Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Latest YouGov has Brexit becoming even more unpopular – politicalbetting.com

13»

Comments

  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410
    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    If this polling is sustained over the next few years then rejoin gets added to the table of political discourse in this country.

    As Mikey Gove said, if the country deems Brexit a mistake they will vote to overturn it.

    Predicted the other day.
    If the Tories lose, someone will run for leader on a Brexit = mistake ticket. All bets will then be off as to how it plays out, as the issue will be openly on the table.
    It isn't now.
    I highly doubt it, even on this Yougov poll 71% of Tory voters and 72% of 2019 Tory voters think Brexit was right still. 17% of 2019 Tory voters now back RefUK. Even Rees Mogg is preparing a leadership bid if Sunak loses on the basis he was not rightwing enough
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/12/29/voting-intention-con-24-lab-48-20-21-dec-2022

    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/jacob-rees-mogg-tories-next-general-election-leadership-bid-2051166
    Did you miss that Tory voters are now in a small minority?
    There is an objective difficulty for the Tories here, in that any new leader needs to be elected by people who still think Brexit is great and needs to be defended, while the voters in general increasingly see it as at best inessential to their happiness. Unless the Government can do things to make people feel it was all worthwhile, they will keep electing leaders who feel tied to a passionate minority view. Electing JRM would be logical - he'd defend Brexit with gusto, just as most members want - but really unlikely to lead to electoral success.
    JRM would rally the pro Brexit, anti Woke right though behind the Tories, just as Corbyn rallied the anti Iraq war, anti austerity left behind Labour.

    Remember for all Corbyn's faults even in 2019 he got a higher voteshare than Ed Miliband and Brown did in 2015 and 2010 and in 2017 almost as high as Blair got in 2001
    If only there were some sort of logical link between your paragraph one and paragraph two….
    JRM is the Tory Corbyn, he rallies the base even if toxic to swing voters and centrists
    Just the minor problem that Corbyn won votes from those who normally didn’t, or who hadn’t before, whereas JRM….doesn’t. Insofar as he has supporters, they are all Tory voters already.
    No he didn't, he won a few votes from people who normally voted Green.

    Plenty of voters who now vote RefUK would vote for a Mogg led Tories.

    There aren’t plenty of voters “who now vote RefUK”
    Wrong, 8% of the electorate now back RefUK with Yougov today

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/12/29/voting-intention-con-24-lab-48-20-21-dec-2022
    Right, because I bet next to none of them have ever “voted” RefUK
    Refuk stand for nothing concrete. There is no positive reason for even the most poujadiste golf club bore to vote for them in an election.

    People voted UKIP because they wanted Britain out of the EU and wanted migration reduced. Both were aspirations with a realistic chance of influencing Tory policy at the very least.

    People voted BXP because they wanted the government to hurry up and get on with a diamond hard Brexit. They were a perfect single issue vote.

    Many people vote Green as a similar kind of message to the main parties: “don’t forget the environment”, and whilst I can’t (or dare not) guess the motivations of all SNP voters I do know that some vote Plaid as a way of saying “don’t forget about us”.

    But REFUK? If they stand for anything it’s general disgruntlement at things like wokeism, speed bumps and health and safety regulations. And a feeling that Brexit isn’t as successful as it really ought to be. None of that is in any danger of seriously influencing policy.
    Plus slashing the channel boat crossings and anti any further lockdowns and deeper tax cuts
    All of which are pointless policies: nobody seriously believes Suella Braverman needs to be tougher on the rhetoric, so if they think there’s a better policy position on channel crossings they’re probably looking at a nethijg more constructive; nobody expects further lockdowns (except Leon earlier today); nobody remotely sane is calling for deep tax cuts since Truss, at least not yet.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,915
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    TSE - Since you asked, I'll give you the story of the two brothers who went out West to establish a cattle ranch. After years of work, the ranch had become a big success, and so they invited their father out to visit. He admired what they had done, and asked them what the name of their ranch was. The brothers said they hadn't picked one yet.

    The father thought a bit, and said: "How about Focus?"
    "Why Focus?", asked the older brother.
    The father explained: "Because that's where the suns rays meet."

    (You did ask.)

    That's almost as bad as the 'what cheese would you use to hide a horse' joke.
    Mask our pony?
    That's the one.

    As @IshmaelZ said, it's not a pointless exercise, but you would only do it to hide a dodgy fetalock.
    Or maybe if it had Livarot.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,567

    Taz said:

    checklist said:

    Taz said:

    Fashion designer Dame Vivienne Westwood has departed.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64122181

    "departed."

    Jesus H Christ. You sure she hasn't "passed"?
    F*ck off Ishmael you useless old soak. Oh, and I termed it like that as I knew you’d react. Like Pavlovs dogs. What a mug.

    How many sock puppets is this now ?

    What kind of pathetic sorry f*cker gets banned from somewhere multiple times but keeps coming back with new aliases just to argue and bicker. Take the hint. Pitiful specimen.
    But you love him really.
    What’s the Nick Faldo quote. Not from the bottom of my heart etc etc. 🥴
  • Options
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Here's a surprising question I came across today.
    Doubtless some of you will know, but what country is France's longest land border with?

    Is indeed Brazil. The way France has managed to keep its colonies in a way no other country outside Russia has (and that’s easier because they’re contiguous) is impressive. The sheer amount surface area of the Pacific Ocean that is “France” is also incredible.
    It is impressive. They've also managed to do it without major territorial disputes in recent decades

    However it may not be forever.eg Under Macron, French power in Africa has collapsed

    "As French influence rapidly declines, are we witnessing the end of Francafrique?"

    https://www.arabnews.com/node/2186016

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/how-france-losing-influence-across-north-africa
    Yes. I have never really got my head round the Rwanda genocide, but from what I understand the French had a serious degree of responsibility for it.

