Howdy, Stranger!

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

Why I still think LAB will struggle to get a majority – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited March 2023 in General
imageWhy I still think LAB will struggle to get a majority – politicalbetting.com

The voting polls have continued to be miserable for the Tories and we are not seeing any real sign of a change since the Windsor agreement last week. You can just feel the frustration from the Tory camp at the moment that apparently nothing they can do actually shifts the vote share polling numbers.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • First - and I agree.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Second - and I disagree.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,369
    Third - I’m in the Lab largest party, but no overall majority camp. Something like 2010 rather than 1997.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,369
    Blair and Campbell in 1995, wouldn’t have made such an unforced error as to hire a senior civil servant who had been in the news for investigating the government. And then not have a dead straight answer as to the timeline of the appointment.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    edited March 2023
    Sandpit said:

    Blair and Campbell in 1995, wouldn’t have made such an unforced error as to hire a senior civil servant who had been in the news for investigating the government. And then not have a dead straight answer as to the timeline of the appointment.

    Agreed, Starmer is a dud.

    But back in 1995 the Tory brand was tarnished, but it wasn’t utterly trashed by 5 shockingly shit Tory PMs in a row, the Tory cabinet and backbenches full of fascists and conmen and the economy tanking.

    Blair pulverised a rather tired Tory government.

    Starmer will pulverise a Tory government with DNR tattooed on its forehead.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 54,605
    There are no rules and the range of potential outcomes for the 2024 (or even 2025) general election are vast.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,310

    There are no rules and the range of potential outcomes for the 2024 (or even 2025) general election are vast.

    True.
    Though I think a Labour majority is rather more likely than a Tory one.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 4,951
    The trouble is that by Mike's own admission he is guessing: he even uses that word.

    Whereas the opinion polls are clearcut. The latest has Labour on 50% with a 26% lead.

    Sorry but you simply don't come back from this. I've seen it before in 1992-97. An irreversible seachange has occurred and Labour will win a MASSIVE majority.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,864
    Good morning, everyone.

    I suspect Labour will get a small majority, but that would still be a huge shift. Ironically, they might be better off getting none, acquiring a Lib Dem-shaped electoral meatshield, then doing better 4-5 years later.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 4,951
    The other point I've mentioned previously is to stop comparing with 2019.

    In fact Mike is guilty of having it both ways with this because he says that 2019 was mostly because of Corbyn's unelectable toxicity whilst at the same time using 2019 as the benchmark.

    2019 was a one-off because of Corbyn and because of 'Get Brexit Done', which has now become laughable.

    If you are obsessed by swing precedence than at least use the much more realistic 2017 election.
  • Are we still on Sue Gray? This is beergate all over again
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 4,951
    edited March 2023
    @Sandpit, I don't think you realise just how much anger there is out there with the Conservatives. It's forgivable because you are a Dubai expat but I think the latter affects your judgement on this and clouds your analysis.

    There is real, visceral, anger. A seachange occurred and it will not be reversed for a generation. That's how bad it is for brand tory.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Heathener said:

    The other point I've mentioned previously is to stop comparing with 2019.

    In fact Mike is guilty of having it both ways with this because he says that 2019 was mostly because of Corbyn's unelectable toxicity whilst at the same time using 2019 as the benchmark.

    2019 was a one-off because of Corbyn and because of 'Get Brexit Done', which has now become laughable.

    If you are obsessed by swing precedence than at least use the much more realistic 2017 election.

    Mike is “guilty” of a lot of things, but one needs to understand his core task these days: making stunningly predictable future events seem knife-edge, in order to breathe some life into dormant political betting markets. The one thing he is not guilty of is poor marketing.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 4,951

    Heathener said:

    The other point I've mentioned previously is to stop comparing with 2019.

    In fact Mike is guilty of having it both ways with this because he says that 2019 was mostly because of Corbyn's unelectable toxicity whilst at the same time using 2019 as the benchmark.

    2019 was a one-off because of Corbyn and because of 'Get Brexit Done', which has now become laughable.

    If you are obsessed by swing precedence than at least use the much more realistic 2017 election.

    Mike is “guilty” of a lot of things, but one needs to understand his core task these days: making stunningly predictable future events seem knife-edge, in order to breathe some life into dormant political betting markets. The one thing he is not guilty of is poor marketing.
    :D
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Heathener said:

    @Sandpit, I don't think you realise just how much anger there is out there with the Conservatives. It's forgivable because you are a Dubai expat but I think the latter affects your judgement on this and clouds your analysis.

    There is real, visceral, anger. A seachange occurred and it will not be reversed for a generation. That's how bad it is for brand tory.

    If Starmer introduces PR then he has a golden opportunity to kill the Tory brand stone dead. Execute that DNR notice.

    He won’t, cos the Red Vipers need the Blue Vipers to perpetuate the despicable toxic nest called ‘The British Establishment’.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 4,951
    Good morning CHB. Interesting. Coming on the back of Luciana Berger.

    I put the Sue Gray appointment in this context. Sensible people are getting on board now rather than doing a Zahawi.

    I was chatting to another senior civil servant recently who said they are all treading water with the tories now whilst cosying up to Labour: formulating policies and strategies for the new Starmer Government.

    It's over.

    And everyone in Westminster knows it.
  • The Lille scenarios are 2010 in reverse or small majority, in my view
  • Hey @Heathener! How are you
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 4,951
    edited March 2023
    A maximum 19 months to the next General Election (October 2024 is the latest). Labour on a 26% lead.

    You simply don't come back from that.

    Really, we ought to ask the opposite question: just how low might the tories sink? I have them in 100-150 seats but I think it could be the lower end of that and possibly sub 100. Over 150 from here? No chance.
  • https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

    How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 4,951
    edited March 2023

    Hey @Heathener! How are you

    Hi @CorrectHorseBattery3 good thank you. Am in travel mode. Off again tomorrow.

    Hope you are okay?
  • https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1632994032728133632

    If only Tories working themselves into synthetic fury about a woman who decided she would prefer to work for an honest hardworking opposition than a corrupt and corrupting government had cared as much about ‘propriety’ when they were defending the never ending Covid piss-
  • https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,587

    There are no rules and the range of potential outcomes for the 2024 (or even 2025) general election are vast.

