I am in the extraordinary position of letting @Leon speak sense about Russia/Ukraine; an unexpected source of antidote to those "Russia is going to run out of bombs/guns/men/tanks/jets/nuclear bombs/desire to abandon their perceived Mother Russia any minute now" posters.
If you think that Leon is the voice of sanity on a subject then maybe you should begin to worry about your sense of judgement.
I find it deeply surreal but he is right.
You know, because we discussed it at length this morning, and I have had the same discussions for a year now, that I am extremely wary of people calling the imminent demise of Russia and its fighting capabilities.
Since February 25th PB posters have declaimed how Russia is on the verge of defeat.
If Leon now has seen the light (he gets there eventually) then I am happy for him to take up the Sword of the Bleedin' Obvious and point out to anyone (to @rcs1000 of all people, truly we are in a mad world) that Russia has in the past committed great resources to fight wars and seems to be doing the same thing here.
(a) It's a hell of a lot easier to fight a defensive war than an offensive one (b) Russia's population pyramid looked rather different in 1939 than it does in 2023 (c) Russia was only able to fight then because it was supplied by the West
I expected Russia to win the war. Or at least, I expected them to occupy the country East of the Dnieper. And that, I thought, would be the easy bit. Because the initial invasion is usually the easy bit, and it is the occupation - and the slow attrition that comes with it - that kills you.
The nation, both Putin and the population, doesn't seem to be in the mood to call it a day, indeed they believe that the war is an existential fight for their country. That puts the boot on the other foot in your defensive/offensive dynamic because to Russians, they are fighting for their existence.
And I am not sure of the precedent of any country running out of soldiers in war although perhaps Germany in 1945 was an example of this. But Russia is enormous, both its economy and its population and population pyramids aside I can't see them running out of troops in this instance.
My point is there have been umpteen posts forecasting the defeat of Russia (even if anyone knew what they meant by that) for one reason or another and I am wary of such forecasts.
Hitherto, people who are pessimistic about Russia's chances have been proved a good deal more right than those who are optimistic.
I'm not sure what being optimistic about Russia's chances means nor anyone on here who has been.
Realistic is the word I think we should all be looking for and plenty on here, and for entirely understandable reasons, have indulged in wishful thinking more than cold, hard analysis, such as anyone on here is really able to undertake.
How's that "to the hilt" definition looking, btw.
The realists are those who recognised that Russia is a failed state, with no military industrial complex ready to back up its Potemkin army, no supply chain, no logistics and ultimately no chance of winning this war.
The "realists" who think Russia will win the war "because nukes" are anything but realistic.
There's definitely been misuse of realism this whole war. People argued to do nothing on the basis of a 'reaslitic' appraisal that nothing could stop or even halt the mighty Russian war machine and even flying in weapons would instantly lead to nuclear war, or that Russia would not even invade in the first place because that was silly and not a reasiltic goal for them. Obviously that was not actually reaslitic and it was nonsense. Equally obviously anyone who thinks there is no risk at all of Russia escalating, or that it would be easy to roll over them, is being over optimistic.
So I guess we need to be more about realistic and realism. It is not the case that someone relatively optimistic is automatically lacking in any realistic analysis. Nor is it the case that simply picking the most pessimistic scenario for Ukraine is realist'. I think people can tell the difference between people who swallow every optimistic Ukrainian story without any credulity, and people who would like that to be true but are more cautious given how the war has gone.
4 hours, 39 posts, 1 like and no mention of vaccines.
Plucky effort, I give them 2/10 for trying, Larry.
It must be like being a Tory MP when No. 10 tells you that you are going on the Today programme the next morning.
“Nikita, baby, it’s your time to take one for the team and you have to troll PB. Just say lots of stupid banal crap people know isn’t true and see how long you can get away with talking shit.”
To be fair, if they just did the last bit better, it could be any of us.
People Polling have the Conservatives on 20% and Reform third for the first time in a poll with 9% in front of the LDs and Greens both on 8%.
BMG have the Conservatives on 29% and a Labour lead of "just" 17 points.
Omnisis and Techne both little changed from last week with Labour up by 22 points (Techne) and 24 points (Omnisis). Labour are polling high 40s, Conservatives high 20s (Savanta and People Polling both looking like outliers). LDs around 10, Reform and Greens 5-8%.
According to Techne, Labour lead 43-34 among those aged 65+ which is an incredible 28% swing while among Leavers it's a 20.5% swing.
Looking at Omnisis, the 2019 Conservative GE vote splits 48% Conservative, 22% Labour, 13% Reform and 12% DK.
The Conservative VI is actually buoyed up by a 30% share in Wales and a 31% share in Scotland albeit on small sub samples.
The larger England sample has Labour on 53%, the Conservatives on 23%, LDs on 10%, Reform on 9% and Greens on 5%. That's a 21.5% swing compared to the 2019 result in England.
A 21.5% swing would mean Cannock Chase, the 315th safest Conservative seat, going Labour, so Omnisis is a dreadful poll for the Conservatives leaving them sub-100 in the next Commons.
Because I’m feeling nice this evening, having popped in for a look at what’s going on, may I suggest that you chaps get a bit more creative with the names you use?
There are a few PB denizens who use real human names but very few, generally for good reasons. I get it’s probably easier to choose a name from an old phone book thinking that it sounds like a British name of an ordinary non-Russian, but we don’t work like that, we choose names that reflect something about us - Leon for example is named after the band “kings of Leon” in honour of their song “your sex is on fire” which reminds him of a nasty dose of clap he caught at a PB meet. HYUFD is named after his favourite welsh goat, Casino Royale actually is James Bond.
It would be much more interesting if you spent maybe five minutes coming up with a better name that would throw people off the scent. I, for example, am an old Etonian but I cunningly disguise that by pretending to have a Wykehamist related name and slagging off my old fag JRM. It’s basic level spy craft. Up your game.
Not an Old Estonian?
Are you askin' me, or Tallinn' me?
No need to Reval in it.
Not sure of your intellectual Riga with that pun.
That's not your best effort.
But as you are generally a brilliant poster, I will lett you off.
I am in the extraordinary position of letting @Leon speak sense about Russia/Ukraine; an unexpected source of antidote to those "Russia is going to run out of bombs/guns/men/tanks/jets/nuclear bombs/desire to abandon their perceived Mother Russia any minute now" posters.
If you think that Leon is the voice of sanity on a subject then maybe you should begin to worry about your sense of judgement.
I find it deeply surreal but he is right.
You know, because we discussed it at length this morning, and I have had the same discussions for a year now, that I am extremely wary of people calling the imminent demise of Russia and its fighting capabilities.
Since February 25th PB posters have declaimed how Russia is on the verge of defeat.
If Leon now has seen the light (he gets there eventually) then I am happy for him to take up the Sword of the Bleedin' Obvious and point out to anyone (to @rcs1000 of all people, truly we are in a mad world) that Russia has in the past committed great resources to fight wars and seems to be doing the same thing here.
(a) It's a hell of a lot easier to fight a defensive war than an offensive one (b) Russia's population pyramid looked rather different in 1939 than it does in 2023 (c) Russia was only able to fight then because it was supplied by the West
I expected Russia to win the war. Or at least, I expected them to occupy the country East of the Dnieper. And that, I thought, would be the easy bit. Because the initial invasion is usually the easy bit, and it is the occupation - and the slow attrition that comes with it - that kills you.
The nation, both Putin and the population, doesn't seem to be in the mood to call it a day, indeed they believe that the war is an existential fight for their country. That puts the boot on the other foot in your defensive/offensive dynamic because to Russians, they are fighting for their existence.
And I am not sure of the precedent of any country running out of soldiers in war although perhaps Germany in 1945 was an example of this. But Russia is enormous, both its economy and its population and population pyramids aside I can't see them running out of troops in this instance.
My point is there have been umpteen posts forecasting the defeat of Russia (even if anyone knew what they meant by that) for one reason or another and I am wary of such forecasts.
Hitherto, people who are pessimistic about Russia's chances have been proved a good deal more right than those who are optimistic.
I'm not sure what being optimistic about Russia's chances means nor anyone on here who has been.
Realistic is the word I think we should all be looking for and plenty on here, and for entirely understandable reasons, have indulged in wishful thinking more than cold, hard analysis, such as anyone on here is really able to undertake.
How's that "to the hilt" definition looking, btw.
The realists are those who recognised that Russia is a failed state, with no military industrial complex ready to back up its Potemkin army, no supply chain, no logistics and ultimately no chance of winning this war.
The "realists" who think Russia will win the war "because nukes" are anything but realistic.