    I got married in May 1994 on what was virtually peak slaughter day, and that worries me.
  • Options
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Interesting set of tweets from George Trefgarne, financial PR guy and former city editor for the Telegraph.

    1. I have been talking to various international business people and it is impossible to over-estimate the extent to which global investors and business figures are now very negative towards the UK, regarding it politicians and policies as a joke

    2. In some ways it is worse than the 1970s because at least the solution - a dose of Thatcherism, presented itself. But the choice now is only Labour which has decided to emit rather left-wing signals in the last couple of months.

    3. Somebody in the UK Govt needs to see it as their responsibility to present the UK as a pro-business, pro-growth place to invest. Words I hear are "joke" or "backwater" or "a global irrelevance" or "run by lunatics" or "Britain is finished as a serious country".

    All of them neoliberal globalists no doubt with little interest in national sovereignty and pro open borders immigration
    Maybe. Trefgarne himself is an old-school dry Tory, and presumably the son (or grandson) of the current Tory peer.
    I talk to a lot of these multinational sorts in my job and I do hear this kind of sentiment, but I’d say it’s partly hammed up for a fellow Anglo Saxon audience in the same way we love to point at how mad the murcans are when they do things like Jan 6th.

    We have a sort of fiscal stability now. What we really need is an investment story. It’s not going to come from being a freewheeling tax haven. Nor from a German style industrial reawakening, unless we get very cheap. I expect it’s most likely to come about from Britain’s biggest strength which is its scientific innovation, creative industries and pop culture.

    I was due to be playing back lots of this stuff to WSJ today as part of a look back on 22, look forward to 23 piece but the journo stood me up (US ones seem worse for timekeeping than their Brit counterparts). Which was annoying as I’d had to forego a family trip out to sit at my desk.
    Putting my pointy hat of optimism on, I would say - if forced - that Britain's future is rosy because of our young people. They are well educated, happily multicultural, and infused with hybrid vigour. More so than most European countries (eg the UK's record with PISA is pretty good). We have excellent, world class universities. We speak the internet. The kids all have access to the cutting edge of tech - which is English speaking. We are not reliant on manufacturing - which is probably doomed

    This will eventually save us. Probably. But we likely face another painful decade before then

    [and, of course, all this is ignoring the room-elephant that is AI, but hey]

    It's the other thing that's so maddening about the age polarization in politics, especially that the Conservatives have doubled down on being the party of the old.

    It's created this yawning values gap. On one side, the government and the people who are subsidised by the government. On the other, the only people who can pay the bills.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,567

    So I just clicked on the link regards Vivien Westwood and now I see Pele has died too! Hopefully after my delayed flight I'll actually get home tonight even if I'm waiting for an hour at Cheltenham station.

    Yes, Pele is sadly no longer with us too.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410

    New from @PeoplePolling 28 Dec: Cons on 19%
    Lab 45%
    Con 19%
    Green 9%
    Lib Dem 8%
    Reform 8%
    (From press release)

    I guess it could flip again, Labour has done it from a similar position, why not the Tories?

    Peoplepolling is very evidently picking up respondents who are way too politically engaged to be representative of the general public.

    I’ve used LLG as a proxy for general anti-Tory or anti-Brexit sentiment but maybe a Grefuk score is useful too - Grefuk 17% is simply way too high. I think Green are really on closer to 5% and Ref about 3%. As some pollsters show.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 33,915

    New from @PeoplePolling 28 Dec: Cons on 19%
    Lab 45%
    Con 19%
    Green 9%
    Lib Dem 8%
    Reform 8%
    (From press release)

    I guess it could flip again, Labour has done it from a similar position, why not the Tories?

    Electoral Calculus gives Labour 502 seats, Tories 53 seats for that one. (New boundaries.)
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,454

    New from @PeoplePolling 28 Dec: Cons on 19%
    Lab 45%
    Con 19%
    Green 9%
    Lib Dem 8%
    Reform 8%
    (From press release)

    I guess it could flip again, Labour has done it from a similar position, why not the Tories?

    Not for a while when most of the nation is thoroughly sick of them and as others have suggested are waiting to give them a damn good kicking.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,194
    edited December 2022
    checklist said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Here's a surprising question I came across today.
    Doubtless some of you will know, but what country is France's longest land border with?

    Is indeed Brazil. The way France has managed to keep its colonies in a way no other country outside Russia has (and that’s easier because they’re contiguous) is impressive. The sheer amount surface area of the Pacific Ocean that is “France” is also incredible.
    It is impressive. They've also managed to do it without major territorial disputes in recent decades

    However it may not be forever.eg Under Macron, French power in Africa has collapsed

    "As French influence rapidly declines, are we witnessing the end of Francafrique?"

    https://www.arabnews.com/node/2186016

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/how-france-losing-influence-across-north-africa
    Yes. I have never really got my head round the Rwanda genocide, but from what I understand the French had a serious degree of responsibility for it.

    I got married in May 1994 on what was virtually peak slaughter day, and that worries me.
    Shooting Dogs with John Hurt is the best topical film.

    The French were seen as too close to the previous government, having sent them arms among other things, and were slow to do anything about the genocide (along with everyone else).

    I was in Rwanda during the run-up to changing primary schools from tuition in French to tuition in English. Which was done as a big bang at the beginning of a term. It was somewhat chaotic.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410
    Taz said:

    So I just clicked on the link regards Vivien Westwood and now I see Pele has died too! Hopefully after my delayed flight I'll actually get home tonight even if I'm waiting for an hour at Cheltenham station.