    I wouldn't make any predictions personally. I think it is good to look at the situation from the Labour point of view. They need to win back parts of Scotland and a big chunk of the red wall and then make gains elsewhere as well, whilst the 'progressive coalition' is fragmenting with labour voters peeling off to the Green party. We don't know what the long term consequences will be of how Starmer has dealt with the left. I'm not sure how secure university towns etc are. Although Starmer has done very impressive work, he is not a 'Blair' like visionary.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,191

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,587

    Sandpit said:

    Blair and Campbell in 1995, wouldn’t have made such an unforced error as to hire a senior civil servant who had been in the news for investigating the government. And then not have a dead straight answer as to the timeline of the appointment.

    Agreed, Starmer is a dud.

    But back in 1995 the Tory brand was tarnished, but it wasn’t utterly trashed by 5 shockingly shit Tory PMs in a row, the Tory cabinet and backbenches full of fascists and conmen and the economy tanking.

    Blair pulverised a rather tired Tory government.

    Starmer will pulverise a Tory government with DNR tattooed on its forehead.
    This is harsh on Starmer. His starting point was taking over a party that was dying with vast intractible problems. He has adopted the strategy of fixing what can be fixed and going forward winning by doing nothing, which in our political system you can do. If Labour win in the next election, he will have achieved the impossible.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,191

    Heathener said:

    The other point I've mentioned previously is to stop comparing with 2019.

    In fact Mike is guilty of having it both ways with this because he says that 2019 was mostly because of Corbyn's unelectable toxicity whilst at the same time using 2019 as the benchmark.

    2019 was a one-off because of Corbyn and because of 'Get Brexit Done', which has now become laughable.

    If you are obsessed by swing precedence than at least use the much more realistic 2017 election.

    Mike is “guilty” of a lot of things, but one needs to understand his core task these days: making stunningly predictable future events seem knife-edge, in order to breathe some life into dormant political betting markets. The one thing he is not guilty of is poor marketing.
    I do hope you didn’t just accuse Mike of trying to manipulate betting odds…
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    I don't think we have ever had a proper explanation of what he did in his years in Russia.

    Yet Sue Gray is a scandal? Pull the other one.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,255

    https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

    How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

    I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,191
    Foxy said:

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    I don't think we have ever had a proper explanation of what he did in his years in Russia.

    Yet Sue Gray is a scandal? Pull the other one.
    The reason for that is almost certainly that he didn’t actually do anything, but wants us to believe he was doing something interesting and mysterious.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,191

    https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

    How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

    I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.
    The point is to get a decent headline in the Mail. If it’s done that, it’s worked and the rest can unravel later.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,304
    NI was never going to move the dial because people just don't care enough. I forecast a movement of 1% and I don't seem to be so far off. The next, and better, opportunity is the budget. This is Hunt's first real budget, his first had to be cobbled together in a week in the aftermath of the Kami-kazi effort of his predecessor and was entirely focused on the markets. I think it will be the last chance for this government to explain what they are for.

    Do the Tories still believe in lower taxes, private enterprise, balanced budgets, properly funded public services, etc? Do they still have a vision of what kind of a country they want or do they simply mark time until the fairly inevitable handover?

    The fall in gas prices and the slightly higher than expected growth have given Hunt and Sunak a few tens of billions to shape and mark out their vision. It's not a lot in the overall scheme of things but they need to make their mark and they need to do it now. The strong probability is that people have either stopped listening or no longer believe what they are told but that is their opportunity: 15th March.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,744
    edited March 2023

    https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

    How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

    That's the point. The government doesn't want anybody to claim asylum.

    The broader question is what they'll do with people, who arrive illegally and therefore can never be asylum seekers, but are from countries that don't accept deportees like Eritrea or Myanmar. What is supposed to happen to them? They'll probably be ground up to make a nutritious dietary supplement for the over 65s.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,587
    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
    I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419

    https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

    How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

    I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.
    A year ago we were told that the mere threat of Rwanda would stop the boats, yet here we are again. It is just performative cruelty as policy.

    At the same time we are fast tracking asylum claims from places thought to be legitimate:

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-fast-track-asylum-seekers/
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,051
    Dura_Ace said:

    https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

    How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

    That's the point. The government doesn't want anybody to claim asylum.

    The broader question is what they'll do with people, who arrive illegally and therefore can never be asylum seekers, but are from countries that don't accept deportees like Eritrea or Myanmar. What is supposed to happen to them? They'll probably be ground up to make a nutritious dietary supplement for the over 65s.
    Fundamentally legislation is cheap, enforcement is expensive. Pass as many badly thought out and drafted laws as you like and then blame the civil servants/law enforcement/lawyers when they’re not upheld. Very simple.

    All these laws to “stop” small boats assumes that those in said boats are reading/caring about U.K. legislation. They don’t. So they’ll keep coming until something is done to stop the root causes.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419
    ydoethur said:

    https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

    How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

    I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.
    The point is to get a decent headline in the Mail. If it’s done that, it’s worked and the rest can unravel later.
    The point is to have the policy fail because of "leftie human rights lawyers from North London" and get more headlines of synthetic outrage in the tabloids.

    Though with the tabloids sales dropping around 15% each year, I wonder if that really matters as much any more.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 13,691
    darkage said:

    Sandpit said:

    Blair and Campbell in 1995, wouldn’t have made such an unforced error as to hire a senior civil servant who had been in the news for investigating the government. And then not have a dead straight answer as to the timeline of the appointment.

    Agreed, Starmer is a dud.

    But back in 1995 the Tory brand was tarnished, but it wasn’t utterly trashed by 5 shockingly shit Tory PMs in a row, the Tory cabinet and backbenches full of fascists and conmen and the economy tanking.

    Blair pulverised a rather tired Tory government.

    Starmer will pulverise a Tory government with DNR tattooed on its forehead.
    This is harsh on Starmer. His starting point was taking over a party that was dying with vast intractible problems. He has adopted the strategy of fixing what can be fixed and going forward winning by doing nothing, which in our political system you can do. If Labour win in the next election, he will have achieved the impossible.
    Starmer has also learned- perhaps too well- the lesson that governments lose elections rather than oppositions winning them.

    If the Conservatives fall below about 225 seats, Labour likely have a majority by default, unless you foresee big Lib Dem gains. And that's assuming that the SNP don't deflate.

