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.
Are we obliged? International law and treaties signed in good faith suggests that the answer to that question is yes.
That we have a government even asking this question shows how low down the morality tree we have been dragged. We do so very little compared to our neighbours. And whine bitterly about it. The west as a whole needs to collectively work on making these countries safer and more prosperous. Brown managed to do it - a diplomatic coordinated attack on unpayable debt. Written off. Breathing room for the poorest.
Fat chance of the Tories doing anything similar. Work with foreigners? Don't they know who we are?
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.
I think the Ukranians would rather fight on there in the rubble than see the next small city destroyed the same way in a new line of defence.
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
In both those cases the incumbent had huge leads. Sunak may well get ahead of Starmer, but I very much doubt it will get close to Major/Kinnock or Cameron/Miliband levels.
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.
There's a Yuri Yessopovich typing the exact opposite of this shit on a forum in Russia.
Months ago I suggested that one thing was certain, you should bet against Trump. A bit down the the road, so far he doesnt have anywhere near the financial support yet, and there are signs of a hatchet job being done on him by the Republican party.
Does anyone have the view that he is going to win that nomination? If so, why?
I do. One of the main reasons is that he still has such a hold on the Republican party and its primary voters that it's forbidden for other Republican politicians to acknowledge that he lost the 2020 election to Biden.
If you are going to compete against someone in a primary contest the most basic thing that you need to do is to say why it is you do not support the other candidates. You have to be prepared to criticise them. This would be a lot easier for other Republicans seeking the nomination if they could criticise Trump for losing the 2020 election.
When Trump lost the 2020 election my Staten Island born mother-in-law was confident that Trump was finished. Being a loser in America would see his support drain away rapidly. She did not foresee the possibility that so many people would accept his lie that the election was stolen from him, and he was a winner after all.
Any other primary candidate is effectively conspiring with Democrats to steal the Presidency from Trump again. How can any candidate win the nomination if they don't defeat that argument, and how do they defeat that argument if they aren't even willing to risk having it?
I think this is a really important point. Some voices have tip toed around the issue, but the bigger figures all seem to buy into the myth. Even Pence, a target of a Trumpian mob, is very careful in his words, and would 100% vote for Trump if he was the nominee.
If he holds that power over the base he's not losing. The others are still hoping for events to take him out, even though if he's charged with a crime you can put money on them still supporting him.
@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
Only due to the ridiculousness of local government boundaries.
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
In both those cases the incumbent had huge leads. Sunak may well get ahead of Starmer, but I very much doubt it will get close to Major/Kinnock or Cameron/Miliband levels.
It may be enough to get a hung parliament though, as Brown did in 2010
@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.
They appear to be safe seats with those majorities, and the boundary changes here are not huge. Loughborough will change, and is a noted electoral bellwether.
@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
Only due to the ridiculousness of local government boundaries.
No, Rutland is its own county again now with its own unitary authority. Rutland is not in Leicestershire
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.
Best on mind the former DKs will increase markedly if he is suspended or ousted, probably more than the latter come back. So it could get worse.
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.
Knowing Johnson it was probably some sordid bunga-bunga type event that he simply couldn't resist yet needed to drop his security for, and as you suggest the rumours that it was something sinister rather than merely debauched suits him, since of the former there is no proof to be uncovered.
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.
Best on mind the former DKs will increase markedly if he is suspended or ousted, probably more than the latter come back. So it could get worse.
Albeit if Corbyn stands as an Independent that will see some leftwingers stay home or vote TUSC or Green rather than vote Labour again elsewhere (while voting for Corbyn in Islington)
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.
There's a Yuri Yessopovich typing the exact opposite of this shit on a forum in Russia.
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.
Knowing Johnson it was probably some sordid bunga-bunga type event that he simply couldn't resist yet needed to drop his security for, and as you suggest the rumours that it was something sinister rather than merely debauched suits him, since of the former there is no proof to be uncovered.
Cummings, not Johnson!
Although the latter may be true as well, of course.
