, Hunt, even Gove 3) Put through solid structural reforms on economy and tax. 4) Commit to a general election date in May 2023
They have to be prepared to be sorry, and be prepared to lose in 2023. It might make the difference of 50-60 seats being saved, and the difference between be over or sub 100 seats.
Comments
I prefer the modern iteration "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the dace."
That's also a lot of MPs to bring onside or ignore if you want a coronation.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/13/nicola-sturgeon-second-scottish-referendum
from Martin Kettle nailing the Scottish question precisely, accurately, and correctly?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/merkel-no-regrets-energy-policy-with-russia-2022-10-13/
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-business-germany-lisbon-2a8722c63c7ba84923c12eb0e1f8d35c
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Angela-Merkel-Justifies-Disastrous-Energy-Policy-With-Russia.html
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/germanys-merkel-defends-decision-russian-natural-gas-91444136
However, can the Tories really accept *any* of the failed leadership candidates as a unity figure? So I can see your point about Ben Wallace - someone who doesn't want the leadership, is widely regarded as competent and moral, and would I assume put together a cabinet of all the talents (stop laughing at the back).
But how do they persuade someone who has no desire to be leader / PM to do so? There is duty and patriotism, but those do not compel most people to put themselves through the horrible experience that will be leading the Tories to a respectable defeat.
They will all be kicking themselves to the grave.
Cameron called an unnecessary referendum
May called an unnecessary election
Johnson had an unnecessary booze up
Truss had an unnecessary budget
Despite repeated official denials, two senior Downing Street source confirm it's being considered but say no decision has been taken
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1580828677557735425
If in a way that E L James would have thought "no, that's too weird..."
I all seriousness through, no it doesn’t. You are being intellectually dishonest with yourself as well as me (“repeatedly”???). What “Woke” is is a reactionary shibboleth to demonise anyone who dares to stray from a right wing view of history and culture.
There is no intellectually coherent definition of the snarling use of the word “woke” that fits the people that it applies to. Going to a Pride Parade (the crime of the above referenced erstwhile Tory contender in the photo) is “woke” but attending a St Patrick’s Day Parade is not “woke”. Why? Both celebrate specific identities but one is an acceptable national identity to the right but one is an unacceptable sexual identity. You are all happy to classify refugees by their membership of that group rather than as individuals. Are you “woke”? Clearly not.
The intellectually depth of some of the posters on here would shame a paddling pool.
Politically, they may be better off having Truss take all the hits while inflation peaks, change after the local elections, and then claim credit for the new lreader when inflation starts to come down.
My own definition is that it represents the prioritisation of removing prejudice over the respect for individual rights and freedoms. Personally I regard myself as 'woke sceptical' because I acknowledge and agree with the goal of removing prejudice in society but think that in doing so individual rights and freedoms should not be compromised.
If KT do what is necessary to stabilise the economy, they are politically finished.
If they stick to their policies, the economy is ruined.
That should not be a difficult choice for Tory MPs who never wanted Truss anyway
Shame.
The Russians don't have to give a fuck what anybody else thinks and probably couldn't enforce it if they did so they do what they always do.
They can't afford to dick around this time
"Just put more jumpers on" response to people freezing in their homes
"City traders need electricity more than you" response to emergency blackouts
"Poor people are stupid and need to learn to cook" comments from ministers as the cold and hungry riot in the cities
That is what they face if they leave Truss in place to the May locals.
Don't worry, I get it - it's politics - but it's also transparent as hell.
Which gain no traction.
But are an admission of what bastards the Russian have been.
"It would have been great, but the bastards wouldn't let us finish the experiment"
EDIT: Not so much resigning in disgrace (as they should) but resigning in indignation
The corp tax and 45p were both errors in the mini-budget, with the NI change already pre-baked and the lower rate of income tax simply brought forward a year (So the ongoing cost was baked)
If the corp u-turn is announced that should satiate the markets.