    And whilst Don't Knows plumping for Conservatives in the privacy of the polling booth might happen, Opinium think they've corrected for this, and the answer is still a big Labour win.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,191
    edited March 2023
    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
    I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
    It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.

    Edit - regarding his abilities I suppose it depends on what you mean by ‘idiot.’ I’d say he’s got a slightly higher than average IQ and shockingly poor judgement, but is convinced of his own wisdom. That, however, in itself makes him an idiot as he’s always making stupid mistakes through hubris.

    It’s common in government circles of course, but he’s still an idiot.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,304
    Foxy said:

    https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

    How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

    I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.
    A year ago we were told that the mere threat of Rwanda would stop the boats, yet here we are again. It is just performative cruelty as policy.

    At the same time we are fast tracking asylum claims from places thought to be legitimate:

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-fast-track-asylum-seekers/
    The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419
    edited March 2023
    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
    I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
    It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
    Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

    Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
  • DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

    How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

    I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.
    A year ago we were told that the mere threat of Rwanda would stop the boats, yet here we are again. It is just performative cruelty as policy.

    At the same time we are fast tracking asylum claims from places thought to be legitimate:

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-fast-track-asylum-seekers/
    The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
    Perhaps we could rehire all of the Civil Service and Border Force people the Tories sacked
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

    How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

    I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.
    A year ago we were told that the mere threat of Rwanda would stop the boats, yet here we are again. It is just performative cruelty as policy.

    At the same time we are fast tracking asylum claims from places thought to be legitimate:

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-fast-track-asylum-seekers/
    The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
    I am all in favour of fast tracking legitimate sounding applications, but how does the government think they got here other than "illegally"?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,191
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
    I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
    It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
    Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

    Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
    Well, assuming the Russians don’t suffer a sudden collapse.

    But equally I think if the Ukrainians could retake Mariupol the Russians would probably give up and withdraw.

    Whether they can is a different question of course.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,369
    Heathener said:

    @Sandpit, I don't think you realise just how much anger there is out there with the Conservatives. It's forgivable because you are a Dubai expat but I think the latter affects your judgement on this and clouds your analysis.

    There is real, visceral, anger. A seachange occurred and it will not be reversed for a generation. That's how bad it is for brand tory.

    Ah, playing the man again. Dare I suggest that, my experience of being around and talking to people in the UK, is much wider than those living in the very wealthy London suburbs (or is it Bangkok?) who are at least as insulated from the day-to-day concerns of the rest of the country.

    Yesterday’s polling thread confirmed that most people think the government needs to do more to stop irregular immigration, to give one example.

    On the other hand, I’m still not sure that Rishi Sunak, in his very insulated little world, thinks that talking and legislating - rather than actually stopping the boats - will endear him to those living in the marginal constituencies.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,850
    The Tories deserve to lose for failing miserably in pretty much every dimension of government. They are tired and directionless, in power for nothing more than to fix their own errors and benefit themselves and their clients. They are morally and intellectually bankrupt.

    As such Labour can win, but it will be close, far closer than mid term polls suggest.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,304

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

    How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

    I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.
    A year ago we were told that the mere threat of Rwanda would stop the boats, yet here we are again. It is just performative cruelty as policy.

    At the same time we are fast tracking asylum claims from places thought to be legitimate:

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-fast-track-asylum-seekers/
    The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
    Perhaps we could rehire all of the Civil Service and Border Force people the Tories sacked
    The size of the civil service is at a record high and the collapse of public sector productivity post Covid is one of our major problems.

    These are difficult issues which the government (any government, including the forthcoming Labour one) are going to have to grapple for years. The inability of the public sector to issue passports, disability badges, licences, planning permissions and a multitude of other permissions; the inability to get a response or get through to a person who can deal with the issue; the perception (fair or not) that WFH means nothing actually gets done; a court system that is grinding to a halt, a health service which has more resources but processes fewer patients, there is a massive challenge there.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,238
    edited March 2023
    Wow, that would be on a par with Man Utd re-signing Eric Djemba Djemba.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,228
    I fully appreciate the point about Tory 2019 don't knows, but I think the key factor in the next election will be this one:
    You can just feel the frustration from the Tory camp at the moment that apparently nothing they can do actually shifts the vote share polling numbers.
    This is the effect of the Truss Calamity. Many voters have lost the trust and confidence they once had in the Conservative party. It's not going to be won back by a crafty budget, anti-immigration rhetoric, or Brexit-related successes. Above all, it's going to take time.

    This means that the next year and a bit until the general election is an extended job interview for Keir Starmer with the voting public. He has the opportunity to convince 2019 Tory voters looking for an alternative that he's a sensible, trustworthy chap, who shares their frustrations with where the country is going wrong, and will at least avoid completely wrecking things as he attempts to fix them.

    I don't have a massively high opinion of Starmer, but he at least gives every impression of understanding that this is the challenge he currently faces. You can't always say the same for other politicians.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,191
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

    How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

    I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.
    A year ago we were told that the mere threat of Rwanda would stop the boats, yet here we are again. It is just performative cruelty as policy.

    At the same time we are fast tracking asylum claims from places thought to be legitimate:

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-fast-track-asylum-seekers/
    The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
    Perhaps we could rehire all of the Civil Service and Border Force people the Tories sacked
    The size of the civil service is at a record high and the collapse of public sector productivity post Covid is one of our major problems.

    These are difficult issues which the government (any government, including the forthcoming Labour one) are going to have to grapple for years. The inability of the public sector to issue passports, disability badges, licences, planning permissions and a multitude of other permissions; the inability to get a response or get through to a person who can deal with the issue; the perception (fair or not) that WFH means nothing actually gets done; a court system that is grinding to a halt, a health service which has more resources but processes fewer patients, there is a massive challenge there.
    Revolutionary idea.

    Hire many fewer civil servants, but make them actual experts rather than The Right Sort of People.

    Cut costs, increase productivity and put reality back into public policy making at a stroke.

    It will never happen of course.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,304
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

    How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

    I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.
    A year ago we were told that the mere threat of Rwanda would stop the boats, yet here we are again. It is just performative cruelty as policy.