    Yes, Pele is sadly no longer with us too.
    The weeks immediately before and after Christmas always seem to be peak celebrity death time. The onset of winter kind of explains that in the Northern Hemisphere, but not Pele.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,567
    TimS said:

    Taz said:

    So I just clicked on the link regards Vivien Westwood and now I see Pele has died too! Hopefully after my delayed flight I'll actually get home tonight even if I'm waiting for an hour at Cheltenham station.

    Yes, Pele is sadly no longer with us too.
    The weeks immediately before and after Christmas always seem to be peak celebrity death time. The onset of winter kind of explains that in the Northern Hemisphere, but not Pele.
    He had been in poor health for a while with colon cancer and was not expected to make it to the end of the recent World Cup.

  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410
    IanB2 said:

    checklist said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Here's a surprising question I came across today.
    Doubtless some of you will know, but what country is France's longest land border with?

    Is indeed Brazil. The way France has managed to keep its colonies in a way no other country outside Russia has (and that’s easier because they’re contiguous) is impressive. The sheer amount surface area of the Pacific Ocean that is “France” is also incredible.
    It is impressive. They've also managed to do it without major territorial disputes in recent decades

    However it may not be forever.eg Under Macron, French power in Africa has collapsed

    "As French influence rapidly declines, are we witnessing the end of Francafrique?"

    https://www.arabnews.com/node/2186016

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/how-france-losing-influence-across-north-africa
    Yes. I have never really got my head round the Rwanda genocide, but from what I understand the French had a serious degree of responsibility for it.

    I got married in May 1994 on what was virtually peak slaughter day, and that worries me.
    Shooting Dogs with John Hurt is the best topical film.

    The French were seen as too close to the previous government, having sent them arms among other things, and were slow to do anything about the genocide (along with everyone else).

    I was in Rwanda during the run-up to changing primary schools from tuition in French to tuition in English. Which was done as a big bang at the beginning of a term. It was somewhat chaotic.
    We’ve still not resolved the dilemma of when to intervene in civil war and genocide and when not. Perhaps we never will. The recent record is poor:

    Somalia early 90s: US intervention, bad (or maybe just badly executed?)
    Yugoslavia early 90s: not enough intervention. Bad - led to Srebrenica
    Yugoslavia later 90s: active intervention, good
    Rwanda 94: no intervention, bad
    Sierra Leone late 90s: intervention, (probably) good
    Afghanistan 2001: intervention, was it worth it? jury’s out
    Iraq 2003: intervention, bad
    Libya 2011: intervention, initially good, ultimately dreadful
    Syria 2012 onwards: no intervention, almost certainly bad

    And so it continues, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,109
    TimS said:

    IanB2 said:

    checklist said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Here's a surprising question I came across today.
    Doubtless some of you will know, but what country is France's longest land border with?

    Is indeed Brazil. The way France has managed to keep its colonies in a way no other country outside Russia has (and that’s easier because they’re contiguous) is impressive. The sheer amount surface area of the Pacific Ocean that is “France” is also incredible.
    It is impressive. They've also managed to do it without major territorial disputes in recent decades

    However it may not be forever.eg Under Macron, French power in Africa has collapsed

    "As French influence rapidly declines, are we witnessing the end of Francafrique?"

    https://www.arabnews.com/node/2186016

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/how-france-losing-influence-across-north-africa
    Yes. I have never really got my head round the Rwanda genocide, but from what I understand the French had a serious degree of responsibility for it.

    I got married in May 1994 on what was virtually peak slaughter day, and that worries me.
    Shooting Dogs with John Hurt is the best topical film.

    The French were seen as too close to the previous government, having sent them arms among other things, and were slow to do anything about the genocide (along with everyone else).

    I was in Rwanda during the run-up to changing primary schools from tuition in French to tuition in English. Which was done as a big bang at the beginning of a term. It was somewhat chaotic.
    We’ve still not resolved the dilemma of when to intervene in civil war and genocide and when not. Perhaps we never will. The recent record is poor:

    Somalia early 90s: US intervention, bad (or maybe just badly executed?)
    Yugoslavia early 90s: not enough intervention. Bad - led to Srebrenica
    Yugoslavia later 90s: active intervention, good
    Rwanda 94: no intervention, bad
    Sierra Leone late 90s: intervention, (probably) good
    Afghanistan 2001: intervention, was it worth it? jury’s out
    Iraq 2003: intervention, bad
    Libya 2011: intervention, initially good, ultimately dreadful
    Syria 2012 onwards: no intervention, almost certainly bad

    And so it continues, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
    That’s a nice book-ending of the “neo-liberal” moment, 1989-2016.

    There will no more interventions for a while.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 12,567
    Andrew Tate, a chap who seems to court controversy and seems to be a bit of a dick, and his brother have been arrested in Romania.

    https://twitter.com/sportbible/status/1608583965111382016?s=61&t=zQaykT0zu2mFL6AhcS7CEw
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410
    edited December 2022

    TimS said:

    IanB2 said:

    checklist said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Here's a surprising question I came across today.
    Doubtless some of you will know, but what country is France's longest land border with?

    Is indeed Brazil. The way France has managed to keep its colonies in a way no other country outside Russia has (and that’s easier because they’re contiguous) is impressive. The sheer amount surface area of the Pacific Ocean that is “France” is also incredible.
    It is impressive. They've also managed to do it without major territorial disputes in recent decades

    However it may not be forever.eg Under Macron, French power in Africa has collapsed

    "As French influence rapidly declines, are we witnessing the end of Francafrique?"

    https://www.arabnews.com/node/2186016

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/how-france-losing-influence-across-north-africa
    Yes. I have never really got my head round the Rwanda genocide, but from what I understand the French had a serious degree of responsibility for it.

    I got married in May 1994 on what was virtually peak slaughter day, and that worries me.
    Shooting Dogs with John Hurt is the best topical film.