It was certainly unrealistic of me to assume that the Russian Army was capable of knocking out Ukraine without difficulty. Events since the start of the war have not only emphasised this but also indicated how unrealistic it was to think Russia was anything but a sham and a shambles. I think John McCain once described it as 'a gas station with nukes', which would be accurate enough except most gas stations are run efficiently.
Personally I don't think they will use the nukes, but personally I am mighty glad I don't have to make a judgement call on that.
If he can get the DUP on board with a deal of some kind the man's a bloody genius and it's a genuine shame he only got a shot to be PM in the fag end of an exhausted, corrupt government which is about to be booted out of office.
Yousaf has come out in the betting from 1.6 this morning. Forbes has come in significantly.
I am amazed he is not 1000-1, something far wrong.
It is a field of three, and look at his rivals.
They would have to be wally dugs for him to be a favourite
It's a fascinating election not only politically but betting wise. There are overwhelming reasons (some bad some good but that's politics) why each of them can't win.
I am wondering if the best test is to ask: Who does Labour and Tory parties want to not win. Who do they actually fear.
As I seem to be in a tiny minority who think that Forbes is outstanding, electable, and the one for the other parties to fear I wonder whether to put a toe in the water.
At the same time she is shortening fairly quicky. Smarkets have Humza at 50%, Forbes at 33%.
I wonder if people are finding that on reflection some very unpleasant and illiberal people have been bullying her and the ordinary Scottish public/membership may feel differently.
A fair point: they're all deficient but a fourth candidate is not going to magically materialise out of thin air. One of them has to win.
I'll freely admit I have little if any idea of what the mass membership of the SNP will tolerate in a leader, which makes this very hard for me to predict. Are they completely monomaniacal about independence or are there any other principles at stake that might mean that Regan's opposition to the GRR Bill, or Forbes's statements on her religious objections to several liberal social measures, become disqualifying? I did suggest earlier in the day that Yousaf could end up winning by default as the least controversial of the three candidates, but now... well, basically I don't know.
Isn't the deadline today? So no further candidates?
Yousaf has come out in the betting from 1.6 this morning. Forbes has come in significantly.
I am amazed he is not 1000-1, something far wrong.
It is a field of three, and look at his rivals.
They would have to be wally dugs for him to be a favourite
It's a fascinating election not only politically but betting wise. There are overwhelming reasons (some bad some good but that's politics) why each of them can't win.
I am wondering if the best test is to ask: Who does Labour and Tory parties want to not win. Who do they actually fear.
As I seem to be in a tiny minority who think that Forbes is outstanding, electable, and the one for the other parties to fear I wonder whether to put a toe in the water.
At the same time she is shortening fairly quicky. Smarkets have Humza at 50%, Forbes at 33%.
I wonder if people are finding that on reflection some very unpleasant and illiberal people have been bullying her and the ordinary Scottish public/membership may feel differently.
It really is shocking how the sexists and misogynists have been challenging a young women of faith just because her faith doesn’t allow women to be ministers, elders, deacons or even lead a service.
‘I can lead the SNP and the country, just not my congregation in a psalm’
If he can get the DUP on board with a deal of some kind the man's a bloody genius and it's a genuine shame he only got a shot to be PM in the fag end of an exhausted, corrupt government which is about to be booted out of office.
Yousaf has come out in the betting from 1.6 this morning. Forbes has come in significantly.
I am amazed he is not 1000-1, something far wrong.
It is a field of three, and look at his rivals.
They would have to be wally dugs for him to be a favourite
It's a fascinating election not only politically but betting wise. There are overwhelming reasons (some bad some good but that's politics) why each of them can't win.
I am wondering if the best test is to ask: Who does Labour and Tory parties want to not win. Who do they actually fear.
As I seem to be in a tiny minority who think that Forbes is outstanding, electable, and the one for the other parties to fear I wonder whether to put a toe in the water.
At the same time she is shortening fairly quicky. Smarkets have Humza at 50%, Forbes at 33%.
I wonder if people are finding that on reflection some very unpleasant and illiberal people have been bullying her and the ordinary Scottish public/membership may feel differently.
I'm hoping Forbes wins from the Labour viewpoint - splits and arguments from day 1. But I agree the ganging up has been unseemly, and I wonder if it would have happened to the same extent if she was male.
Forbes would be divisive, but more competent than the alternatives. I think that probably better for the SNP, worse for the other parties.
As a Unionist, I'm hoping they pick Yousaf.
I gather it is said he has done a bad job in various roles to date, but on the basis that the leadership role is about presentation more than anything else, what is he like simply as a speaker on TV, in Parliament etc? Is it felt he performs well, middling, poorly?
Because I’m feeling nice this evening, having popped in for a look at what’s going on, may I suggest that you chaps get a bit more creative with the names you use?
There are a few PB denizens who use real human names but very few, generally for good reasons. I get it’s probably easier to choose a name from an old phone book thinking that it sounds like a British name of an ordinary non-Russian, but we don’t work like that, we choose names that reflect something about us - Leon for example is named after the band “kings of Leon” in honour of their song “your sex is on fire” which reminds him of a nasty dose of clap he caught at a PB meet. HYUFD is named after his favourite welsh goat, Casino Royale actually is James Bond.
It would be much more interesting if you spent maybe five minutes coming up with a better name that would throw people off the scent. I, for example, am an old Etonian but I cunningly disguise that by pretending to have a Wykehamist related name and slagging off my old fag JRM. It’s basic level spy craft. Up your game.
Not an Old Estonian?
Are you askin' me, or Tallinn' me?
No need to Reval in it.
Not sure of your intellectual Riga with that pun.
That's not your best effort.
But as you are generally a brilliant poster, I will lett you off.
Smart stuff from Putin to keep sicking his crack trolls onto PB, just think how well things would be going if the master strategists weren’t being distracted.
I doubt he is a Russian troll, even the Russians can do better than this nonsense. If nothing else they might employ someone who can use a shift key after the have been found out half a dozen times before.
If he can get the DUP on board with a deal of some kind the man's a bloody genius and it's a genuine shame he only got a shot to be PM in the fag end of an exhausted, corrupt government which is about to be booted out of office.
If he can get the DUP on board with a deal of some kind the man's a bloody genius and it's a genuine shame he only got a shot to be PM in the fag end of an exhausted, corrupt government which is about to be booted out of office.
Bugger* the DUP. He's got the ERG to worry about.
*Metaphorically.
"Wicked child!"
Go to hell, come to me For I am a wicked child I sin and I so confuse And I am a wicked child I am a wicked child
I am the devil's son And I wish I could be good Keep you satisfied Yeah I wish I could be good I wish I could be good
Go to hell and come to me For I am a wicked child I sin and I so confuse Yeah I am a wicked child I am a wicked child
If he can get the DUP on board with a deal of some kind the man's a bloody genius and it's a genuine shame he only got a shot to be PM in the fag end of an exhausted, corrupt government which is about to be booted out of office.
Bugger* the DUP. He's got the ERG to worry about.
*Metaphorically.
If he can get them on board as well, given they only care about advancing their own influence in party and they don't have that if they agree with things, then he's not a genius, he's the messiah.
If he can get the DUP on board with a deal of some kind the man's a bloody genius and it's a genuine shame he only got a shot to be PM in the fag end of an exhausted, corrupt government which is about to be booted out of office.
Bugger* the DUP. He's got the ERG to worry about.
*Metaphorically.
If he can get them on board as well, given they only care about advancing their own influence in party and they don't have that if they agree with things, then he's not a genius, he's the messiah.
Well, quite. Shame he can't fix the leek shortage and the money shortage.
I am in the extraordinary position of letting @Leon speak sense about Russia/Ukraine; an unexpected source of antidote to those "Russia is going to run out of bombs/guns/men/tanks/jets/nuclear bombs/desire to abandon their perceived Mother Russia any minute now" posters.
If you think that Leon is the voice of sanity on a subject then maybe you should begin to worry about your sense of judgement.
I find it deeply surreal but he is right.
You know, because we discussed it at length this morning, and I have had the same discussions for a year now, that I am extremely wary of people calling the imminent demise of Russia and its fighting capabilities.
Since February 25th PB posters have declaimed how Russia is on the verge of defeat.
If Leon now has seen the light (he gets there eventually) then I am happy for him to take up the Sword of the Bleedin' Obvious and point out to anyone (to @rcs1000 of all people, truly we are in a mad world) that Russia has in the past committed great resources to fight wars and seems to be doing the same thing here.