    At the same time we are fast tracking asylum claims from places thought to be legitimate:

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-fast-track-asylum-seekers/
    The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
    I am all in favour of fast tracking legitimate sounding applications, but how does the government think they got here other than "illegally"?
    Oh I agree. The "illegal immigrant" moniker really doesn't apply to those who have legitimate asylum claims, whether they come by small boat or any other means.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,369
    Taz said:

    Wow, that would be on a par with Man Utd re-signing Eric Djemba Djemba.
    Erik Cantona (aged 56), Ryan Giggs (aged 49) and David Beckham (aged 47) would all be better than the men who went to Anfield the other day.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,587
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
    I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
    It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
    Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

    Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
    I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419
    Sandpit said:

    Heathener said:

    @Sandpit, I don't think you realise just how much anger there is out there with the Conservatives. It's forgivable because you are a Dubai expat but I think the latter affects your judgement on this and clouds your analysis.

    There is real, visceral, anger. A seachange occurred and it will not be reversed for a generation. That's how bad it is for brand tory.

    Ah, playing the man again. Dare I suggest that, my experience of being around and talking to people in the UK, is much wider than those living in the very wealthy London suburbs (or is it Bangkok?) who are at least as insulated from the day-to-day concerns of the rest of the country.

    Yesterday’s polling thread confirmed that most people think the government needs to do more to stop irregular immigration, to give one example.

    On the other hand, I’m still not sure that Rishi Sunak, in his very insulated little world, thinks that talking and legislating - rather than actually stopping the boats - will endear him to those living in the marginal constituencies.
    In Suburban Leicester, 2 patients, both lifelong Tory voters, spontaneously told me last week that they won't be voting Tory next time. I don't talk politics with patients as it isn't professional, so it truly was spontaneous.

    I think Tories sub 200 seats, possibly sub 150. I don't think Sunak can turn it around.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419
    edited March 2023
    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
    I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
    It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
    Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

    Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
    I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.
    The only thing that will stop aid to Ukraine is Trump (or similar Republican) becoming POTUS, but that is 2 years away.

    Incidentally, the Atlantic did a quick summary of the possibilities yesterday:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/03/tracking-democrat-republican-presidential-candidates-2024-election/673118/?utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,519
    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
    I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
    It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.

    Edit - regarding his abilities I suppose it depends on what you mean by ‘idiot.’ I’d say he’s got a slightly higher than average IQ and shockingly poor judgement, but is convinced of his own wisdom. That, however, in itself makes him an idiot as he’s always making stupid mistakes through hubris.

    It’s common in government circles of course, but he’s still an idiot.
    I agree with all that. The older I get the more I realise that intelligence and quality of judgement are unrelated. Perhaps the best example of this in recent history happened this autumn. Kwasi, who I happen to know personally, is a very intelligent guy, but showed shockingly poor judgement with his budget and his career may never recover.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,850
    Fishing said:

    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
    I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
    It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.

    Edit - regarding his abilities I suppose it depends on what you mean by ‘idiot.’ I’d say he’s got a slightly higher than average IQ and shockingly poor judgement, but is convinced of his own wisdom. That, however, in itself makes him an idiot as he’s always making stupid mistakes through hubris.

    It’s common in government circles of course, but he’s still an idiot.
    I agree with all that. The older I get the more I realise that intelligence and quality of judgement are unrelated. Perhaps the best example of this in recent history happened this autumn. Kwasi, who I happen to know personally, is a very intelligent guy, but showed shockingly poor judgement with his budget and his career may never recover.
    He believed his own hype, myths and bullshit. Fatal. Hubris -> Nemesis.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,191
    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
    I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
    It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
    Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

    Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
    I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.
    Although against that we need to balance, what’s the impact of letting Russia have any sort of victory? Would it, for example, embolden China over Taiwan, which would have even more alarming geopolitical implications? And leave us still dependent on Russian hydrocarbons, which we urgently need to wean ourselves off for a great many reasons?

    It isn’t a zero sum game.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,191
    DougSeal said:

    Wow, another massive blow for Change U.K. after Berger left. If there’s many more of these they’re heading for oblivion.

    ’heading?’
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,310

    https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1632994032728133632

    If only Tories working themselves into synthetic fury about a woman who decided she would prefer to work for an honest hardworking opposition than a corrupt and corrupting government had cared as much about ‘propriety’ when they were defending the never ending Covid piss-

    The misuse of the Parliamentary urgent question by a gaggle of Borisites was noted by the Speaker, who characteristically allowed it anyway.

    Equally characteristic was the stooge who occupies the post of Cabinet Office Minister making the killer point that the Gray appointment had been announced before ACOBA had been notified.
    The 'announcement' was, of course, a leak. Quite probably from his side.

    Still, it got BigG worked up, so did the job.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,228
    edited March 2023
    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
    I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
    It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
    Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

    Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
    I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.
    In part it's a short-term v long-term cost issue. The more effort we make now in supporting Ukraine against Russia, the less effort we will have to make in the future.

    This is a particularly critical calculation for the US, which has to face the prospect of defending Taiwan from China.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,188
    The preferred PM figures from RedfieldWilton yesterday only had Starmer ahead of Sunak 41% to 35%. If that translated into voting intention it certainly would be a hung parliament rather than a Labour majority
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,188
    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
    Cummings was quoting Obama though who said the US was certainly not going to war with Russia over Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. That is still true, the US is supplying Ukraine but not sending troops there

    https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1632381884792446976?t=k5KEUEv_nopPq8z-wm6QUw&s=19

    Remember before Trump emerged in 2012 Romney was much tougher on Putin than Obama was
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,188
    edited March 2023
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Heathener said:

    @Sandpit, I don't think you realise just how much anger there is out there with the Conservatives. It's forgivable because you are a Dubai expat but I think the latter affects your judgement on this and clouds your analysis.

    There is real, visceral, anger. A seachange occurred and it will not be reversed for a generation. That's how bad it is for brand tory.

    Ah, playing the man again. Dare I suggest that, my experience of being around and talking to people in the UK, is much wider than those living in the very wealthy London suburbs (or is it Bangkok?) who are at least as insulated from the day-to-day concerns of the rest of the country.

    Yesterday’s polling thread confirmed that most people think the government needs to do more to stop irregular immigration, to give one example.

    On the other hand, I’m still not sure that Rishi Sunak, in his very insulated little world, thinks that talking and legislating - rather than actually stopping the boats - will endear him to those living in the marginal constituencies.
    In Suburban Leicester, 2 patients, both lifelong Tory voters, spontaneously told me last week that they won't be voting Tory next time. I don't talk politics with patients as it isn't professional, so it truly was spontaneous.