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???
It's not soluble. Maybe 2 billion people have a perfectly legitimate asylum claim under international law if only they could get to EU/UK/USA etc, so, except for special cases like Hong Kong and Ukraine, large, safe lawful routes are not going to happen.
One day it will become obvious that the current international conventions cannot work, that the right to asylum must be limited and that only sane solution concerns the quality of government and governance in a large number of currently despotic countries.
The UN which governs the framework and attacks the west is the same UN whose members include all the countries people are legitimately fleeing.
The reality is, we are a part to - and created much of - the refugee legislation.
So unless we want to give that up all of these ideas will be pointless. I assume the Tories don't actually want to do that because we like refugees from Ukraine and Hong Kong, so this is all just pointless grandstanding.
If you actually wanted to solve the problem you'd stop pissing off the French for a start.
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.
Fair comment, my instinctive reaction too.
What worries me more than anything mentioned in the thread is that the fact that the Conservatives are clearly trying to steal the GE through their blatant policies on voter suppression, taken from the Republican Party playlist.
Against that, I think the impact of the boundary changes can be overplayed. What needs to be remembered is that the current electoral geography is already incredibly favourable to the Conservatives. There will be a great variation from UNS, there always is, and it will be a lottery how that plays out. The potential downside from a random variation away from UNS is greater for the Conservatives than the upside, simply because the bias is already in their favour. So while the boundary changes will in themselves help the Conservatives, the odds are that the rest of the electoral geography will unwind slightly to counter that.
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.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
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???
It's not soluble. Maybe 2 billion people have a perfectly legitimate asylum claim under international law if only they could get to EU/UK/USA etc, so, except for special cases like Hong Kong and Ukraine, large, safe lawful routes are not going to happen.
One day it will become obvious that the current international conventions cannot work, that the right to asylum must be limited and that only sane solution concerns the quality of government and governance in a large number of currently despotic countries.
The UN which governs the framework and attacks the west is the same UN whose members include all the countries people are legitimately fleeing.
But the UK turned down creating safe routes in France - this is why their policies are not actually designed to work.
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.
Are we obliged? International law and treaties signed in good faith suggests that the answer to that question is yes.
That we have a government even asking this question shows how low down the morality tree we have been dragged. We do so very little compared to our neighbours. And whine bitterly about it. The west as a whole needs to collectively work on making these countries safer and more prosperous. Brown managed to do it - a diplomatic coordinated attack on unpayable debt. Written off. Breathing room for the poorest.
Fat chance of the Tories doing anything similar. Work with foreigners? Don't they know who we are?
Nothing we can do will make the world’s cesspits anything other than cesspits. We proved that in Afghanistan. There are too many people who enjoy persecuting people for being women, or practising the wrong form of religion, or stealing everything in sight.
@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
Who said Leicestershire?
"The seats surrounding Leicester"
Lots of folk commute alonbg the Leicester-Peterborough railway.
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.
Best on mind the former DKs will increase markedly if he is suspended or ousted, probably more than the latter come back. So it could get worse.
Albeit if Corbyn stands as an Independent that will see some leftwingers stay home or vote TUSC or Green rather than vote Labour again elsewhere (while voting for Corbyn in Islington)
They did that for years, and it makes sod all difference to any election. There's a few hundred mad embittered trots in some constituencies. Usually split across several "left unity" candidates all competing for socialist purity.
@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
Another HYUFD slight of hand to try and deflect the point of the comment.
LostPassword didn't say R&M was in Leicester He said surrounding seats. Which is exactly what R&M is.
And he didn't say Rutland he said Rutland and Melton. The constituency is in both Rutland and Leicestershire.
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
Remember before Trump emerged in 2012 Romney was much tougher on Putin than Obama was
Obama - and European leaders - failing to react the the seizure of Crimea was almost certainly the single greatest contributor to emboldening Putin to invade.