(a) It's a hell of a lot easier to fight a defensive war than an offensive one (b) Russia's population pyramid looked rather different in 1939 than it does in 2023 (c) Russia was only able to fight then because it was supplied by the West
I expected Russia to win the war. Or at least, I expected them to occupy the country East of the Dnieper. And that, I thought, would be the easy bit. Because the initial invasion is usually the easy bit, and it is the occupation - and the slow attrition that comes with it - that kills you.
The nation, both Putin and the population, doesn't seem to be in the mood to call it a day, indeed they believe that the war is an existential fight for their country. That puts the boot on the other foot in your defensive/offensive dynamic because to Russians, they are fighting for their existence.
And I am not sure of the precedent of any country running out of soldiers in war although perhaps Germany in 1945 was an example of this. But Russia is enormous, both its economy and its population and population pyramids aside I can't see them running out of troops in this instance.
My point is there have been umpteen posts forecasting the defeat of Russia (even if anyone knew what they meant by that) for one reason or another and I am wary of such forecasts.
Hitherto, people who are pessimistic about Russia's chances have been proved a good deal more right than those who are optimistic.
I'm not sure what being optimistic about Russia's chances means nor anyone on here who has been.
Realistic is the word I think we should all be looking for and plenty on here, and for entirely understandable reasons, have indulged in wishful thinking more than cold, hard analysis, such as anyone on here is really able to undertake.
How's that "to the hilt" definition looking, btw.
The realists are those who recognised that Russia is a failed state, with no military industrial complex ready to back up its Potemkin army, no supply chain, no logistics and ultimately no chance of winning this war.
The "realists" who think Russia will win the war "because nukes" are anything but realistic.
There's definitely been misuse of realism this whole war. People argued to do nothing on the basis of a 'reaslitic' appraisal that nothing could stop or even halt the mighty Russian war machine and even flying in weapons would instantly lead to nuclear war, or that Russia would not even invade in the first place because that was silly and not a realistic goal for them…
The US administration had a pretty good idea that Russia was likely to invade a year ahead of time - and a near certainty in the months beforehand. Even so, they had a hard time convincing European leaders, and even to some extent, the Ukrainians themselves.
And even with their vastly superior intelligence and military information, a significant number of them thought Ukraine would most likely be defeated quite quickly.
You cannot not call them realists, since they took extraordinary and unprecedented steps both to dissuade Putin, and to prepare Ukraine and Europe if it went ahead*, but even then some of their forecasting of what would happen after the invasion started was simply wrong.
* They even informed Zelensky a month or so in advance that Kyiv would likely be directly assaulted from Belarus.
Because I’m feeling nice this evening, having popped in for a look at what’s going on, may I suggest that you chaps get a bit more creative with the names you use?
There are a few PB denizens who use real human names but very few, generally for good reasons. I get it’s probably easier to choose a name from an old phone book thinking that it sounds like a British name of an ordinary non-Russian, but we don’t work like that, we choose names that reflect something about us - Leon for example is named after the band “kings of Leon” in honour of their song “your sex is on fire” which reminds him of a nasty dose of clap he caught at a PB meet. HYUFD is named after his favourite welsh goat, Casino Royale actually is James Bond.
It would be much more interesting if you spent maybe five minutes coming up with a better name that would throw people off the scent. I, for example, am an old Etonian but I cunningly disguise that by pretending to have a Wykehamist related name and slagging off my old fag JRM. It’s basic level spy craft. Up your game.
I know the point is not that it has to make sense, but really? Ukraine is both on its knees and somehow stubbornly holding off the might Russian army, and really it is NATO doing all the fighting probably, but they are also still strong enough to invade in the completely opposite direction to the main thrusts of the Russian 'liberation' forces?
Moldova's leaders have rejected Russian claims that Ukraine is planning to attack the country's breakaway pro-Russian territory, and called for calm.
Russia's defence ministry alleged, with no evidence, that Ukrainian saboteurs dressed as Russian troops would attack from Transnistria, to provide a pretext for a Ukrainian invasion.
During World War II, the American aid supplied to the Soviet Union was so important that, among other things: Nikita Khrushchev declared:"Without Spam, we wouldn't have been able to feed our army."
And there are others that I could have added.
But I fear that Putin, and perhaps a commenter or two here, are still blaming American for the 4th Crusade.
I know the point is not that it has to make sense, but really? Ukraine is both on its knees and somehow stubbornly holding off the might Russian army, and really it is NATO doing all the fighting probably, but they are also still strong enough to invade in the completely opposite direction to the main thrusts of the Russian 'liberation' forces?
Moldova's leaders have rejected Russian claims that Ukraine is planning to attack the country's breakaway pro-Russian territory, and called for calm.
Russia's defence ministry alleged, with no evidence, that Ukrainian saboteurs dressed as Russian troops would attack from Transnistria, to provide a pretext for a Ukrainian invasion.
A lot's been said a year on and I don't disagree with most of it.
My three political takes on this year are:
1) It's been the making of President Biden and the breaking of President Putin. Biden has emerged from this a stronger figure - the midterms weren't as bad as many feared and he has more than a fighting chance of re-election.
2) China has now supplanted Russia as the "senior partner" in that alliance. It would be regrettable if Xi thought more active support of Putin and Russian would be in China's long term interests. I said many months ago this was an opportunity for Xi to transform his image on the world stage. Were he to broker peace, he would be universally hailed but he lacks the imagination it seems.
3) The political and economic impact of the conflict has shattered the Conservative Party. This time last year, YouGov, Techne and Opinium had 3-5 point Labour leads - the Birmingham Erdington by election had a swing of Labour of about 4.5%. Despite being Zelenskyy's most enthusiastic supporter, the outbreak of conflict no more saved Johnson than the invasion of Kuwait saved Thatcher.
My other take is Putin embarked on the same route as Leopoldo Galtieri and Saddam Hussein under not dissimilar circumstances. An unprovoked aggression based on an asinine notion the invaded territory was being "reunited" with the country to which it really belonged. The Ukrainians, unlike the Falklanders and the Kuwaitis, who lacked the means, if not the will, to fight overwhelming force, have fought back tenaciously.
The truth is Russia is not Putin and Putin is not Russia.
I’m half way through the audiobook of Hannah Barnes’s “Time to think” deep dive into the GIDS/Tavistock scandal.
Not quite sure what to think, just yet. Tbh, at times I’ve been erring towards “this whole trans stuff is just bollocks, isn’t it?”
And then, smack bang in the middle of the book, there’s an in depth narrative of a natal girl with the assumed name “Jacob.” He has a really compelling story/attitude.
There’s fundamentally nothing wrong with “Jacob”
I now I feel like a right shit for toying with transphobia.
A little dull at times, as Hannah necessarily talks through the complex admin of a messed up medical bureaucracy. But I’m glad I’ve stuck at it.
I wonder what I’ll think of the trans issue/trans people, by the end?
Firstly, I’m not hostile to Scottish Independence. I think the way the world is today, globalisation and non national entities so powerful and wealthy, it’s better to stick together and cooperate together, shun the siren call of localism. If Scotland left and was very poor, I would not call it real freedom if there was no money in their pockets - so I would regard that part of break up, Scotland wealth and means of owning the making of it as most important part of the case for independence.
So here’s the most recent paper from SNP.
“Nicola Sturgeon has unveiled a paper outlining the economic argument for Scotland leaving the UK. Here are some of the key points she raised: * Scotland would continue to use the pound before moving to a new currency "when the time is right" and look to join the European Union * Independence offers an optimistic alternative away from what she called the failing UK economic model * The FM insisted an independent Scotland would have a stronger and fairer economy * It would have a redesigned energy market which would aim to provide secure and reliable low-cost energy * Using remaining oil revenues and borrowing powers to create a £20bn major infrastructure investment created through the Building a New Scotland Fund * Scottish independence would also open the door to Scotland joining the EU * It would free movement of people, without a passport, across the UK and Ireland, with trade borders implemented smoothly * Border arrangements would be required for trade of goods and services across the UK, but this is "not insurmountable" * She explained "proper planning" would be required to get technology in place so as ''not to disrupt trade" * However, the FM said it was "nonsense" to suggest people north of the border would need a passport to travel to England”
Are the SNP ready for a referendum with such a flimsy economic plan? I’m not saying the problems are insurmountable at all preventing break up of UK, only it’s all very slim on actual answers to the main questions isn’t it? How an independent Scotland would join the EU and Euro. And once in, how borders with the rest of the UK would work. And, I think the big one, break up negotiations would divide up the assets, but also the debts and liabilities, such as paying pensions. When would Scotlands coffers and economy be ready for guarantied debts and liabilities, other than reply with “at some point join EU.”.