    The French were seen as too close to the previous government, having sent them arms among other things, and were slow to do anything about the genocide (along with everyone else).

    I was in Rwanda during the run-up to changing primary schools from tuition in French to tuition in English. Which was done as a big bang at the beginning of a term. It was somewhat chaotic.
    We’ve still not resolved the dilemma of when to intervene in civil war and genocide and when not. Perhaps we never will. The recent record is poor:

    Somalia early 90s: US intervention, bad (or maybe just badly executed?)
    Yugoslavia early 90s: not enough intervention. Bad - led to Srebrenica
    Yugoslavia later 90s: active intervention, good
    Rwanda 94: no intervention, bad
    Sierra Leone late 90s: intervention, (probably) good
    Afghanistan 2001: intervention, was it worth it? jury’s out
    Iraq 2003: intervention, bad
    Libya 2011: intervention, initially good, ultimately dreadful
    Syria 2012 onwards: no intervention, almost certainly bad

    And so it continues, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
    That’s a nice book-ending of the “neo-liberal” moment, 1989-2016.

    There will no more interventions for a while.
    Unless Ukraine 2022 counts as intervention (and Taiwan 2023).

    The full book ending starts with Gulf war 1 and ends with Afghanistan withdrawal last year, but there were already oscillations in that time. Rwandan inaction was at least partly a reaction to failed intervention in Somalia.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,109
    Taz said:

    Andrew Tate, a chap who seems to court controversy and seems to be a bit of a dick, and his brother have been arrested in Romania.

    https://twitter.com/sportbible/status/1608583965111382016?s=61&t=zQaykT0zu2mFL6AhcS7CEw

    Don’t messa with the Greta.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,109
    edited December 2022
    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    IanB2 said:

    checklist said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Here's a surprising question I came across today.
    Doubtless some of you will know, but what country is France's longest land border with?

    Is indeed Brazil. The way France has managed to keep its colonies in a way no other country outside Russia has (and that’s easier because they’re contiguous) is impressive. The sheer amount surface area of the Pacific Ocean that is “France” is also incredible.
    It is impressive. They've also managed to do it without major territorial disputes in recent decades

    However it may not be forever.eg Under Macron, French power in Africa has collapsed

    "As French influence rapidly declines, are we witnessing the end of Francafrique?"

    https://www.arabnews.com/node/2186016

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/how-france-losing-influence-across-north-africa
    Yes. I have never really got my head round the Rwanda genocide, but from what I understand the French had a serious degree of responsibility for it.

    I got married in May 1994 on what was virtually peak slaughter day, and that worries me.
    Shooting Dogs with John Hurt is the best topical film.

    The French were seen as too close to the previous government, having sent them arms among other things, and were slow to do anything about the genocide (along with everyone else).

    I was in Rwanda during the run-up to changing primary schools from tuition in French to tuition in English. Which was done as a big bang at the beginning of a term. It was somewhat chaotic.
    We’ve still not resolved the dilemma of when to intervene in civil war and genocide and when not. Perhaps we never will. The recent record is poor:

    Somalia early 90s: US intervention, bad (or maybe just badly executed?)
    Yugoslavia early 90s: not enough intervention. Bad - led to Srebrenica
    Yugoslavia later 90s: active intervention, good
    Rwanda 94: no intervention, bad
    Sierra Leone late 90s: intervention, (probably) good
    Afghanistan 2001: intervention, was it worth it? jury’s out
    Iraq 2003: intervention, bad
    Libya 2011: intervention, initially good, ultimately dreadful
    Syria 2012 onwards: no intervention, almost certainly bad

    And so it continues, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
    That’s a nice book-ending of the “neo-liberal” moment, 1989-2016.

    There will no more interventions for a while.
    Unless Ukraine 2022 counts as intervention (and Taiwan 2023).
    I don’t buy Taiwan.
    Or perhaps I’m just biased to “normalcy”.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    IanB2 said:

    checklist said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Here's a surprising question I came across today.
    Doubtless some of you will know, but what country is France's longest land border with?

    Is indeed Brazil. The way France has managed to keep its colonies in a way no other country outside Russia has (and that’s easier because they’re contiguous) is impressive. The sheer amount surface area of the Pacific Ocean that is “France” is also incredible.
    It is impressive. They've also managed to do it without major territorial disputes in recent decades

    However it may not be forever.eg Under Macron, French power in Africa has collapsed

    "As French influence rapidly declines, are we witnessing the end of Francafrique?"

    https://www.arabnews.com/node/2186016

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/how-france-losing-influence-across-north-africa
    Yes. I have never really got my head round the Rwanda genocide, but from what I understand the French had a serious degree of responsibility for it.

    I got married in May 1994 on what was virtually peak slaughter day, and that worries me.
    Shooting Dogs with John Hurt is the best topical film.

    The French were seen as too close to the previous government, having sent them arms among other things, and were slow to do anything about the genocide (along with everyone else).

    I was in Rwanda during the run-up to changing primary schools from tuition in French to tuition in English. Which was done as a big bang at the beginning of a term. It was somewhat chaotic.
    We’ve still not resolved the dilemma of when to intervene in civil war and genocide and when not. Perhaps we never will. The recent record is poor:

    Somalia early 90s: US intervention, bad (or maybe just badly executed?)
    Yugoslavia early 90s: not enough intervention. Bad - led to Srebrenica
    Yugoslavia later 90s: active intervention, good
    Rwanda 94: no intervention, bad
    Sierra Leone late 90s: intervention, (probably) good
    Afghanistan 2001: intervention, was it worth it? jury’s out
    Iraq 2003: intervention, bad
    Libya 2011: intervention, initially good, ultimately dreadful
    Syria 2012 onwards: no intervention, almost certainly bad

    And so it continues, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
    That’s a nice book-ending of the “neo-liberal” moment, 1989-2016.