I'm sure I agree with the inaction at the time, but at least in 2022 and so far western governments realise that doing the same thing again - as proposed by the peace and justice project, no 2 war, and other deeply reprehensible people - is not going to work.
It's why attempts to realpolitik by suggesting doing nothing have not been heeded this time since demonstrably such a trade off will not stop Putinist ambitions, he wont stop there.
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?
That is the front where they've constructed the most extensive defensive lines. We saw with the Ukrainian offensive in Kherson that it is very hard to attack well-prepared defensive lines. A very large factor in the Russian retreat there was the logistical difficulty of keeping their forces supplied across the river - a factor that doesn't help the Ukrainians attacking towards the Azov sea coast.
This is why the Ukrainian defence in places like Bakhmut and Vuhledar is so important. The aim is to inflict sufficiently heavy losses in manpower and equipment that the Russians are unable to hold their defensive lines elsewhere.
It's also why the people bemoaning the lack of recent Ukrainian advances are misunderstanding the nature of this war. Given heavy Russian losses in the current Russian offensive the conditions for a further Ukrainian advance are being created. A little patience is required.
The two things that would make a future Ukrainian advance more difficult would be a further Russian mobilization, and the supply of large quantities of ammunition and equipment from China.
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.
There's a Yuri Yessopovich typing the exact opposite of this shit on a forum in Russia.
I'm sure that's true. What's your alternative, though ? If we force a Ukrainian ceasefire, we effectively force the surrender of Ukraine (though that might take a number of years).
Crimea was a pretty good demonstration that territorial concessions to the current aggressor don't work.
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.
Ever seen political parties talk down their chances of winning uber safe by elections? Hilarity.
Come the next election in late 2024, Labour will have slipped markedly and the Conservatives made some ground.
With those numbers, what will be on offer to the country is either a continuity of practical, sensibile government under Rishi Sunak; or an unstable Red-Green-Yellow-Purple coalition/something-less collection of arrangements, that will start to fall apart as soon as Starmer enters Downing Street.
There is no love out there on the doorsteps for Labour. Even less for a hotch-potch of parties fighting like ferrets in a sack. Do not be surprised if the exit poll surprises on the upside for the Tories.
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.
Get this man a political adviser job in the Home Office, stat!
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
In both those cases the incumbent had huge leads. Sunak may well get ahead of Starmer, but I very much doubt it will get close to Major/Kinnock or Cameron/Miliband levels.
It may be enough to get a hung parliament though, as Brown did in 2010
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.
There's a Yuri Yessopovich typing the exact opposite of this shit on a forum in Russia.
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.
I think the Ukranians would rather fight on there in the rubble than see the next small city destroyed the same way in a new line of defence.
Meanwhile, their new toys will be arriving. The Bradleys have already been offloaded in Germany. The tanks are arriving. Russia must fear what their arrival in a concerted force will have on a front defended by newly arrived and poorly equipped conscripts.
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?
That is the front where they've constructed the most extensive defensive lines. We saw with the Ukrainian offensive in Kherson that it is very hard to attack well-prepared defensive lines. A very large factor in the Russian retreat there was the logistical difficulty of keeping their forces supplied across the river - a factor that doesn't help the Ukrainians attacking towards the Azov sea coast.
This is why the Ukrainian defence in places like Bakhmut and Vuhledar is so important. The aim is to inflict sufficiently heavy losses in manpower and equipment that the Russians are unable to hold their defensive lines elsewhere.
It's also why the people bemoaning the lack of recent Ukrainian advances are misunderstanding the nature of this war. Given heavy Russian losses in the current Russian offensive the conditions for a further Ukrainian advance are being created. A little patience is required.
The two things that would make a future Ukrainian advance more difficult would be a further Russian mobilization, and the supply of large quantities of ammunition and equipment from China.
AIUI (and IANAE, etc, etc) there are other complexities: the Russians have narrow supply routes along the coast, which are not in the range of all of Ukraine's artillery. Advancing a little closer to the coast could imperil those Russian supply routes.
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.