    I think Tories sub 200 seats, possibly sub 150. I don't think Sunak can turn it around.
    Every seat in Leicester is Labour anyway. Claudia Webbe being an ex Labour Independent
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,666
    Absolute winter wonderland on the bus today. Not a cloud in the sky either.
    It's beautiful.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,188

    Heathener said:

    @Sandpit, I don't think you realise just how much anger there is out there with the Conservatives. It's forgivable because you are a Dubai expat but I think the latter affects your judgement on this and clouds your analysis.

    There is real, visceral, anger. A seachange occurred and it will not be reversed for a generation. That's how bad it is for brand tory.

    If Starmer introduces PR then he has a golden opportunity to kill the Tory brand stone dead. Execute that DNR notice.

    He won’t, cos the Red Vipers need the Blue Vipers to perpetuate the despicable toxic nest called ‘The British Establishment’.
    PR also kills the chances of a Labour majority stone dead and newly elected Labour MPs wouldn't vote to make themselves redundant and replaced by MPs from the Greens and LDs.

    PR also gives RefUK MPs and reduces the number of SNP MPs too
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 37,972
    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
    I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
    It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
    Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

    Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
    I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.
    Supporting Ukraine is costing billions, but still only part of what Afghanistan and Iraq cost - and those were kept up for well over a decade. In return, the alleged second-greatest military in the world is being destroyed - without a cost in US or allied lives. It's actually quite cheap.

    Then there are the costs of letting Russia 'win', or get a 'win'; the fact they will be back doing the same thing in a few years, with Russia or a.n.other rogue state emboldened by what has happened.

    I'd also argue that it's perfectly possible for Ukraine to taker back control by pushing Russia out: even including Crimea. They may not, but last autumn showed they were capable of inflicting significant reverses on Russia. And unlike what some on here said, that involved pushing Russia right back to the border.

    There's also the question of what this is doing to Russia, both economically and militarily. I was expecting a Russian push this spring, but it's looking increasingly likely that the attacks we've seen so far *were* the attack. If so, then the Russian military is in a really poor state.

    I know the above seems rather optimistic, and will have Topping and Dura_Ace clutching at their pearls, but there may well be reasons to be optimistic.
  • RichardrRichardr Posts: 76
    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
    I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
    It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
    Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

    Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
    I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.
    It has done harm to us already hasn't it. The oil price increase alone has cost western Europe billions and contributed to the inflation we all now have, and there is also the cost of the arms supplied.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,489
    I see yet again we’re a bawhair away from people being described as traitors because they disagree with the latest mutation of the kakocracy.


  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 54,605
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

    How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

    I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.
    A year ago we were told that the mere threat of Rwanda would stop the boats, yet here we are again. It is just performative cruelty as policy.

    At the same time we are fast tracking asylum claims from places thought to be legitimate:

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-fast-track-asylum-seekers/
    The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
    Why should they succeed, though?

    Are we obliged to take in anyone from any really poor/crap country who makes it to our shores. There are hundreds of millions of such people.

    On this I think the fundamentals of the question hinge.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 8,584
    edited March 2023
    HYUFD said:

    The preferred PM figures from RedfieldWilton yesterday only had Starmer ahead of Sunak 41% to 35%. If that translated into voting intention it certainly would be a hung parliament rather than a Labour majority

    Sunak is managing to ride out the storm with his own reputation hand intact. If he manages this right up to the election then he should be able to salvage a decent post-politics career and be treated with respect by the media as an elder statesman - like Major, Blair, Clarke, Osborne, even May to some extent.

    The idiots making themselves look stupid by getting in a lather about Sue Grey and partygate are the Johnsonian old guard. They are carving out post politics careers for themselves on GB News. Sunak is staying noticeably quiet.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 37,972
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
    I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
    It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
    Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

    Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
    Well, assuming the Russians don’t suffer a sudden collapse.

    But equally I think if the Ukrainians could retake Mariupol the Russians would probably give up and withdraw.

    Whether they can is a different question of course.
    What would really play havoc for the Russians is a Ukrainian thrust south to the coast, cutting off Russian forces to the west, and allowing them only resupply over the Kerch Bridge. Which, as we've seen, is vulnerable (apparently they're currently lifting sections out of the rail bridge for replacement).

    Of course, that's easy to say, and much harder to do, especially as it is so obvious. But if there's been one constant in this mess, it's been Russian strategic and tactical stupidity. Do we think they've suddenly developed brains?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Heathener said:

    @Sandpit, I don't think you realise just how much anger there is out there with the Conservatives. It's forgivable because you are a Dubai expat but I think the latter affects your judgement on this and clouds your analysis.

    There is real, visceral, anger. A seachange occurred and it will not be reversed for a generation. That's how bad it is for brand tory.

    Ah, playing the man again. Dare I suggest that, my experience of being around and talking to people in the UK, is much wider than those living in the very wealthy London suburbs (or is it Bangkok?) who are at least as insulated from the day-to-day concerns of the rest of the country.

    Yesterday’s polling thread confirmed that most people think the government needs to do more to stop irregular immigration, to give one example.

    On the other hand, I’m still not sure that Rishi Sunak, in his very insulated little world, thinks that talking and legislating - rather than actually stopping the boats - will endear him to those living in the marginal constituencies.
    In Suburban Leicester, 2 patients, both lifelong Tory voters, spontaneously told me last week that they won't be voting Tory next time. I don't talk politics with patients as it isn't professional, so it truly was spontaneous.

    I think Tories sub 200 seats, possibly sub 150. I don't think Sunak can turn it around.
    Every seat in Leicester is Labour anyway. Claudia Webbe being an ex Labour Independent
    They weren't in Leicester seats, they were from Tory seats in the County.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 4,587
    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
    I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
    It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
    Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

    Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
    I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.
    Although against that we need to balance, what’s the impact of letting Russia have any sort of victory? Would it, for example, embolden China over Taiwan, which would have even more alarming geopolitical implications? And leave us still dependent on Russian hydrocarbons, which we urgently need to wean ourselves off for a great many reasons?

    It isn’t a zero sum game.
    There are a lot of ways of looking at this situation. If this conflict is leading to Russia becoming more dependent on China, which seems to be the case, then it doesn't inevitably help the position in Taiwan.