    There will no more interventions for a while.
    Unless Ukraine 2022 counts as intervention (and Taiwan 2023).
    I don’t buy Taiwan.
    Or perhaps I’m just biased to “normalcy”.
    The risk is the bad lesson from Ukraine is outweighed by the sense time’s running out, it’s now or never.
  • Options

    New from @PeoplePolling 28 Dec: Cons on 19%
    Lab 45%
    Con 19%
    Green 9%
    Lib Dem 8%
    Reform 8%
    (From press release)

    I guess it could flip again, Labour has done it from a similar position, why not the Tories?

    @BJO please explain :)
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,109
    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    IanB2 said:

    checklist said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Here's a surprising question I came across today.
    Doubtless some of you will know, but what country is France's longest land border with?

    Is indeed Brazil. The way France has managed to keep its colonies in a way no other country outside Russia has (and that’s easier because they’re contiguous) is impressive. The sheer amount surface area of the Pacific Ocean that is “France” is also incredible.
    It is impressive. They've also managed to do it without major territorial disputes in recent decades

    However it may not be forever.eg Under Macron, French power in Africa has collapsed

    "As French influence rapidly declines, are we witnessing the end of Francafrique?"

    https://www.arabnews.com/node/2186016

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/how-france-losing-influence-across-north-africa
    Yes. I have never really got my head round the Rwanda genocide, but from what I understand the French had a serious degree of responsibility for it.

    I got married in May 1994 on what was virtually peak slaughter day, and that worries me.
    Shooting Dogs with John Hurt is the best topical film.

    The French were seen as too close to the previous government, having sent them arms among other things, and were slow to do anything about the genocide (along with everyone else).

    I was in Rwanda during the run-up to changing primary schools from tuition in French to tuition in English. Which was done as a big bang at the beginning of a term. It was somewhat chaotic.
    We’ve still not resolved the dilemma of when to intervene in civil war and genocide and when not. Perhaps we never will. The recent record is poor:

    Somalia early 90s: US intervention, bad (or maybe just badly executed?)
    Yugoslavia early 90s: not enough intervention. Bad - led to Srebrenica
    Yugoslavia later 90s: active intervention, good
    Rwanda 94: no intervention, bad
    Sierra Leone late 90s: intervention, (probably) good
    Afghanistan 2001: intervention, was it worth it? jury’s out
    Iraq 2003: intervention, bad
    Libya 2011: intervention, initially good, ultimately dreadful
    Syria 2012 onwards: no intervention, almost certainly bad

    And so it continues, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
    That’s a nice book-ending of the “neo-liberal” moment, 1989-2016.

    There will no more interventions for a while.
    Unless Ukraine 2022 counts as intervention (and Taiwan 2023).
    I don’t buy Taiwan.
    Or perhaps I’m just biased to “normalcy”.
    The risk is the bad lesson from Ukraine is outweighed by the sense time’s running out, it’s now or never.
    Well I don’t buy that either.
    It’s potentially just a story that Western analysts are telling themselves.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410

    New from @PeoplePolling 28 Dec: Cons on 19%
    Lab 45%
    Con 19%
    Green 9%
    Lib Dem 8%
    Reform 8%
    (From press release)

    I guess it could flip again, Labour has done it from a similar position, why not the Tories?

    @BJO please explain :)
    Behind the headlines LLG:Refcon is 62:27 which is at the larger end of gaps but not a complete outlier. LLG has been as high as 65% in one or two polls where the Lib Dems were around 12-13% and Labour was higher.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743

    New from @PeoplePolling 28 Dec: Cons on 19%
    Lab 45%
    Con 19%
    Green 9%
    Lib Dem 8%
    Reform 8%
    (From press release)

    I guess it could flip again, Labour has done it from a similar position, why not the Tories?

    @BJO please explain :)
    Why 19% support the Tories is a total mystery.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410
    edited December 2022

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    IanB2 said:

    checklist said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Here's a surprising question I came across today.
    Doubtless some of you will know, but what country is France's longest land border with?

    Is indeed Brazil. The way France has managed to keep its colonies in a way no other country outside Russia has (and that’s easier because they’re contiguous) is impressive. The sheer amount surface area of the Pacific Ocean that is “France” is also incredible.
    It is impressive. They've also managed to do it without major territorial disputes in recent decades

    However it may not be forever.eg Under Macron, French power in Africa has collapsed

    "As French influence rapidly declines, are we witnessing the end of Francafrique?"

    https://www.arabnews.com/node/2186016

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/how-france-losing-influence-across-north-africa
    Yes. I have never really got my head round the Rwanda genocide, but from what I understand the French had a serious degree of responsibility for it.

    I got married in May 1994 on what was virtually peak slaughter day, and that worries me.
    Shooting Dogs with John Hurt is the best topical film.

    The French were seen as too close to the previous government, having sent them arms among other things, and were slow to do anything about the genocide (along with everyone else).

    I was in Rwanda during the run-up to changing primary schools from tuition in French to tuition in English. Which was done as a big bang at the beginning of a term. It was somewhat chaotic.
    We’ve still not resolved the dilemma of when to intervene in civil war and genocide and when not. Perhaps we never will. The recent record is poor:

    Somalia early 90s: US intervention, bad (or maybe just badly executed?)
    Yugoslavia early 90s: not enough intervention. Bad - led to Srebrenica
    Yugoslavia later 90s: active intervention, good
    Rwanda 94: no intervention, bad
    Sierra Leone late 90s: intervention, (probably) good
    Afghanistan 2001: intervention, was it worth it? jury’s out
    Iraq 2003: intervention, bad
    Libya 2011: intervention, initially good, ultimately dreadful
    Syria 2012 onwards: no intervention, almost certainly bad

    And so it continues, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
    That’s a nice book-ending of the “neo-liberal” moment, 1989-2016.