Quite. We already have folk here for whom *complaining* entirely accurately about Tory Party incompetence in defence of the UK, and the lying and obfuscation of party members when they pretend otherwise, equates to treason.
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.
The Russians are assessed to be losing at least five soldiers to every lost Ukrainian in the fighting for Bakhmut, but if the dead Russians are mostly Wagner-recruited convicts, and the dead Ukrainians are mostly better quality Western-trained soldiers, then the Russian high command may consider it a good trade.
There is a lot that will become obvious in hindsight when we see which side is able to conduct offensive operations later in the spring.
@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
Only due to the ridiculousness of local government boundaries.
No, Rutland is its own county again now with its own unitary authority. Rutland is not in Leicestershire
What are you talking about HYUFD? I never said it was in Leicestershire so what you saying 'no' to in my post?
I know you can read. I was having a crack at the silliness of Rutland being it's own county, that's all, which accepted it was it's own entity you baffling man.
Who are you even arguing with when you pull this sort of thing? It isn't other posters as they aren't making the points you argue against.
Numerous colleagues who worked alongside Gray note that, while now in her mid-60s, she appeared in no mood to step back.
Her name had been touted by Business and Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch as a candidate for head of that department back in October when the position became vacant, according to a fourth government official.
However, as first reported by the Express — and confirmed to POLITICO by a person with knowledge of the process — Case was instrumental in blocking the move.
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.
If you have a policy that says all people coming by small boat are illegal and can never be offered asylum you are not considering their cases. So you cannot discriminate between those with genuine claims and those that should be deported. Everyone gets added to an ever increasing pool of people in limbo in hotels and camps.
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.
The Russians are assessed to be losing at least five soldiers to every lost Ukrainian in the fighting for Bakhmut, but if the dead Russians are mostly Wagner-recruited convicts, and the dead Ukrainians are mostly better quality Western-trained soldiers, then the Russian high command may consider it a good trade.
There is a lot that will become obvious in hindsight when we see which side is able to conduct offensive operations later in the spring.
Everyone seems to be expecting a Ukrainian offensive, though from a casual look no one seems sure where, so hopefully the absorbing defence is indeed helping with that.
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.
The Russians are assessed to be losing at least five soldiers to every lost Ukrainian in the fighting for Bakhmut, but if the dead Russians are mostly Wagner-recruited convicts, and the dead Ukrainians are mostly better quality Western-trained soldiers, then the Russian high command may consider it a good trade.
There is a lot that will become obvious in hindsight when we see which side is able to conduct offensive operations later in the spring.
Five Russian pawns for one Ukrainian bishop eh? Chess with a vengeance.
@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
Nevertheless, the constituency of Rutland and Melton borders one of the Leicester city seats and so includes areas that might be described as suburban Leicester.
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.
Suella is not a democrat. That has been clear for a long time.
But the net effect of this kind of inflammatory language will be to encourage anti-Tory tactical voting.
And the tactical unwind/rewind is the thing that polls will struggle to pick up, but is incredibly important.
For example, replacing Jez by beige is probably worth a decent number of seats to Labour. Even if they don't gain a single vote, fewer people will go to the trouble of voting to keep Labour out.
The reality is, we are a part to - and created much of - the refugee legislation.
So unless we want to give that up all of these ideas will be pointless. I assume the Tories don't actually want to do that because we like refugees from Ukraine and Hong Kong, so this is all just pointless grandstanding.
If you actually wanted to solve the problem you'd stop pissing off the French for a start.
Listen to any discussion (like R4 Today this very morning) and there are two broad positions - that of the Mail and that of the Refugee Council etc, both well known and both with undeniable virtues and vices.
The puzzled middling sort (which is most people - look at the acceptance of Hong Kong and Ukraine refugees, and that 30% of babies in UK are born to foreign born mothers) deserve something better than liberal whining and blaming, and populist tabloid rubbish.
In truth the UK is harder to get to than many countries directly from a refugee state. Distance and the sea see to that (think Canada).