Could be several reasons for that:
1) The Ukrainians are more disciplined than the Russians;
2) They are taking over their own territory and their own people, to protect them, while the avowed war aim of the Russians is to wipe Ukraine off the map (or 'genocide' as we call it);
3) There are fewer Russian collaborators than there are Ukrainians resisting the Russians;
4) Any Russian collaborators have fled with the Russian army;
5) It isn't actually the job of the AFU to deal with crimes in the occupied territories so a separate unit, that isn't under combat stress, is dealing with them more appropriately;
6) The Ukrainians have a more effective comms operation and are keeping any atrocities by their army under wraps, whereas Russia is actually literally flaunting them on TV;
7) There aren't many people in the reconquered areas due to having fled the fighting anyway.
It's probably in most cases a mixture of several of those, but that would explain it.
This is what happens when a govt loses economic credibility.
These crises are v v difficult to survive.
They invariably end in oblivion for some/all of the politicians involved.
Or a big u-turn like Mitterand
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/once-lost-economic-credibility-is-hard-to-regain-can-the-tories-ever-recover-nlcx5gqm3 https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580832544899010561/photo/1
The error was junking the OBR forecast, and then adding fuel to the fire by saying there's more tax cuts to come, which spooked the markets into thinking HMG didn't give a shit about debt or the deficit and those who did would be silenced.
https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/elon-musk-starlink-internet-service-ukraine-b2202633.html
1) They make a massive u-turn but so ineptly message why and what they will do next that the markets take fright anyway.
2) They sneer at their own MPs the way that JRM has sneered at the OBR, the IMF, the markets, the BBC etc etc to blame everyone else. They can get nothing through the Commons as Tory MPs won't let them. But the same MPs come under immense attack from angry media types who wanted "A True Tory Budget" and get frit.
Britain spirals downwards. An unfeeling sneering government with no political power or control blaming all and sundry as we spiral through economic ruin towards darkness, cold and hunger.
Vote Conservative.
(Truss was never going to make a PM.)
https://www.icrc.org/en/document/ukraine-conflict-families-all-pows-need-answers-their-loved-ones
In it they make this note:
2. Much of ICRC's work around POWs is confidential and dealt with in our bilateral dialogue with each party. We do not publicly share information about specific cases or the overall conditions or treatment. We are not publicly sharing the number of POWs we visit nor the number of names on lists that are shared with us by the parties to the conflict.
So, the ICRC would know, or would know if they weren't being allowed to know, but they're not telling (because if they did they'd be less likely to have access).
That said they have made some statements about being denied access, but they are fairly vague.
https://www.icrc.org/en/document/olenivka-penal-facility-prisoners-war-and-icrcs-role
n---o slaves, of what opinion or religion soever”
Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, wholly or partly drafted by Locke. Dem slaves must have thought Phew, think of the trouble we would be in if these guys weren't enlightened.
The local elections indicate that with the right candidate the Tories can still do well and it does suggest that the brand itself has not been trashed.
If however you believe that the local by-elections are telling us that the national polls are wrong and that Truss would win a GE then I think you are in for a nasty surprise.
You might believe the Conservatives are competent enough to organise the local bin collections but that doesn't mean you believe they are competent to to run the country.
The Conservative Party is not beyond hope but the Conservative Party led by Truss/Kwatang is.
#BREAKING Moscow orders Crimea bridge repairs to be completed by July 2023
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1580828922685853696
Brexit may finally destroy the Conservatives. It would be deserved.
Resulted in the acting leader of the council personally driving round hand delivering food waste caddies before the new service went live
https://twitter.com/RonStoeferle/status/1580649701661368320
This is one of only 3 years since 1926 when US stocks AND bonds have fallen off a cliff
And France is on the brink of a grève générale. Not just us.
Former Tory MP is right in this thread - moderate Tories (with honourable exceptions) failed to stand up to the hard right and so lost their party. Now we all suffer. Past time for the UK right to realign. Past time for #electoralreform.
https://twitter.com/ottocrat/status/1580826045074538496
https://twitter.com/sandbach/status/1580668286617866240
The two things are v different.
Truss’s survival depends on landing in the bit of the Venn diagram where those two things overlap
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1580835242163679237
They don't overlap...
Yes, Russia might be able to stabilise the front with conscripts, and Western resolve to support the war might crumble. But, the Ukrainians might be able to continue to make advances and the public might be more determined then you give them credit for.
So, at the moment, I think it is best to provide as much support as possible, encourage others to do the same, and we can see where we are in several months time.