    There will no more interventions for a while.
    Unless Ukraine 2022 counts as intervention (and Taiwan 2023).
    I don’t buy Taiwan.
    Or perhaps I’m just biased to “normalcy”.
    The risk is the bad lesson from Ukraine is outweighed by the sense time’s running out, it’s now or never.
    Well I don’t buy that either.
    It’s potentially just a story that Western analysts are telling themselves.
    I hope you’re right. 71 Chinese planes and 7 warships in the Taiwan straits earlier this week.
  • Options
    boulayboulay Posts: 5,085
    Taz said:

    TimS said:

    Taz said:

    So I just clicked on the link regards Vivien Westwood and now I see Pele has died too! Hopefully after my delayed flight I'll actually get home tonight even if I'm waiting for an hour at Cheltenham station.

    Yes, Pele is sadly no longer with us too.
    The weeks immediately before and after Christmas always seem to be peak celebrity death time. The onset of winter kind of explains that in the Northern Hemisphere, but not Pele.
    He had been in poor health for a while with colon cancer and was not expected to make it to the end of the recent World Cup.

    So better odds than England then.
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,657
    ydoethur said: "That's almost as bad as the 'what cheese would you use to hide a horse' joke."

    Why, thank you. You're very kind.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410
    Foxy said:

    New from @PeoplePolling 28 Dec: Cons on 19%
    Lab 45%
    Con 19%
    Green 9%
    Lib Dem 8%
    Reform 8%
    (From press release)

    I guess it could flip again, Labour has done it from a similar position, why not the Tories?

    @BJO please explain :)
    Why 19% support the Tories is a total mystery.
    I think about 30% actually support them, but between 5 and 10% (depending on pollster) won’t admit it. For a start all those Refuk respondents are going to vote Tory.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,639

    New from @PeoplePolling 28 Dec: Cons on 19%
    Lab 45%
    Con 19%
    Green 9%
    Lib Dem 8%
    Reform 8%
    (From press release)

    I guess it could flip again, Labour has done it from a similar position, why not the Tories?

    In World War Two the average percentage saying they would vote Conservative was forty six. Today it is nineteen. N-n-n-n-nineteen.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743

    Taz said:

    Andrew Tate, a chap who seems to court controversy and seems to be a bit of a dick, and his brother have been arrested in Romania.

    https://twitter.com/sportbible/status/1608583965111382016?s=61&t=zQaykT0zu2mFL6AhcS7CEw

    Don’t messa with the Greta.
    It seems that Bugatti has been carbon neutralised.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,438

    New from @PeoplePolling 28 Dec: Cons on 19%
    Lab 45%
    Con 19%
    Green 9%
    Lib Dem 8%
    Reform 8%
    (From press release)

    I guess it could flip again, Labour has done it from a similar position, why not the Tories?

    In World War Two the average percentage saying they would vote Conservative was forty six. Today it is nineteen. N-n-n-n-nineteen.
    I qonder who the other 11% are? Maybe 5% SNP+Plaid, but then?

    Reform + Farage could be a significant player, I think, Reform just with Tice, almost certainly not. That said, I don't think those 8% will readily vote Tory - lots just won't bother.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410
    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    Andrew Tate, a chap who seems to court controversy and seems to be a bit of a dick, and his brother have been arrested in Romania.

    https://twitter.com/sportbible/status/1608583965111382016?s=61&t=zQaykT0zu2mFL6AhcS7CEw

    Don’t messa with the Greta.
    It seems that Bugatti has been carbon neutralised.
    It’s a hilarious story. I’d never heard of the man - who appears to be a twat - until this week but my very right-on son is delighted.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410

    New from @PeoplePolling 28 Dec: Cons on 19%
    Lab 45%
    Con 19%
    Green 9%
    Lib Dem 8%
    Reform 8%
    (From press release)

    I guess it could flip again, Labour has done it from a similar position, why not the Tories?

    In World War Two the average percentage saying they would vote Conservative was forty six. Today it is nineteen. N-n-n-n-nineteen.
    I qonder who the other 11% are? Maybe 5% SNP+Plaid, but then?

    Reform + Farage could be a significant player, I think, Reform just with Tice, almost certainly not. That said, I don't think those 8% will readily vote Tory - lots just won't bother.
    SNP must be 5% on this one, though the 4 or 5 is usually rounding. Plaid 1%, possibly rounded 2%. Assuming it’s GB excluding NI there are usually 1-2% choosing UKIP even though they hardly exist anymore. The rest must be rounding.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 11,410
    edited December 2022
    It would be very interesting to see the results of a poll that asked the following question:

    “Leaving aside the current state of the political parties and their leadership, would you typically be inclined to vote for:

    - Labour or similar left of centre party
    - A conservative / right of centre party
    - A liberal centre party like the Liberal Democrats
    - A party favouring independence for a constituent nation of the UK (eg Scotland, Wales)
    - A green / environmentally focused party
    - A socialist or Marxist left wing party
    - A popular nationalist right wing party”

    I would guess we’d get results along the lines of:

    30%
    30%
    10%
    6%
    10%
    6%
    8%
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883
    Leon said:

    Let's talk practicalities. Labour have one chance to "reverse" Brexit: their first and possibly single term in office after the GE of 2024

    They will have a big majority, Starmer will enjoy a honeymoon, Starmer can point to the newly dire economic circs and say "it's worse than we feared, soz, we are rejoining the SM"

    He will not get the chance again. They could lose in 28-29 and the Tories will be detoxed by opposition

    It will be a paradoxical moment. Does Starmer go all out to make the country work "despite" Brexit? If he does and he succeeds then Brexit is with us forever. He will be a successful PM but he will never get us back in the EU

    Or does he go all out and abandon all his pledges, and walk us back in to the SM/CU? That too is a perilous course

    If he rejoins the SM in such a way it won't stick. The Tory opposition will blame everything on abandoning Brexit and we'll leave again as soon as they re-enter government.