    I don't know the answer to any of these issues, they are just things that are worth thinking about.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,191
    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    The preferred PM figures from RedfieldWilton yesterday only had Starmer ahead of Sunak 41% to 35%. If that translated into voting intention it certainly would be a hung parliament rather than a Labour majority

    Sunak is managing to ride out the storm with his own reputation hand intact. If he manages this right up to the election then he should be able to salvage a decent post-politics career and be treated with respect by the media as an elder statesman - like Major, Blair, Clarke, Osborne, even May to some extent.

    The idiots making themselves look stupid by getting in a lather about Sue Grey and partygate are the Johnsonian old guard. They are carving out post politics careers for themselves on GB News. Sunak is staying noticeably quiet.
    But again - that's not hard. They *are* stupid.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    HYUFD said:

    The preferred PM figures from RedfieldWilton yesterday only had Starmer ahead of Sunak 41% to 35%. If that translated into voting intention it certainly would be a hung parliament rather than a Labour majority

    Preferred PM findings have a strong incumbency bias
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,188

    HYUFD said:

    The preferred PM figures from RedfieldWilton yesterday only had Starmer ahead of Sunak 41% to 35%. If that translated into voting intention it certainly would be a hung parliament rather than a Labour majority

    Preferred PM findings have a strong incumbency bias
    They are often more accurate than the headline voting intention figures though, see 1992 and 2015
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,800
    Instinctively, I agree with Mike. But if you look at the polls which exclude DKs and reassign them on past recalled vote - Opinium and Techne, I think - Labour still has large double digit leads. That makes switchers the key, not DKs, and switchers are harder to win back.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,310
    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
    I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
    It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
    Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

    Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
    I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.
    Although against that we need to balance, what’s the impact of letting Russia have any sort of victory? Would it, for example, embolden China over Taiwan, which would have even more alarming geopolitical implications? And leave us still dependent on Russian hydrocarbons, which we urgently need to wean ourselves off for a great many reasons?

    It isn’t a zero sum game.
    There are a lot of ways of looking at this situation. If this conflict is leading to Russia becoming more dependent on China, which seems to be the case, then it doesn't inevitably help the position in Taiwan.

    I don't know the answer to any of these issues, they are just things that are worth thinking about.
    It's quite right to ask the question.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,419

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
    I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
    It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
    Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

    Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
    I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.
    Supporting Ukraine is costing billions, but still only part of what Afghanistan and Iraq cost - and those were kept up for well over a decade. In return, the alleged second-greatest military in the world is being destroyed - without a cost in US or allied lives. It's actually quite cheap.

    Then there are the costs of letting Russia 'win', or get a 'win'; the fact they will be back doing the same thing in a few years, with Russia or a.n.other rogue state emboldened by what has happened.

    I'd also argue that it's perfectly possible for Ukraine to taker back control by pushing Russia out: even including Crimea. They may not, but last autumn showed they were capable of inflicting significant reverses on Russia. And unlike what some on here said, that involved pushing Russia right back to the border.

    There's also the question of what this is doing to Russia, both economically and militarily. I was expecting a Russian push this spring, but it's looking increasingly likely that the attacks we've seen so far *were* the attack. If so, then the Russian military is in a really poor state.

    I know the above seems rather optimistic, and will have Topping and Dura_Ace clutching at their pearls, but there may well be reasons to be optimistic.
    It may be just a bit of deliberate fog of war, but from what Zelensky was saying last night it certainly sounds as if UKR think they can hold Bakhmut, and defeat the Russian offensive there. The noises from the Russian side, particularly Wagner, sound as if they are worried he might be right.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,864
    F1: mentioned yesterday but still seems crazy to me. You can back, with boost, Perez at 7 each way (third the odd stop 2) to win in Saudi Arabia. he's near certain to be 2nd. The Red Bull was a pit stop ahead of everyone else. Even had Leclerc not suffered woe, Perez would've been over the hills and far away. He should not be backable with an each way win bet to be 2nd, based on the first race (although cars are different on various circuits).

    May be worth considering a new market type I saw on Ladbrokes ahead of the race for predicting the top 2 and top 3. Mostly, I think that's a fool's errand, but if the Red Bull retains its competitive advantage it could be worthwhile.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,722
    Cummings is not stupid. He’s intelligent, but malevolent, like Ann Coulter and Peter Hitchens.

    Inflation is falling and growth is picking up in Western countries, so yes, we’re entirely capable of sustaining this.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,191
    edited March 2023
    TimS said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
    I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
    It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
    Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

    Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
    I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.
    Supporting Ukraine is costing billions, but still only part of what Afghanistan and Iraq cost - and those were kept up for well over a decade. In return, the alleged second-greatest military in the world is being destroyed - without a cost in US or allied lives. It's actually quite cheap.

    Then there are the costs of letting Russia 'win', or get a 'win'; the fact they will be back doing the same thing in a few years, with Russia or a.n.other rogue state emboldened by what has happened.

    I'd also argue that it's perfectly possible for Ukraine to taker back control by pushing Russia out: even including Crimea. They may not, but last autumn showed they were capable of inflicting significant reverses on Russia. And unlike what some on here said, that involved pushing Russia right back to the border.

    There's also the question of what this is doing to Russia, both economically and militarily. I was expecting a Russian push this spring, but it's looking increasingly likely that the attacks we've seen so far *were* the attack. If so, then the Russian military is in a really poor state.

    I know the above seems rather optimistic, and will have Topping and Dura_Ace clutching at their pearls, but there may well be reasons to be optimistic.
    I like the saying that “Russia is never as strong as you fear, and never as weak as you hope”. That captures my feelings watching their campaign over the last year.
    One thing we should perhaps remember is the Russians are historically incredibly dogged in terms of their will to fight on. They took punishment in World War II for example that would have been unimaginable for any other nation to endure. And at the moment there's no obvious evidence of a collapse in morale in Russia itself.

    If however they are forced to retreat from Bakhmut that may change. That really would be a shock and a shocker for them.
  • I think Labour will get a majority.

    I said years ago, when the Tories were still recording double-digit leads and everyone assumed another Tory victory, that a Labour majority on my range of possible results (as well as an increased Tory majority on the range as well). The logic being when many said it was 'impossible' was that any change dramatic enough to see the Tories lose their majority could be dramatic enough that it pushes the swing far enough that Labour enters majority territory.