Why give up on the chance of a victory for Ukraine because of your fear that it won't happen? Give them a chance.
Economic ruin - I'm not tossing hyperbole around, we are teetering on the edge of an IMF / World Bank event
The Cold - a combination of sky-high energy prices and a shortage of supply makes keeping the heating on a challenge
The Dark - despite their denials there is a very real prospect of electricity rationing
The Hunger - food inflation running away, wages squeezed well below inflation and we know what they want to do to UC and disability benefits
To navigate any crisis you first need people who recognise this is a crisis - the government are in denial. You need people prepared to be creative and flexible to provide solutions - the government are zealously dogmatic. You need people who can speak the truth to people and encourage a sense of community - the government are amoral and sneeringly dismissive of all those who are struggling.
Never mind 19 - 25 points in the polls. You can take 10 further points off those if they limp along in office and the winter is a cold one.
Anyway, good for the Ukranians to know where to find the best Russian bridge-builders for the next ten months!
Will they actually repair the rail bridge deck, thereby admitting it was damaged?
Instead it was WE ARE BRITAIN GIVE US WHAT WE ARE ENTITLED TO and surprisingly enough was sent home with just his bus fare.
Cameron had to call a referendum; it was the failure to get a modest deal from the EU - occasional derogations, brakes, warm words etc - and a rubbishly unidealistic campaign that sank him.
TM's fate was extraordinary. When she called the GE it looked unlosable. But she did in the campaign what LT has done in government, when reviews and soft words would have done.
Both effectively were derailed by Europe. Without it the 2017 GE would not have been needed.
Johnson and Truss were not/are not being derailed by Europe, which makes a nice change. The derailment is done by having no clue at all about the duties of being PM of a government.
Neither DC nor TM were just useless; but in critical respects both Boris and LT were and are.
As a result the surprise is that SKS isn't even further ahead, offering as he does a glimpse of grown up government.
What will be fascinating of course is what happens if and when he wins and the insoluble issues all become his fault. It's time the discussion and speculation moved to that stage!
I'm staggered at how badly things have gone for Truss though.
Probably the Tories best chance for 2024 is bringing Boris back and going full US Republican truth denial, us against them, black is white, labour are rigging elections etc. I just really hope they don't do it.
If the argument was that a corp tax cut would lead to greater investment, and therefore greater growth, then great, but - again - let's see the independent analysis and fact-checking first.
8) Quite a few collaborators have been killed before the AFU have retaken territory by partisan activity.
9) The Ukrainians recognise there is value in capturing collaborators because they can then be used in prisoner exchanges.
Government of National Unity under PM Ed Davey to see us through to the next GE?
So is this 1992? Then the local byelections very clearly showed the way things were going from some way out. I don't suggest the Cons wil retain power but a Lab majority still seems unsure (pricing in the placing of an adult in No 10). Also take a look at the Gloucester ward. In the Spring that would have been a LD gain. Now the Lab vote held up enough to allow the Con to survive. Leicester is an unusual case. The Green vote there was probably non-Hindus declining to vote for a BJP activist in a red rosette. The move to the Cons in the Indian-origin Hindu community is absolutely clear and continuing.
The LDs and Greens are clearly doing much better than the polls suggest. Focused resources or local issues?
If the PM can scramble her way to the Locals could a non-disastrous result (remember where they are starting from) enable her to limp onto a GE? The first 'if' in that last sentance is a huge 'if' of course.
I disagreed with a lot of the choices he made, but he at least did the job with a minimum level of competence that avoided a disastrous loss of market confidence.
If you junk the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility then the markets will conclude, not irrationally, that you intend to be irresponsible with the budget.
Also people are treating local elections on local issues sometimes, the dire performance of Coventry Labour council leading to a Tory gain in Sherbourne was a case in point.
Rejoin is clearly not a minority position, though won't be on the cards in England next GE for a major party. (I am not sure of the Green position).
1) Ditch Truss/KK
2) Appoint someone else which can put a degree of trust. No membership vote. Rishi, Hunt, even Gove
3) Put through solid structural reforms on economy and tax.
4) Commit to a general election date in May 2023
They have to be prepared to be sorry, and be prepared to lose in 2023. It might make the difference of 50-60 seats being saved, and the difference between be over or sub 100 seats.