    There's no point reversing Brexit until it will stick, and it won't stick until reversing Brexit becomes the settled will of the British people. So the case for reversing Brexit needs to be made one cooperation with the EU at a time - although that paradoxically makes the reversal less necessary.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,460
    edited December 2022

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Interesting set of tweets from George Trefgarne, financial PR guy and former city editor for the Telegraph.

    1. I have been talking to various international business people and it is impossible to over-estimate the extent to which global investors and business figures are now very negative towards the UK, regarding it politicians and policies as a joke

    2. In some ways it is worse than the 1970s because at least the solution - a dose of Thatcherism, presented itself. But the choice now is only Labour which has decided to emit rather left-wing signals in the last couple of months.

    3. Somebody in the UK Govt needs to see it as their responsibility to present the UK as a pro-business, pro-growth place to invest. Words I hear are "joke" or "backwater" or "a global irrelevance" or "run by lunatics" or "Britain is finished as a serious country".

    All of them neoliberal globalists no doubt with little interest in national sovereignty and pro open borders immigration
    Maybe. Trefgarne himself is an old-school dry Tory, and presumably the son (or grandson) of the current Tory peer.
    I talk to a lot of these multinational sorts in my job and I do hear this kind of sentiment, but I’d say it’s partly hammed up for a fellow Anglo Saxon audience in the same way we love to point at how mad the murcans are when they do things like Jan 6th.

    We have a sort of fiscal stability now. What we really need is an investment story. It’s not going to come from being a freewheeling tax haven. Nor from a German style industrial reawakening, unless we get very cheap. I expect it’s most likely to come about from Britain’s biggest strength which is its scientific innovation, creative industries and pop culture.

    I was due to be playing back lots of this stuff to WSJ today as part of a look back on 22, look forward to 23 piece but the journo stood me up (US ones seem worse for timekeeping than their Brit counterparts). Which was annoying as I’d had to forego a family trip out to sit at my desk.
    Putting my pointy hat of optimism on, I would say - if forced - that Britain's future is rosy because of our young people. They are well educated, happily multicultural, and infused with hybrid vigour. More so than most European countries (eg the UK's record with PISA is pretty good). We have excellent, world class universities. We speak the internet. The kids all have access to the cutting edge of tech - which is English speaking. We are not reliant on manufacturing - which is probably doomed

    This will eventually save us. Probably. But we likely face another painful decade before then

    [and, of course, all this is ignoring the room-elephant that is AI, but hey]

    It's the other thing that's so maddening about the age polarization in politics, especially that the Conservatives have doubled down on being the party of the old.

    It's created this yawning values gap. On one side, the government and the people who are subsidised by the government. On the other, the only people who can pay the bills.
    What's weird is they have doubled down on it even though its not like it has always been a thing that only old people vote Conservative. It's not even the case in plenty of countries even today. Yet they seem to have decided its inevitable, and more than that, the only moral thing to do, like it would be absurd to consider doing otherwise.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,774
    Incredible thread:

    Senior Lieutenant at Russian FSB Counterintelligence defected to Europe. Emran #Navruzbekbekov was sent to Turkey & Syria for an operation against Russian citizens wanted by Putin. Instead, he used the opportunity to flee to Europe with receipts & asked for political asylum.

    https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1608548687952900096
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 94,460
    TimS said:

    Foxy said:

    New from @PeoplePolling 28 Dec: Cons on 19%
    Lab 45%
    Con 19%
    Green 9%
    Lib Dem 8%
    Reform 8%
    (From press release)

    I guess it could flip again, Labour has done it from a similar position, why not the Tories?

    @BJO please explain :)
    Why 19% support the Tories is a total mystery.
    I think about 30% actually support them, but between 5 and 10% (depending on pollster) won’t admit it. For a start all those Refuk respondents are going to vote Tory.
    About half of them maybe. Rest to stay at home or vote for the token Refuk candidate if they have one in their seat.

    If they are of the mind that a defeat is inevitable, then they may see no 'danger' in not sticking it to a Tory leadership they don't like, since all it would be doing is affecting the margin of defeat.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 16,883
    TimS said:

    IanB2 said:

    checklist said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Here's a surprising question I came across today.
    Doubtless some of you will know, but what country is France's longest land border with?

    Is indeed Brazil. The way France has managed to keep its colonies in a way no other country outside Russia has (and that’s easier because they’re contiguous) is impressive. The sheer amount surface area of the Pacific Ocean that is “France” is also incredible.
    It is impressive. They've also managed to do it without major territorial disputes in recent decades

    However it may not be forever.eg Under Macron, French power in Africa has collapsed

    "As French influence rapidly declines, are we witnessing the end of Francafrique?"

    https://www.arabnews.com/node/2186016

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/how-france-losing-influence-across-north-africa
    Yes. I have never really got my head round the Rwanda genocide, but from what I understand the French had a serious degree of responsibility for it.

    I got married in May 1994 on what was virtually peak slaughter day, and that worries me.
    Shooting Dogs with John Hurt is the best topical film.

    The French were seen as too close to the previous government, having sent them arms among other things, and were slow to do anything about the genocide (along with everyone else).