    Well, I think that possibility has come to pass.

    If I was to rate my range of possible results now I would estimate:

    Labour landslide majority: 5%
    Healthy Labour majority (2005-style): 50%
    Slender Labour majority 20%
    Hung Parliament 20%
    Tory majority 5%
  • DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

    How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

    I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.
    A year ago we were told that the mere threat of Rwanda would stop the boats, yet here we are again. It is just performative cruelty as policy.

    At the same time we are fast tracking asylum claims from places thought to be legitimate:

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-fast-track-asylum-seekers/
    The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
    I am all in favour of fast tracking legitimate sounding applications, but how does the government think they got here other than "illegally"?
    Oh I agree. The "illegal immigrant" moniker really doesn't apply to those who have legitimate asylum claims, whether they come by small boat or any other means.
    The basic issue that there is NO legal route for people from half these countries to claim asylum. Non. And that includes our former comrades in arms in Afghanistan and their families. We make it impossible to come here and claim asylum then wonder why they are on boats, then interleckchewals like Leon say THERE IS NO CHOICE BUT RWANDA IF WE WANT TO STOP THE BOATS.

    We could have a sane conversation about asylum. Instead we have absolutist children who have given up on governing and just want a few days of positive headlines in their client media. Having failed to notice that isn't enough any more. The people who mouth-foamingly care about stopping all asylum don't want headlines, they don't want excuses or people to blame.

    They want RESULTS. The results they were promised and they voted for. Yet another round of "SINK THE BOATS" front pages followed by record numbers of boats only makes their poling calamity worse.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,722
    Foxy said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
    I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
    It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
    Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

    Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
    I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.
    Supporting Ukraine is costing billions, but still only part of what Afghanistan and Iraq cost - and those were kept up for well over a decade. In return, the alleged second-greatest military in the world is being destroyed - without a cost in US or allied lives. It's actually quite cheap.

    Then there are the costs of letting Russia 'win', or get a 'win'; the fact they will be back doing the same thing in a few years, with Russia or a.n.other rogue state emboldened by what has happened.

    I'd also argue that it's perfectly possible for Ukraine to taker back control by pushing Russia out: even including Crimea. They may not, but last autumn showed they were capable of inflicting significant reverses on Russia. And unlike what some on here said, that involved pushing Russia right back to the border.

    There's also the question of what this is doing to Russia, both economically and militarily. I was expecting a Russian push this spring, but it's looking increasingly likely that the attacks we've seen so far *were* the attack. If so, then the Russian military is in a really poor state.

    I know the above seems rather optimistic, and will have Topping and Dura_Ace clutching at their pearls, but there may well be reasons to be optimistic.
    It may be just a bit of deliberate fog of war, but from what Zelensky was saying last night it certainly sounds as if UKR think they can hold Bakhmut, and defeat the Russian offensive there. The noises from the Russian side, particularly Wagner, sound as if they are worried he might be right.
    And Russia has been suckered into squandering thousands of lives, in a fight for a city that has little value.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Everything’s going so well


    Irregular use of emails, secondment of party employees & an endless parade of payroll support. I don’t make claims without evidence. Anyone who thinks the answer to the party & Govt problems is more of the same is not paying attention.


    https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1633012620486647808

    HUMZA Yousaf has called SNP MP Joanna Cherry “desperate” after she claimed the “party machine” were backing his leadership campaign.

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/23367015.humza-yousaf-joanna-cherrys-leadership-race-claims-desperate/

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 37,972
    Foxy said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
    I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
    It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
    Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

    Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
    I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.
    Supporting Ukraine is costing billions, but still only part of what Afghanistan and Iraq cost - and those were kept up for well over a decade. In return, the alleged second-greatest military in the world is being destroyed - without a cost in US or allied lives. It's actually quite cheap.

    Then there are the costs of letting Russia 'win', or get a 'win'; the fact they will be back doing the same thing in a few years, with Russia or a.n.other rogue state emboldened by what has happened.

    I'd also argue that it's perfectly possible for Ukraine to taker back control by pushing Russia out: even including Crimea. They may not, but last autumn showed they were capable of inflicting significant reverses on Russia. And unlike what some on here said, that involved pushing Russia right back to the border.

    There's also the question of what this is doing to Russia, both economically and militarily. I was expecting a Russian push this spring, but it's looking increasingly likely that the attacks we've seen so far *were* the attack. If so, then the Russian military is in a really poor state.

    I know the above seems rather optimistic, and will have Topping and Dura_Ace clutching at their pearls, but there may well be reasons to be optimistic.
    It may be just a bit of deliberate fog of war, but from what Zelensky was saying last night it certainly sounds as if UKR think they can hold Bakhmut, and defeat the Russian offensive there. The noises from the Russian side, particularly Wagner, sound as if they are worried he might be right.
    That's another point: it might be media bias, but we are hearing lots of relatively open arguments in and between the Russian military / PMCs. We're not hearing the same volume from within Ukraine. Ukraine *sound* more united in their aims, even with the massive toll its costing them.
  • Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Wow, that would be on a par with Man Utd re-signing Eric Djemba Djemba.
    Erik Cantona (aged 56), Ryan Giggs (aged 49) and David Beckham (aged 47) would all be better than the men who went to Anfield the other day.
    We have a really good team with real promise. He's only been coaching them for half a season and there are a glut of injuries to the core. It's highlighted that we need more strength in depth, so we'll see some of the previous regimes' also-rans depart in the summer.

    Its football. Comedy results happen - laugh them off and move on. Won the League Cup and knocked Barcelona out of the Europa league last week, let the Scousers have their fun, regroup, win more trophies.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,800
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

    How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

    I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.
    A year ago we were told that the mere threat of Rwanda would stop the boats, yet here we are again. It is just performative cruelty as policy.

    At the same time we are fast tracking asylum claims from places thought to be legitimate:

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-fast-track-asylum-seekers/
    The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.
    I am all in favour of fast tracking legitimate sounding applications, but how does the government think they got here other than "illegally"?
    Yep - the proposed legislation would be much tougher to oppose if the government was creating genuine, workable, safe routes to the UK, while proving more money to crackdown on the gangs and process existing claims. But it’s not. Neither is it explaining how it will physically manage to remove all the people detained from the UK. Therefore, what we have here is primarily an attempt to create dividing lines, not solve the problem. And because of that, it will end up doing the government more harm than good.