The two issues where the middling sort are correct in being puzzled are these: Why so many and so hard to remove from countries like Albania who should be white-listed. And, critically, How can it be right for us to have to accept people fleeing France.
Address those two specifically and middling opinion will support it, and neither extreme will prevail.
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.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
@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
Only due to the ridiculousness of local government boundaries.
No, Rutland is its own county again now with its own unitary authority. Rutland is not in Leicestershire
What are you talking about HYUFD? I never said it was in Leicestershire so what you saying 'no' to in my post?
I know you can read. I was having a crack at the silliness of Rutland being it's own county, that's all, which accepted it was it's own entity you baffling man.
Who are you even arguing with when you pull this sort of thing? It isn't other posters as they aren't making the points you argue against.
Its just a tactic he regularly uses to try and deflect attention away from a point he disagrees with but has no ability to contest directly.
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.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
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.
Knowing Johnson it was probably some sordid bunga-bunga type event that he simply couldn't resist yet needed to drop his security for, and as you suggest the rumours that it was something sinister rather than merely debauched suits him, since of the former there is no proof to be uncovered.
Cummings, not Johnson!
Although the latter may be true as well, of course.
He’s a ludicrously vain man, with a keen sense of self-mythologisation.
He’s also quite intelligent, but has no empathy, moral centre (hence his regular flirtations with accelerationism, ‘dark enlightenment’ and authoritarianism) or - most damningly - humour. Exactly the sort of person who should never be let anywhere near government. He actually met his match in Johnson though, his equal in vanity.
I'm not entirely convinced by the numbers in this story, but it's an interesting idea. Particularly when you consider that a fair chunk of our generation is state owned already - just that it's foreign states that own it.
The reality is, we are a part to - and created much of - the refugee legislation.
So unless we want to give that up all of these ideas will be pointless. I assume the Tories don't actually want to do that because we like refugees from Ukraine and Hong Kong, so this is all just pointless grandstanding.
If you actually wanted to solve the problem you'd stop pissing off the French for a start.
Listen to any discussion (like R4 Today this very morning) and there are two broad positions - that of the Mail and that of the Refugee Council etc, both well known and both with undeniable virtues and vices.
The puzzled middling sort (which is most people - look at the acceptance of Hong Kong and Ukraine refugees, and that 30% of babies in UK are born to foreign born mothers) deserve something better than liberal whining and blaming, and populist tabloid rubbish.
In truth the UK is harder to get to than many countries directly from a refugee state. Distance and the sea see to that (think Canada).
The two issues where the middling sort are correct in being puzzled are these: Why so many and so hard to remove from countries like Albania who should be white-listed. And, critically, How can it be right for us to have to accept people fleeing France.
Address those two specifically and middling opinion will support it, and neither extreme will prevail.
We need to accept refugees from France. This is because, according to a number of respected aid agencies, forcing them to remain in France is inhumane.
As @Roger’s chum put it “The only thing wrong with France, is that it’s full of the French”
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
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.
Quite. We already have folk here for whom *complaining* entirely accurately about Tory Party incompetence in defence of the UK, and the lying and obfuscation of party members when they pretend otherwise, equates to treason.
A nasty headline even by the standards of The Express. Paired with an equally nasty one on the Mail.
So much to pull apart here. The whole 13-years-of-Conservative-government bit, of course, but also the idea that MPs are traitors for doing their job of scrutinising (almost certainly terrible, in this case) legislation.
Given the focus on small boats, if I were an aspiring asylum seeker I would be looking to change my mode of transport to a medium-sized boat in an attempt to escape the wrath of Braverman and her cronies.
Sunak treats government like a management consultant treats company policy: identify a an issue and create a KPI. So his KPI: no boats.
But boats are the symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. It's what happens to these people when they get here that's the problem, which is a mixture of an intractable international problem, Home Office incompetence in processing claims and a political unwillingness to be honest about the issues.
@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
Only due to the ridiculousness of local government boundaries.