But at the end of the day though, got to be morally wrong to hold Scottish people in United Kingdom against their will. That would be more like Imperial Empire than modern liberal democracy. If they vote out, it’s scotchxit means scotchxit for me. Fair enough change.
Forbes is in theory the most dangerous opponent for Unionists, but a very large number of peers don’t want her, and that in itself so destabilising that I struggle to see her being successful even if she wins.
Neither Humza nor Regan look very impressive from afar.
I theorise that the electorate at large would probably prefer Forbes, SNP voters themselves are probably decently split between each of the three candidates, and SNP MSPs would prefer Humza.
At a risk of being a Scotspert, no outcome here looks good. A Sturgeon post 24 is surely possible.
Didn’t Ash LOOK the part today! Her top was fantastic.
The problems begin when she tries to answer questions. When it reaches point she is stuck for answer she goes “Look-“ and everything stops. That’s normally about 14 seconds into the interview.
Sad really 🥺
I may have got the wrong end of the stick (because I had the TV on as background noise and wasn't paying much attention,) BUT... wasn't she doing an interview with the BBC in which she revealed her grand plan for independence to be winning the majority of Scottish seats at the next general election, demanding immediate talks on secession from Westminster on that basis, and sending out emissaries to foreign Governments asking for recognition of a Scottish state? This approach can hardly be faulted for its zeal - it edges pretty close to UDI - but it also ends with Keir Starmer telling her to talk to the hand, and the First Minister of Scotland proudly announcing to a grateful people that she has secured the backing of North Korea and Eritrea for the bold leap forward into the sunlit uplands of sovereignty. Whilst a handful of the loopier kinds of nationalists will be thrilled by such decisiveness, I nonetheless doubt that this is a genius stratagem likely to secure broad-based public consent.
If this is the best she's got then the choice returns to Kate Forbes, whose statements about her religious beliefs have already alienated a large chunk of her parliamentary caucus, and Humza Yousaf, who is the continuity Sturgeon candidate only without the charisma or the broadly positive approval ratings. One cannot see how this ends positively for the SNP, regardless of which candidate eventually prevails.
Ash easily has the best hair cut and all round style.
Is there not an argument the devolved Scottish government is very similar to Collins government in Dublin?
It’s not independence is it, But how much power does it have - to what extent is it reliant on funding from London - to what extent is it in office not entirely in power.
To what extent has being the Scottish Government so long hurt the SNP pursuit of independence? To what extent should anyone who believes in Scottish independence have nothing to do with the devolved assembly?
Invoking the precedent of the Irish Free State, and then asking whether true separatists ought to have nothing to do with the devolved government, is getting very close to suggesting that malcontents should contemplate insurrection. Nobody in Scotland wants to initiate an armed liberation struggle. It would be mad and stupid in equal measure.
The central problem with independence is that the majority of the Scottish population likes devolution, or at least views it as the least worst option, and the independence movement finds itself unable to convince enough additional backers to come over to its side to change that situation. Worse still, any and all attempts to use the SNPs repeated election victories, Brexit being imposed on Scotland with English votes, and an entire series of heroically useless Tory Westminster Governments, have completely failed to energise anyone bar the already converted into demanding a second referendum.
Instead, the SNP and its allies find themselves stuck in this horrible purgatory in which they're always able to gather enough votes to be the dominant force in Scottish politics, but never able to gather enough votes to enact the one policy that they and their core vote are desperate to implement. They're not one inch nearer to independence than they were in 2014, they've lost their most electorally popular politician, and even if Scottish Labour utterly fails to revive come the next GE there's still no reason at all to suppose that Keir Starmer will be any more accommodating of pleas for that much yearned for second referendum than Rishi Sunak. In which case, they remain completely and hopelessly stuck.
When all's said and done, if the Union is the prison that some activists characterise it as, then it's effectively the Scottish electorate that holds all of the keys and, through it's lack of interest in demanding another plebiscite, is demonstrating that it's not willing to use them. In 2014 the people let themselves out onto the landing but then refused to open the main gate and walk out; this time they seem happy to stay put in their cells. Until a sufficiently articulate messenger with a sufficiently convincing argument comes along to persuade them of the merits of using the keys, nothing will change.
This debate reinforces the fact that Fukuyama was right: there is no coherent alternative vision for economics and political organisation that threatens capitalistic liberal democracy.
Many vassal states and autocracies have populations that yearn to join the Western world. Millions year round travel hundreds of miles and endure untold indignities to make a new life in Europe or the US. No Western populations yearn to be more like Russia, or more like China, or Syria or Venezuela or Iran.
Immigration flows (real or attempted) are a great proxy for economic and cultural success. The more people banging on the door, the more successful the country - and the more able to pick the brightest and best to keep growing the economy.
And it's also why it is the interests of Western liberal democracies to get their neighbours richer and more democratic: simply, it means that the likelihood their citizens will be climbing on boats and trying to get to your country is reduced.
Getting rich and getting democratic are two different things. Enriching autocracies is a bad idea.
Staying rich is massively more difficult as a despotism. Argentina was very wealthy in 1946. Not so much after 9 years of Peronism, then repeated military coups and instability to our own day.
Though gdp per capita in Argentina still fractionally above the global average
Perhaps this was discussed earlier, but I don't have time to read to read another 500 or so comments. If Boris Johnson stays in his current constituency, would not he be more likely to hold it if the Conservatives do better than polls now suggest they will?
In other words, short term, do not he and Sunak have the same interest in seeing the Conservatives do well, or, I suppose I should say, less badly?
There's a real gap in my understanding about the Ukraine war.
It seems that its possible that a delegation from India, Sir Lanka, SA, Bangladesh, Pakistan could turn up on my doorstep (or much more likely someone who matters doorstep) and argue a case that isn't so clear as it seems to us.
These nations are about as friendly as it gets - or at least they should be. What do they see that we don't?
this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency...as Russia promotes de dollarisation of the world...thats why the US is uninterested in peace talks
Really?
So Russia invaded Ukraine, killed and raped their citizens, and abducted their children because they don't want the US Dollar to be the reserve currency?
And you're promoting the idea that Putin is the sane one?
Dont forget the democratically elected leader of ukraine was overthrown in 2014 in a us backed coup. No Russias main fear is NATO on their backdoor with nuclear weapons in Ukraine...it is the US who are worried about the US dollar as reserve currency...lose this and the US standard of living collapses...
You said "this war is ultimately about preserving the US dollar as reserve currency".
Are you saying that Ukraine is just the beginning for Russia as it seeks to overthrow the hegemony of the US Dollar?
What next? The hegemony of blue toys for boys and pink for girls? There is no end to the infamy that the US political/industrial complex won't impose on us! When Ukraine is defeated we shall have mid-lilac for boys and possibly a delightful shimmering green for girls. Then, then! Shall the world be free!
Mid-lilac would clash horribly with the other accessories, surely? Don’t want a whole generation of boys to be a fashion disaster!
And thus, you have proved yourself to be a Nazi. Or trans-fascist. Or both. Either way - in the pay of the GWD or BLQ or... B&Q. You Commie.
If he can get the DUP on board with a deal of some kind the man's a bloody genius and it's a genuine shame he only got a shot to be PM in the fag end of an exhausted, corrupt government which is about to be booted out of office.
Bugger* the DUP. He's got the ERG to worry about.
*Metaphorically.
"Wicked child!"
Go to hell, come to me For I am a wicked child I sin and I so confuse And I am a wicked child I am a wicked child
I am the devil's son And I wish I could be good Keep you satisfied Yeah I wish I could be good I wish I could be good
Go to hell and come to me For I am a wicked child I sin and I so confuse Yeah I am a wicked child I am a wicked child
Even if you mangled them, quoting Radiohead lyrics on here gets you an automatic 10 likes.
Whilst I do worry about the government being too keen to make it extremely hard (or even impossible) to challenge some decisions through the courts - people and groups need to be able to do so, and it would be worrying and suspicious if they never succeeded - I have to admit I do tend toward the position criticised by this Guardian piece that the bar should be pretty high for the courts under our constitutional settlement. A logical, almost cold calculation of the legal position may be more in keeping with a situation where Parliament is meant to sort things out, not the courts. That 'deference' would equally work in the opposite direction if Parliament decided to focus much more on core human rights etc. The spectre of the supreme court’s ruling on Begum in early 2021 hangs over this decision by Mr Justice Jay and his colleagues. Reflecting that earlier judgment, we see a determination to defer to the widest possible extent to government on the grounds of national security, as well as a lack of any moral urgency in relation to the alleged breaches of Begum’s core human right...As in the Begum case, the judges are not saying they have no role to play, but they are raising the bar extremely high before they can be tempted into action against the government. Arguably, this is as good as (if less honest than) their declining jurisdiction from the outset.