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,228
    edited March 2023
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Heathener said:

    @Sandpit, I don't think you realise just how much anger there is out there with the Conservatives. It's forgivable because you are a Dubai expat but I think the latter affects your judgement on this and clouds your analysis.

    There is real, visceral, anger. A seachange occurred and it will not be reversed for a generation. That's how bad it is for brand tory.

    Ah, playing the man again. Dare I suggest that, my experience of being around and talking to people in the UK, is much wider than those living in the very wealthy London suburbs (or is it Bangkok?) who are at least as insulated from the day-to-day concerns of the rest of the country.

    Yesterday’s polling thread confirmed that most people think the government needs to do more to stop irregular immigration, to give one example.

    On the other hand, I’m still not sure that Rishi Sunak, in his very insulated little world, thinks that talking and legislating - rather than actually stopping the boats - will endear him to those living in the marginal constituencies.
    In Suburban Leicester, 2 patients, both lifelong Tory voters, spontaneously told me last week that they won't be voting Tory next time. I don't talk politics with patients as it isn't professional, so it truly was spontaneous.

    I think Tories sub 200 seats, possibly sub 150. I don't think Sunak can turn it around.
    Every seat in Leicester is Labour anyway. Claudia Webbe being an ex Labour Independent
    Suburban Leicester might be in one of the surrounding seats, like Charnwood, or Harborough. The seats surrounding Leicester are:

    Charnwood, Tory majority of 22,397
    Rutland and Melton, Tory majority of 26,294
    Harborough, Tory majority of 17,278
    South Leicestershire, Tory majority of 24,004

    Election Calculus predicts the Tories would be reduced to less than 175 seats if they lose seats like Harborough. Well below a hundred if Rutland and Melton falls. No idea how the boundary review is set to shake those up though.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,191
    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    darkage said:

    ydoethur said:

    https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

    We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

    This guy was literally in Number 10.

    Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.
    I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.
    It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.
    Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

    Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.
    I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.
    Supporting Ukraine is costing billions, but still only part of what Afghanistan and Iraq cost - and those were kept up for well over a decade. In return, the alleged second-greatest military in the world is being destroyed - without a cost in US or allied lives. It's actually quite cheap.

    Then there are the costs of letting Russia 'win', or get a 'win'; the fact they will be back doing the same thing in a few years, with Russia or a.n.other rogue state emboldened by what has happened.

    I'd also argue that it's perfectly possible for Ukraine to taker back control by pushing Russia out: even including Crimea. They may not, but last autumn showed they were capable of inflicting significant reverses on Russia. And unlike what some on here said, that involved pushing Russia right back to the border.

    There's also the question of what this is doing to Russia, both economically and militarily. I was expecting a Russian push this spring, but it's looking increasingly likely that the attacks we've seen so far *were* the attack. If so, then the Russian military is in a really poor state.

    I know the above seems rather optimistic, and will have Topping and Dura_Ace clutching at their pearls, but there may well be reasons to be optimistic.
    It may be just a bit of deliberate fog of war, but from what Zelensky was saying last night it certainly sounds as if UKR think they can hold Bakhmut, and defeat the Russian offensive there. The noises from the Russian side, particularly Wagner, sound as if they are worried he might be right.
    And Russia has been suckered into squandering thousands of lives, in a fight for a city that has little value.
    Precisely *because* they have squandered those thousands of lives, it is now vital to Russia. If they still cannot take it, questions will suddenly be being asked at all levels as to (a) why they lost despite this (b) why they fought at all and (c) who's to have the appointment with a third floor window. In one scenario Wagner might even turn on Putin, which would be actually hilarious.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,310
    Another, less remarked on consequence of the war.

    It's striking just how quickly Moscow's authority in Central Asia has collapsed. A thread, spinning off the claim by National Anti-Corruption Committee (NAC) Kirill Kabanov chair that "there is no respect for Russia in Central Asia" 1/...
    https://mobile.twitter.com/MarkGaleotti/status/1633012168038785024
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    Instinctively, I agree with Mike. But if you look at the polls which exclude DKs and reassign them on past recalled vote - Opinium and Techne, I think - Labour still has large double digit leads. That makes switchers the key, not DKs, and switchers are harder to win back.

    The others are the Tory “stay at homers” and whether they’ll be the Johnson fans who feel he was betrayed or his critics who are happy the adults are back in charge.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,188

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Heathener said:

    @Sandpit, I don't think you realise just how much anger there is out there with the Conservatives. It's forgivable because you are a Dubai expat but I think the latter affects your judgement on this and clouds your analysis.

    There is real, visceral, anger. A seachange occurred and it will not be reversed for a generation. That's how bad it is for brand tory.

    Ah, playing the man again. Dare I suggest that, my experience of being around and talking to people in the UK, is much wider than those living in the very wealthy London suburbs (or is it Bangkok?) who are at least as insulated from the day-to-day concerns of the rest of the country.

    Yesterday’s polling thread confirmed that most people think the government needs to do more to stop irregular immigration, to give one example.

    On the other hand, I’m still not sure that Rishi Sunak, in his very insulated little world, thinks that talking and legislating - rather than actually stopping the boats - will endear him to those living in the marginal constituencies.
    In Suburban Leicester, 2 patients, both lifelong Tory voters, spontaneously told me last week that they won't be voting Tory next time. I don't talk politics with patients as it isn't professional, so it truly was spontaneous.

    I think Tories sub 200 seats, possibly sub 150. I don't think Sunak can turn it around.
    Every seat in Leicester is Labour anyway. Claudia Webbe being an ex Labour Independent
    Suburban Leicester might be in one of the surrounding seats, like Charnwood, or Harborough. The seats surrounding Leicester are:

    Charnwood, Tory majority of 22,397
    Rutland and Melton, Tory majority of 26,294
    Harborough, Tory majority of 17,278
    South Leicestershire, Tory majority of 24,004

    Election Calculus predicts the Tories would be reduced to less than 175 seats if they lose seats like Harborough. Well below a hundred if Rutland and Melton falls. No idea how the boundary review is set to shake those up though.
    Rutland certainly isn't Leicester, it isn't even in Leicestershire
This discussion has been closed.