    I was in Rwanda during the run-up to changing primary schools from tuition in French to tuition in English. Which was done as a big bang at the beginning of a term. It was somewhat chaotic.
    We’ve still not resolved the dilemma of when to intervene in civil war and genocide and when not. Perhaps we never will. The recent record is poor:

    Somalia early 90s: US intervention, bad (or maybe just badly executed?)
    Yugoslavia early 90s: not enough intervention. Bad - led to Srebrenica
    Yugoslavia later 90s: active intervention, good
    Rwanda 94: no intervention, bad
    Sierra Leone late 90s: intervention, (probably) good
    Afghanistan 2001: intervention, was it worth it? jury’s out
    Iraq 2003: intervention, bad
    Libya 2011: intervention, initially good, ultimately dreadful
    Syria 2012 onwards: no intervention, almost certainly bad

    And so it continues, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
    The conclusion I've come to is that there's not much point intervening unless there is a sufficiently strong domestic power worth supporting.

    Ultimately I don't think that the non-jihadist opposition in Syria or Libya was strong enough for the situation to end well, whether we intervened or not.

    Whereas in Ukraine there's a nascent democratic culture that is worth defending, and so it's worth supporting them against Russia.

    We should do what we can to encourage stronger civil society groups so that at some point in the future there will be the internal organisation worth supporting. The problem with somewhere like Afghanistan is that we ended up spending a long time supporting the groups that were opposed to our long term interests. If possible we should avoid future interventions that make a situation actively worse.

    I think our current support for Saudi Arabia in Yemen is probably making the long-term situation in Yemen worse, and we'd do better to do nothing.
  • Options
    NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 731
    edited December 2022
    TimS said:

    Taz said:

    So I just clicked on the link regards Vivien Westwood and now I see Pele has died too! Hopefully after my delayed flight I'll actually get home tonight even if I'm waiting for an hour at Cheltenham station.

    Yes, Pele is sadly no longer with us too.
    The weeks immediately before and after Christmas always seem to be peak celebrity death time. The onset of winter kind of explains that in the Northern Hemisphere, but not Pele.
    The usual explanation is that obituaries are noticed more - being featured more prominently - during the quieter news period around Christmas, but Westwood and especially Pelé are unquestionably big names.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 40,330

    TimS said:

    IanB2 said:

    checklist said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Here's a surprising question I came across today.
    Doubtless some of you will know, but what country is France's longest land border with?

    Is indeed Brazil. The way France has managed to keep its colonies in a way no other country outside Russia has (and that’s easier because they’re contiguous) is impressive. The sheer amount surface area of the Pacific Ocean that is “France” is also incredible.
    It is impressive. They've also managed to do it without major territorial disputes in recent decades

    However it may not be forever.eg Under Macron, French power in Africa has collapsed

    "As French influence rapidly declines, are we witnessing the end of Francafrique?"

    https://www.arabnews.com/node/2186016

    https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/how-france-losing-influence-across-north-africa
    Yes. I have never really got my head round the Rwanda genocide, but from what I understand the French had a serious degree of responsibility for it.

    I got married in May 1994 on what was virtually peak slaughter day, and that worries me.
    Shooting Dogs with John Hurt is the best topical film.

    The French were seen as too close to the previous government, having sent them arms among other things, and were slow to do anything about the genocide (along with everyone else).

    I was in Rwanda during the run-up to changing primary schools from tuition in French to tuition in English. Which was done as a big bang at the beginning of a term. It was somewhat chaotic.
    We’ve still not resolved the dilemma of when to intervene in civil war and genocide and when not. Perhaps we never will. The recent record is poor:

    Somalia early 90s: US intervention, bad (or maybe just badly executed?)
    Yugoslavia early 90s: not enough intervention. Bad - led to Srebrenica
    Yugoslavia later 90s: active intervention, good
    Rwanda 94: no intervention, bad
    Sierra Leone late 90s: intervention, (probably) good
    Afghanistan 2001: intervention, was it worth it? jury’s out
    Iraq 2003: intervention, bad
    Libya 2011: intervention, initially good, ultimately dreadful
    Syria 2012 onwards: no intervention, almost certainly bad

    And so it continues, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
    The conclusion I've come to is that there's not much point intervening unless there is a sufficiently strong domestic power worth supporting.

    Ultimately I don't think that the non-jihadist opposition in Syria or Libya was strong enough for the situation to end well, whether we intervened or not.

    Whereas in Ukraine there's a nascent democratic culture that is worth defending, and so it's worth supporting them against Russia.

    We should do what we can to encourage stronger civil society groups so that at some point in the future there will be the internal organisation worth supporting. The problem with somewhere like Afghanistan is that we ended up spending a long time supporting the groups that were opposed to our long term interests. If possible we should avoid future interventions that make a situation actively worse.

    I think our current support for Saudi Arabia in Yemen is probably making the long-term situation in Yemen worse, and we'd do better to do nothing.
    The tragedy of Syria was that there was a power that was strong enough to help; it just collapsed when we refused to help it. Sometimes these interventions have to be timed very well; too early or too late and it can be disastrous. And we only know that with hindsight.

    But sometimes letting bad actors that there are red lines that should not be crossed is enough - at least if you back your words up with actions (I mean you, Obama...). That has been the west's major policy failing with Russia - Putin has considered us weak, as we have given in to him at every step.

    IMO there are two major reasons to act in such cases:
    *) because there is a moral imperative to do so (say Libya 2011, or Syria in 2013),
    *) because the state is a direct threat to us.

    In the case of Afghanistan 2003, they were a hideous regime who were harbouring the man who organised 9/11, and whom could easily have performed other such acts. In the case of Russia/Ukraine, because Russia has directly attacked us before, is a threat to neighbouring states that are friendly towards us.

    In both cases, both reasons fully justify the action.
This discussion has been closed.