You just had to open your mouth, didn't you? Honestly, you're nearly as bad as @DavidL .
I didn't realise it was an early start. I was just about to post, asking you to post "I suspect Brook won't make 200" but was obviously too late. So, my fault.
I was worried your earlier comment applied the mockers.
Should see a clatter of wickets now.
Stokes is due a score, but if he thrashes around like that he won't get it today.
A bit like how Root didn't and doesn't need to go all crazy on the run rate to play his role in the team I feel Stoke needs to take that on board as well - he was already fairly quick and aggressive, he doesn't need to flap about stupidly - as several of his famous innings' show, he can roll through the gears later!
Perhaps this was discussed earlier, but I don't have time to read to read another 500 or so comments. If Boris Johnson stays in his current constituency, would not he be more likely to hold it if the Conservatives do better than polls now suggest they will?
In other words, short term, do not he and Sunak have the same interest in seeing the Conservatives do well, or, I suppose I should say, less badly?
(Assuming, I repeat, he stays where he is.)
It's 91 on the Labour target list, so in normal times it shouldn't be that precarious for BoJo. If he does chicken run, then the Conservative prospects are bleak indeed and BoJo values his own pasty hide over the interests of his party.
Smart stuff from Putin to keep sicking his crack trolls onto PB, just think how well things would be going if the master strategists weren’t being distracted.
I doubt he is a Russian troll, even the Russians can do better than this nonsense. If nothing else they might employ someone who can use a shift key after the have been found out half a dozen times before.
Which is why this meme is so characteristic of the war:
If he can get the DUP on board with a deal of some kind the man's a bloody genius and it's a genuine shame he only got a shot to be PM in the fag end of an exhausted, corrupt government which is about to be booted out of office.
Bugger* the DUP. He's got the ERG to worry about.
*Metaphorically.
"Wicked child!"
Go to hell, come to me For I am a wicked child I sin and I so confuse And I am a wicked child I am a wicked child
I am the devil's son And I wish I could be good Keep you satisfied Yeah I wish I could be good I wish I could be good
Go to hell and come to me For I am a wicked child I sin and I so confuse Yeah I am a wicked child I am a wicked child
Even if you mangled them, quoting Radiohead lyrics on here gets you an automatic 10 likes.
But there is only one. Can't you fiddle them or something?
I find I am retreating from the world as it is into the world I would like. My musical journey continues. Rachmaninov and Chopin were I thought the height of piano music. But there is a bastard child - Nicolai Medtner. Just listen to his Piano Concerto No. 1 or his Sonata Tragica. Fun facts; he fell in love with his brother's wife and when in prisoner of war camp his brother gave him permission to marry her. They are both buried in Hendon cemetery.
I would have said that @TOPPING and @Dura_Ace are the only ones amongst us who have experienced actual fighting.
I think my views are more conditioned by living in Moscow for 9 years (and teaching Russian for 15 years) than my glory days of shooting teenage hadjis in Basra.
I don't know why so many people get sand in their fannies about what I post on this subject. None of you should give a fuck what I think.
Perhaps this was discussed earlier, but I don't have time to read to read another 500 or so comments. If Boris Johnson stays in his current constituency, would not he be more likely to hold it if the Conservatives do better than polls now suggest they will?
In other words, short term, do not he and Sunak have the same interest in seeing the Conservatives do well, or, I suppose I should say, less badly?
(Assuming, I repeat, he stays where he is.)
Yes, if they did considerably better. He won by 15%, so would lose on a swing of 7.5% (even without any tactical voting from the 6.3% LibDems). The swing to Labour in the polls is currently around 15-20%.
But it's generally thought that he is keen to be PM again, not merely a backbencher. To achieve that it needs (a) Sunak to be doing so badly in the polls as to be replaced before an election, or (b) Sunak to lose an election without Johnson losing his seat. (b) is tricky to bring off, so Johnson should probably seek a safer seat, in order to be confident of remaining even if Sunak loses badly.
🔺 Update: Rishi Sunak will push ahead with his Brexit deal as soon as Sunday with Downing Street preparing to face down Boris Johnson and Tory Eurosceptics in a clash that will define his premiership
Not sure the pay or job security would be worth it though. Could easily substitute for some anti-imperialists though. Did you know other countries have done bad things before, therefore Russia invading places is ok?
I can easily work as Putin’s speechwriter. You just pull out the dumbest and the most generic drunk conspiracy theories, then add some 30 minutes of miserable whining on what a victim Russia is, then call everyone a Nazi, then say it’s all part of the plan. Done!
Forbes is in theory the most dangerous opponent for Unionists, but a very large number of peers don’t want her, and that in itself so destabilising that I struggle to see her being successful even if she wins.
Neither Humza nor Regan look very impressive from afar.
I theorise that the electorate at large would probably prefer Forbes, SNP voters themselves are probably decently split between each of the three candidates, and SNP MSPs would prefer Humza.
At a risk of being a Scotspert, no outcome here looks good. A Sturgeon post 24 is surely possible.
Didn’t Ash LOOK the part today! Her top was fantastic.
The problems begin when she tries to answer questions. When it reaches point she is stuck for answer she goes “Look-“ and everything stops. That’s normally about 14 seconds into the interview.
Sad really 🥺
I may have got the wrong end of the stick (because I had the TV on as background noise and wasn't paying much attention,) BUT... wasn't she doing an interview with the BBC in which she revealed her grand plan for independence to be winning the majority of Scottish seats at the next general election, demanding immediate talks on secession from Westminster on that basis, and sending out emissaries to foreign Governments asking for recognition of a Scottish state? This approach can hardly be faulted for its zeal - it edges pretty close to UDI - but it also ends with Keir Starmer telling her to talk to the hand, and the First Minister of Scotland proudly announcing to a grateful people that she has secured the backing of North Korea and Eritrea for the bold leap forward into the sunlit uplands of sovereignty. Whilst a handful of the loopier kinds of nationalists will be thrilled by such decisiveness, I nonetheless doubt that this is a genius stratagem likely to secure broad-based public consent.
If this is the best she's got then the choice returns to Kate Forbes, whose statements about her religious beliefs have already alienated a large chunk of her parliamentary caucus, and Humza Yousaf, who is the continuity Sturgeon candidate only without the charisma or the broadly positive approval ratings. One cannot see how this ends positively for the SNP, regardless of which candidate eventually prevails.
Ash easily has the best hair cut and all round style.
Is there not an argument the devolved Scottish government is very similar to Collins government in Dublin?
It’s not independence is it, But how much power does it have - to what extent is it reliant on funding from London - to what extent is it in office not entirely in power.
To what extent has being the Scottish Government so long hurt the SNP pursuit of independence? To what extent should anyone who believes in Scottish independence have nothing to do with the devolved assembly?
Invoking the precedent of the Irish Free State, and then asking whether true separatists ought to have nothing to do with the devolved government, is getting very close to suggesting that malcontents should contemplate insurrection. Nobody in Scotland wants to initiate an armed liberation struggle. It would be mad and stupid in equal measure.
The central problem with independence is that the majority of the Scottish population likes devolution, or at least views it as the least worst option, and the independence movement finds itself unable to convince enough additional backers to come over to its side to change that situation. Worse still, any and all attempts to use the SNPs repeated election victories, Brexit being imposed on Scotland with English votes, and an entire series of heroically useless Tory Westminster Governments, have completely failed to energise anyone bar the already converted into demanding a second referendum.
Instead, the SNP and its allies find themselves stuck in this horrible purgatory in which they're always able to gather enough votes to be the dominant force in Scottish politics, but never able to gather enough votes to enact the one policy that they and their core vote are desperate to implement. They're not one inch nearer to independence than they were in 2014, they've lost their most electorally popular politician, and even if Scottish Labour utterly fails to revive come the next GE there's still no reason at all to suppose that Keir Starmer will be any more accommodating of pleas for that much yearned for second referendum than Rishi Sunak. In which case, they remain completely and hopelessly stuck.
When all's said and done, if the Union is the prison that some activists characterise it as, then it's effectively the Scottish electorate that holds all of the keys and, through it's lack of interest in demanding another plebiscite, is demonstrating that it's not willing to use them. In 2014 the people let themselves out onto the landing but then refused to open the main gate and walk out; this time they seem happy to stay put in their cells. Until a sufficiently articulate messenger with a sufficiently convincing argument comes along to persuade them of the merits of using the keys, nothing will change.
Of course I’m not saying they should be like IRA in armed struggle. However, your following two paragraphs explained between the lines exactly why the offer Collins took up, and SNP running devolved governments took up are traps London set. SNP themselves Actually running a devolved halfway house government is taking them further away from independence, far from being the slippery slope to independence. SNP mantra is send MPs to Westminster, but not to help In anyway, because you don’t want to be there - so why not the same approach to the devolved Scottish government, that you don’t really want to exist, let the Unionist parties run it in coalition and focus on independence.
That is Back to the good bit. History around the world has shown many great ideas for winning independence short of armed terrorist rebellion. Perhaps the SNP are getting nowhere by just being too nice and polite about how serious they are.
This is a proper discussion. This is fun.
I’ve taken it a step further in a mini thread about winning independence by winning the economic argument for independence, and asking exactly where the SNP are with that, after their most recent flimsy document on this.
🔺 Update: Rishi Sunak will push ahead with his Brexit deal as soon as Sunday with Downing Street preparing to face down Boris Johnson and Tory Eurosceptics in a clash that will define his premiership
Labour votes will ensure it passes
My main concern, not that it is a surprise, is that everyone is clearly prepared to vote for or against it even without knowing what is in the deal - I would like to be surprised that I would be unable to predict exactly what each faction, from DUP to Labour to the fantabulous returning Boris and his chums, will claim.
Noteable decline in SNP share. Tories surprisingly stable. Great result for Labour.
Given there are only eight candidates, how can you have more than seven rounds?
Dunno. I did see a discussion about this somewhere but didn't pay enough attention to furnish you with an explanation. I refer you to the returning officer of Aberdeen City Council, m'lud.
I would have said that @TOPPING and @Dura_Ace are the only ones amongst us who have experienced actual fighting.
I think my views are more conditioned by living in Moscow for 9 years (and teaching Russian for 15 years) than my glory days of shooting teenage hadjis in Basra.
I don't know why so many people get sand in their fannies about what I post on this subject. None of you should give a fuck what I think.
It's the diversity of experience as well as views that makes PB tick, Dura.
Don't denigrate it. Few of us would have had the opportunity let alone the wish to have had such experiences, so you give us a small opportunity to live some of them vicariously.
🔺 Update: Rishi Sunak will push ahead with his Brexit deal as soon as Sunday with Downing Street preparing to face down Boris Johnson and Tory Eurosceptics in a clash that will define his premiership
Labour votes will ensure it passes
I don't really see the logic of this. The ERG will support it if the DUP support it. If the DUP don't support it, it won't lead to the restoration of power sharing in NI, and it won't be in the spirit of the GFA. If it's a good deal, he deserves to be congratulated, and I am sure will be by all. Trying to confect a clause 4 moment will get him precisely nowhere.
🔺 Update: Rishi Sunak will push ahead with his Brexit deal as soon as Sunday with Downing Street preparing to face down Boris Johnson and Tory Eurosceptics in a clash that will define his premiership
Labour votes will ensure it passes
I don't really see the logic of this. The ERG will support it if the DUP support it. If the DUP don't support it, it won't lead to the restoration of power sharing in NI, and it won't be in the spirit of the GFA. If it's a good deal, he deserves to be congratulated, and I am sure will be by all. Trying to confect a clause 4 moment will get him precisely nowhere.
It's about showing he's not hostage to Johnson and the ERG, surely?
I will have respect for Sunak if he faces down the lunacy of the DUP and the Brexit headbangers. But I fear the Tory Party has not yet decided to rejoin the real world.
🔺 Update: Rishi Sunak will push ahead with his Brexit deal as soon as Sunday with Downing Street preparing to face down Boris Johnson and Tory Eurosceptics in a clash that will define his premiership
Labour votes will ensure it passes
I don't really see the logic of this. The ERG will support it if the DUP support it. If the DUP don't support it, it won't lead to the restoration of power sharing in NI, and it won't be in the spirit of the GFA. If it's a good deal, he deserves to be congratulated, and I am sure will be by all. Trying to confect a clause 4 moment will get him precisely nowhere.
It's about showing he's not hostage to Johnson and the ERG, surely?
But he is hostage to them - 1/3 of his MPs wanted Boris back in the first place, and an undetermined number of the rest were perfectly ok with Boris but felt he pushed them too far, so hold no particular loyalty to Sunak if he is leading them to a defeat, which he is (even though I really cannot see how Boris would change that).
Unless the DUP go for it, and so give the ERG an excuse to split on the issue, they have no reason to back him on it, and if he pushes through without them they'll have a pretext for causing trouble on everything else, and Labour won't be voting for much else he might propose.
He might as well do it, since the status quo is obviously not working for anyone, but it'll stir them up, and a battering is coming in May as well, the whispers will get louder.
I find I am retreating from the world as it is into the world I would like. My musical journey continues. Rachmaninov and Chopin were I thought the height of piano music. But there is a bastard child - Nicolai Medtner. Just listen to his Piano Concerto No. 1 or his Sonata Tragica. Fun facts; he fell in love with his brother's wife and when in prisoner of war camp his brother gave him permission to marry her. They are both buried in Hendon cemetery.
I would have said that @TOPPING and @Dura_Ace are the only ones amongst us who have experienced actual fighting.
I think my views are more conditioned by living in Moscow for 9 years (and teaching Russian for 15 years) than my glory days of shooting teenage hadjis in Basra.
I don't know why so many people get sand in their fannies about what I post on this subject. None of you should give a fuck what I think.
We don't get sand in our fannies about what you post, we get sand in our fannies because some hold you on a pedestal with your views saying listen to him he has served.
Does it give you an insight into things yes for certain things such as for example squadron deployments...the ones putting you on a pedestal though argue you served so your overall strategic view counts more than the view of others.
If we were talking about how to run a fighter squadron yes your views count more....how to run a war less so.
363-6. Without the Yorkshire contribution, that would be 57-6 (or 57-5, given that Root's still there). As ever, Yorkshire rules.
Need 500 on this pitch I reckon. The best victories of the Bazball era have taken account of the situation (such as the need to go at 7 an over on a road, or when to go a little slower).
🔺 Update: Rishi Sunak will push ahead with his Brexit deal as soon as Sunday with Downing Street preparing to face down Boris Johnson and Tory Eurosceptics in a clash that will define his premiership
Labour votes will ensure it passes
I don't really see the logic of this. The ERG will support it if the DUP support it. If the DUP don't support it, it won't lead to the restoration of power sharing in NI, and it won't be in the spirit of the GFA. If it's a good deal, he deserves to be congratulated, and I am sure will be by all. Trying to confect a clause 4 moment will get him precisely nowhere.
A deal with the EU isn't completely worthless, even if it doesn't win the support of the DUP, because it may genuinely reduce trade friction across the Irish Sea, reducing costs for businesses, and therefore constituting an incremental improvement in a number of people's lives.
As to the DUP, they do not seem to be in a mood to entertain any sort of deal or compromise, so it's hard to know what Sunak could do that would result in the return of power-sharing. If he were to give the DUP what they want - the complete end of the protocol and a trade border on the island of Ireland - then the likelihood is that Sinn Fein would collapse power-sharing in protest anyway.
The only way out of the impasse that I can see is that someone manages to persuade Unionist voters to vote for Unionist politicians who support a degree of compromise. Well, good luck with that.
I find I am retreating from the world as it is into the world I would like. My musical journey continues. Rachmaninov and Chopin were I thought the height of piano music. But there is a bastard child - Nicolai Medtner. Just listen to his Piano Concerto No. 1 or his Sonata Tragica. Fun facts; he fell in love with his brother's wife and when in prisoner of war camp his brother gave him permission to marry her. They are both buried in Hendon cemetery.
Thankyou. Added to my listening list next to the Bortkievicz. 🫡
Surely the pinnacle of Piano Concerto’s is Beethoven’s fifth?
This comment I think explains why the reaction of Western leaders has been firmed than many (like I) expected. It doesn't mean they will go as far as some want (ie boots on the ground), but the invasion made it pretty clear 'realism' meaning 'just ignore it' was not working.
But if there's one thing the years long conflict in Ukraine has taught us is that turning a blind eye to the illegal acts of a state for political convenience only leads to more violence and strife.
🔺 Update: Rishi Sunak will push ahead with his Brexit deal as soon as Sunday with Downing Street preparing to face down Boris Johnson and Tory Eurosceptics in a clash that will define his premiership
Labour votes will ensure it passes
I don't really see the logic of this. The ERG will support it if the DUP support it. If the DUP don't support it, it won't lead to the restoration of power sharing in NI, and it won't be in the spirit of the GFA. If it's a good deal, he deserves to be congratulated, and I am sure will be by all. Trying to confect a clause 4 moment will get him precisely nowhere.
It's about showing he's not hostage to Johnson and the ERG, surely?
But this isn't an issue he can really do that on. Stormont will not be restored without the DUP and as representatives of the Unionist community in NI, and it is mandated by the GFA that a majority on all sides has to be happy for matters in NI to progress.
If he does a deal without the DUP, that includes ditching the NI Protocol bill, he will have surrendered any legal ability to change the protocol unilaterally, and given the ECJ a permanent role in the Governance of the province in return for not restoring power-sharing. How can that be sold as a victory of any kind?
🔺 Update: Rishi Sunak will push ahead with his Brexit deal as soon as Sunday with Downing Street preparing to face down Boris Johnson and Tory Eurosceptics in a clash that will define his premiership
Labour votes will ensure it passes
I don't really see the logic of this. The ERG will support it if the DUP support it. If the DUP don't support it, it won't lead to the restoration of power sharing in NI, and it won't be in the spirit of the GFA. If it's a good deal, he deserves to be congratulated, and I am sure will be by all. Trying to confect a clause 4 moment will get him precisely nowhere.
A deal with the EU isn't completely worthless, even if it doesn't win the support of the DUP, because it may genuinely reduce trade friction across the Irish Sea, reducing costs for businesses, and therefore constituting an incremental improvement in a number of people's lives.
As to the DUP, they do not seem to be in a mood to entertain any sort of deal or compromise, so it's hard to know what Sunak could do that would result in the return of power-sharing. If he were to give the DUP what they want - the complete end of the protocol and a trade border on the island of Ireland - then the likelihood is that Sinn Fein would collapse power-sharing in protest anyway.
The only way out of the impasse that I can see is that someone manages to persuade Unionist voters to vote for Unionist politicians who support a degree of compromise. Well, good luck with that.
The DUP have outlined their 5 key pints, so it's not hard at all to know what Sunak could do to restore power-sharing. The Northern Ireland Protocol bill doesn't scrap the protocol; it underlines the right of the British Government to change parts of the protocol unilaterally if agreement with the EU cannot be found. I think most would agree that is Britain's right as a sovereign country. It is only the bill that has actually brought the EU to the negotiating table, so taking it off the table looks foolish unless the deal is acceptable to all parties in the long term.
Comments
So I guess we need to be more about realistic and realism. It is not the case that someone relatively optimistic is automatically lacking in any realistic analysis. Nor is it the case that simply picking the most pessimistic scenario for Ukraine is realist'. I think people can tell the difference between people who swallow every optimistic Ukrainian story without any credulity, and people who would like that to be true but are more cautious given how the war has gone.
Just catching up on the surge of midweek polling.
People Polling have the Conservatives on 20% and Reform third for the first time in a poll with 9% in front of the LDs and Greens both on 8%.
BMG have the Conservatives on 29% and a Labour lead of "just" 17 points.
Omnisis and Techne both little changed from last week with Labour up by 22 points (Techne) and 24 points (Omnisis). Labour are polling high 40s, Conservatives high 20s (Savanta and People Polling both looking like outliers). LDs around 10, Reform and Greens 5-8%.
According to Techne, Labour lead 43-34 among those aged 65+ which is an incredible 28% swing while among Leavers it's a 20.5% swing.
Looking at Omnisis, the 2019 Conservative GE vote splits 48% Conservative, 22% Labour, 13% Reform and 12% DK.
The Conservative VI is actually buoyed up by a 30% share in Wales and a 31% share in Scotland albeit on small sub samples.
The larger England sample has Labour on 53%, the Conservatives on 23%, LDs on 10%, Reform on 9% and Greens on 5%. That's a 21.5% swing compared to the 2019 result in England.
A 21.5% swing would mean Cannock Chase, the 315th safest Conservative seat, going Labour, so Omnisis is a dreadful poll for the Conservatives leaving them sub-100 in the next Commons.
But as you are generally a brilliant poster, I will lett you off.
Personally I don't think they will use the nukes, but personally I am mighty glad I don't have to make a judgement call on that.
‘I can lead the SNP and the country, just not my congregation in a psalm’
*Metaphorically.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVsD7mKHlDM&ab_channel=TheScottishSun
For I am a wicked child
I sin and I so confuse
And I am a wicked child
I am a wicked child
I am the devil's son
And I wish I could be good
Keep you satisfied
Yeah I wish I could be good
I wish I could be good
Go to hell and come to me
For I am a wicked child
I sin and I so confuse
Yeah I am a wicked child
I am a wicked child
HOWEVER, part of the settlement partitions Hans Island which was a focal point of the (peaceful) conflict.
A shame* they closed The Birdcage.
*Not really, it was terrible.
Even so, they had a hard time convincing European leaders, and even to some extent, the Ukrainians themselves.
And even with their vastly superior intelligence and military information, a significant number of them thought Ukraine would most likely be defeated quite quickly.
You cannot not call them realists, since they took extraordinary and unprecedented steps both to dissuade Putin, and to prepare Ukraine and Europe if it went ahead*, but even then some of their forecasting of what would happen after the invasion started was simply wrong.
* They even informed Zelensky a month or so in advance that Kyiv would likely be directly assaulted from Belarus.
Edit: I note a suspicious liking for blue clothing.
Moldova's leaders have rejected Russian claims that Ukraine is planning to attack the country's breakaway pro-Russian territory, and called for calm.
Russia's defence ministry alleged, with no evidence, that Ukrainian saboteurs dressed as Russian troops would attack from Transnistria, to provide a pretext for a Ukrainian invasion.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64746801
Yet he somehow missed this fact from Russian history: Russia is better off when it has good relations with the US. Some examples:
Alexander II was inspired, in part, by the US Civil War, and gave Lincoln diplomatic support: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_II_of_Russia
The US joining the allies in World War I helped end that conflict.
After World War I. the American Relief Administration, under Herbert Hoover, "likely saved millions of lives" in the Soviet Union: "At its peak, the ARA employed 300 Americans, more than 120,000 Russians and fed 10.5 million people daily."
sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover#World_War_I_and_aftermath
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Relief_Administration
During World War II, the American aid supplied to the Soviet Union was so important that, among other things: Nikita Khrushchev declared:"Without Spam, we wouldn't have been able to feed our army."
And there are others that I could have added.
But I fear that Putin, and perhaps a commenter or two here, are still blaming American for the 4th Crusade.
A lot's been said a year on and I don't disagree with most of it.
My three political takes on this year are:
1) It's been the making of President Biden and the breaking of President Putin. Biden has emerged from this a stronger figure - the midterms weren't as bad as many feared and he has more than a fighting chance of re-election.
2) China has now supplanted Russia as the "senior partner" in that alliance. It would be regrettable if Xi thought more active support of Putin and Russian would be in China's long term interests. I said many months ago this was an opportunity for Xi to transform his image on the world stage. Were he to broker peace, he would be universally hailed but he lacks the imagination it seems.
3) The political and economic impact of the conflict has shattered the Conservative Party. This time last year, YouGov, Techne and Opinium had 3-5 point Labour leads - the Birmingham Erdington by election had a swing of Labour of about 4.5%. Despite being Zelenskyy's most enthusiastic supporter, the outbreak of conflict no more saved Johnson than the invasion of Kuwait saved Thatcher.
My other take is Putin embarked on the same route as Leopoldo Galtieri and Saddam Hussein under not dissimilar circumstances. An unprovoked aggression based on an asinine notion the invaded territory was being "reunited" with the country to which it really belonged. The Ukrainians, unlike the Falklanders and the Kuwaitis, who lacked the means, if not the will, to fight overwhelming force, have fought back tenaciously.
The truth is Russia is not Putin and Putin is not Russia.
Not quite sure what to think, just yet. Tbh, at times I’ve been erring towards “this whole trans stuff is just bollocks, isn’t it?”
And then, smack bang in the middle of the book, there’s an in depth narrative of a natal girl with the assumed name “Jacob.” He has a really compelling story/attitude.
There’s fundamentally nothing wrong with “Jacob”
I now I feel like a right shit for toying with transphobia.
A little dull at times, as Hannah necessarily talks through the complex admin of a messed up medical bureaucracy. But I’m glad I’ve stuck at it.
I wonder what I’ll think of the trans issue/trans people, by the end?
Sign of a well written book, that.
So here’s the most recent paper from SNP.
“Nicola Sturgeon has unveiled a paper outlining the economic argument for Scotland leaving the UK. Here are some of the key points she raised:
* Scotland would continue to use the pound before moving to a new currency "when the time is right" and look to join the European Union
* Independence offers an optimistic alternative away from what she called the failing UK economic model
* The FM insisted an independent Scotland would have a stronger and fairer economy
* It would have a redesigned energy market which would aim to provide secure and reliable low-cost energy
* Using remaining oil revenues and borrowing powers to create a £20bn major infrastructure investment created through the Building a New Scotland Fund
* Scottish independence would also open the door to Scotland joining the EU
* It would free movement of people, without a passport, across the UK and Ireland, with trade borders implemented smoothly
* Border arrangements would be required for trade of goods and services across the UK, but this is "not insurmountable"
* She explained "proper planning" would be required to get technology in place so as ''not to disrupt trade"
* However, the FM said it was "nonsense" to suggest people north of the border would need a passport to travel to England”
Are the SNP ready for a referendum with such a flimsy economic plan? I’m not saying the problems are insurmountable at all preventing break up of UK, only it’s all very slim on actual answers to the main questions isn’t it? How an independent Scotland would join the EU and Euro. And once in, how borders with the rest of the UK would work. And, I think the big one, break up negotiations would divide up the assets, but also the debts and liabilities, such as paying pensions. When would Scotlands coffers and economy be ready for guarantied debts and liabilities, other than reply with “at some point join EU.”.
But at the end of the day though, got to be morally wrong to hold Scottish people in United Kingdom against their will. That would be more like Imperial Empire than modern liberal democracy. If they vote out, it’s scotchxit means scotchxit for me. Fair enough change.
The central problem with independence is that the majority of the Scottish population likes devolution, or at least views it as the least worst option, and the independence movement finds itself unable to convince enough additional backers to come over to its side to change that situation. Worse still, any and all attempts to use the SNPs repeated election victories, Brexit being imposed on Scotland with English votes, and an entire series of heroically useless Tory Westminster Governments, have completely failed to energise anyone bar the already converted into demanding a second referendum.
Instead, the SNP and its allies find themselves stuck in this horrible purgatory in which they're always able to gather enough votes to be the dominant force in Scottish politics, but never able to gather enough votes to enact the one policy that they and their core vote are desperate to implement. They're not one inch nearer to independence than they were in 2014, they've lost their most electorally popular politician, and even if Scottish Labour utterly fails to revive come the next GE there's still no reason at all to suppose that Keir Starmer will be any more accommodating of pleas for that much yearned for second referendum than Rishi Sunak. In which case, they remain completely and hopelessly stuck.
When all's said and done, if the Union is the prison that some activists characterise it as, then it's effectively the Scottish electorate that holds all of the keys and, through it's lack of interest in demanding another plebiscite, is demonstrating that it's not willing to use them. In 2014 the people let themselves out onto the landing but then refused to open the main gate and walk out; this time they seem happy to stay put in their cells. Until a sufficiently articulate messenger with a sufficiently convincing argument comes along to persuade them of the merits of using the keys, nothing will change.
In other words, short term, do not he and Sunak have the same interest in seeing the Conservatives do well, or, I suppose I should say, less badly?
(Assuming, I repeat, he stays where he is.)
The spectre of the supreme court’s ruling on Begum in early 2021 hangs over this decision by Mr Justice Jay and his colleagues. Reflecting that earlier judgment, we see a determination to defer to the widest possible extent to government on the grounds of national security, as well as a lack of any moral urgency in relation to the alleged breaches of Begum’s core human right...As in the Begum case, the judges are not saying they have no role to play, but they are raising the bar extremely high before they can be tempted into action against the government. Arguably, this is as good as (if less honest than) their declining jurisdiction from the outset.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/23/shamima-begum-courts-government-human-rights-national-security?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1677172999
Should see a clatter of wickets now.
People have fewer discriminatory feelings against overweight Asian Americans, because they see them as “real Americans”.
https://twitter.com/captgouda24/status/1628754291878920194
So, my fault.
Current top article - In defence of Andrew Bridgen.
I reckon England will make 500 by lunch
I have to take complete responsibility for that wicket, I'd just googled 'what's England's highest ever partnership?'
John, Leeds
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/62866122?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=63f931dc86b6c015d31e6c96&Get Involved&2023-02-24T21:58:56.297Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:259ba15d-2e00-4b38-bd31-08e3d2536709&pinned_post_asset_id=63f931dc86b6c015d31e6c96&pinned_post_type=share
I don't know why so many people get sand in their fannies about what I post on this subject. None of you should give a fuck what I think.
But it's generally thought that he is keen to be PM again, not merely a backbencher. To achieve that it needs (a) Sunak to be doing so badly in the polls as to be replaced before an election, or (b) Sunak to lose an election without Johnson losing his seat. (b) is tricky to bring off, so Johnson should probably seek a safer seat, in order to be confident of remaining even if Sunak loses badly.
🔺 Update: Rishi Sunak will push ahead with his Brexit deal as soon as Sunday with Downing Street preparing to face down Boris Johnson and Tory Eurosceptics in a clash that will define his premiership
Labour votes will ensure it passes
I can easily work as Putin’s speechwriter. You just pull out the dumbest and the most generic drunk conspiracy theories, then add some 30 minutes of miserable whining on what a victim Russia is, then call everyone a Nazi, then say it’s all part of the plan.
Done!
https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1627963523748753410?cxt=HHwWhMCzxeKM2JctAAAA
That is Back to the good bit. History around the world has shown many great ideas for winning independence short of armed terrorist rebellion. Perhaps the SNP are getting nowhere by just being too nice and polite about how serious they are.
This is a proper discussion. This is fun.
I’ve taken it a step further in a mini thread about winning independence by winning the economic argument for independence, and asking exactly where the SNP are with that, after their most recent flimsy document on this.
Don't denigrate it. Few of us would have had the opportunity let alone the wish to have had such experiences, so you give us a small opportunity to live some of them vicariously.
Lab 49% (+1)
Con 27% (nc)
LibDem 8% (nc)
Reform 5% (-1)
Green 5% (nc)
SNP 3% (nc)
1,633 questioned 22-23 Feb. Changes with 15-16 Feb.
https://twitter.com/techneUK/status/1629028469412663297
Should be fun.
Edit: Let's make that 400.
As ever, Yorkshire rules.
Unless the DUP go for it, and so give the ERG an excuse to split on the issue, they have no reason to back him on it, and if he pushes through without them they'll have a pretext for causing trouble on everything else, and Labour won't be voting for much else he might propose.
He might as well do it, since the status quo is obviously not working for anyone, but it'll stir them up, and a battering is coming in May as well, the whispers will get louder.
Does it give you an insight into things yes for certain things such as for example squadron deployments...the ones putting you on a pedestal though argue you served so your overall strategic view counts more than the view of others.
If we were talking about how to run a fighter squadron yes your views count more....how to run a war less so.
Boris Johnson has been visiting Stoke-on-Trent today.
(Incase you missed it! Hah!)
It is incredibly depressing that Johnson still shows his face, fined as a PM and lied to the HoC. The Tory Party is in dire straights
As to the DUP, they do not seem to be in a mood to entertain any sort of deal or compromise, so it's hard to know what Sunak could do that would result in the return of power-sharing. If he were to give the DUP what they want - the complete end of the protocol and a trade border on the island of Ireland - then the likelihood is that Sinn Fein would collapse power-sharing in protest anyway.
The only way out of the impasse that I can see is that someone manages to persuade Unionist voters to vote for Unionist politicians who support a degree of compromise. Well, good luck with that.
Surely the pinnacle of Piano Concerto’s is Beethoven’s fifth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRalrhzo6Kw
Dyce, Bucksburn and Danestone (Aberdeen) by-election, first prefs:
SNP: 1455 (30.8%, -10.5)
Lab: 1227 (26%, +8.2)
Con: 1190 (25.2%, -1.0)
Lib Dem: 452 (9.6%, +0.8)
Alba: 178 (3.8%, new)
Green: 111 (2.3%, -2.1)
Family: 60 (1.3%, -0.2)
Ind: 52 (1.1%, new)
Labour elected stage 8.
But if there's one thing the years long conflict in Ukraine has taught us is that turning a blind eye to the illegal acts of a state for political convenience only leads to more violence and strife.
https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/1629036533603860480?cxt=HHwWgIC8-ZSGwJstAAAA
If he does a deal without the DUP, that includes ditching the NI Protocol bill, he will have surrendered any legal ability to change the protocol unilaterally, and given the ECJ a permanent role in the Governance of the province in return for not restoring power-sharing. How can that be sold as a victory of any kind?
And don't call me Shirley.
Kate Forbes may be in dire straights, depending on one's view.