No, Rutland is its own county again now with its own unitary authority. Rutland is not in Leicestershire
What are you talking about HYUFD? I never said it was in Leicestershire so what you saying 'no' to in my post?
I know you can read. I was having a crack at the silliness of Rutland being it's own county, that's all, which accepted it was it's own entity you baffling man.
Who are you even arguing with when you pull this sort of thing? It isn't other posters as they aren't making the points you argue against.
Its just a tactic he regularly uses to try and deflect attention away from a point he disagrees with but has no ability to contest directly.
Although to be fair, Melton and Rutland constituency (current boundaries) has very little that could be described as 'suburban Leicester' (just a corner around Scraptoft, Thurnby, Bushby), and would surely still be a safe Conservative seat.
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.
There's a Yuri Yessopovich typing the exact opposite of this shit on a forum in Russia.
Why, in your mind, is it 'shit' ?
If you @ me it's much easier for me to see when you have name-checked me. I might have missed this.
All very interesting your commentary, but pure fantasy and, as you seem keen to avoid acknowledging, motivated by your historical determinism. What you think or hope might happen won't necessarily happen.
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.
The Russians are assessed to be losing at least five soldiers to every lost Ukrainian in the fighting for Bakhmut, but if the dead Russians are mostly Wagner-recruited convicts, and the dead Ukrainians are mostly better quality Western-trained soldiers, then the Russian high command may consider it a good trade.
There is a lot that will become obvious in hindsight when we see which side is able to conduct offensive operations later in the spring.
Five Russian pawns for one Ukrainian bishop eh? Chess with a vengeance.
As was pointed out, by the BBC, the Russian recruitment/conscription is falling very, very heavily (so far) on certain sections of a Russia. The so called periphery.
Either Putin will have reverse this (and start sending what he thinks of as proper Russians to the front) or he will be running out of man power much faster than the total running military age population suggests.
The two issues where the middling sort are correct in being puzzled are these: Why so many and so hard to remove from countries like Albania who should be white-listed. And, critically, How can it be right for us to have to accept people fleeing France.
Because it is very difficult to remove people from this country who do not want to be removed.
It requires a level of force that most people are very uncomfortable with.
@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
Nevertheless, the constituency of Rutland and Melton borders one of the Leicester city seats and so includes areas that might be described as suburban Leicester.
Not for much longer. It will be (plus PPC selected):
Rutland, Stamford and the Stamford and Harborough Villages - Alicia Kearns Melton & Syston - Ed Argar
The two issues where the middling sort are correct in being puzzled are these: Why so many and so hard to remove from countries like Albania who should be white-listed. And, critically, How can it be right for us to have to accept people fleeing France.
Because it is very difficult to remove people from this country who do not want to be removed.
It requires a level of force that most people are very uncomfortable with.
Not sure most people object to forcible removal of those here illegally.
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
homosexuality, divorce, euthanasia, abortion, having casual sex, suicide, prostitution
spot the odd one out?
the correct answer to all of these is 'something in between', except for 'homosexuality' which is just who someone is and should never need to be 'justified'
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.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
@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
Nevertheless, the constituency of Rutland and Melton borders one of the Leicester city seats and so includes areas that might be described as suburban Leicester.
Not for much longer. It will be (plus PPC selected):
Rutland, Stamford and the Stamford and Harborough Villages - Alicia Kearns Melton & Syston - Ed Argar
Melton and Syston sounds like something that would contain a lot more 'suburban Leicester' type voters than Melton and Rutland.
@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
Nevertheless, the constituency of Rutland and Melton borders one of the Leicester city seats and so includes areas that might be described as suburban Leicester.
Not for much longer. It will be (plus PPC selected):
Rutland, Stamford and the Stamford and Harborough Villages - Alicia Kearns Melton & Syston - Ed Argar
Melton and Syston sounds like something that would contain a lot more 'suburban Leicester' type voters than Melton and Rutland.
Yep it represents a North East corridor out from Leicester and Syston is between Melton and Leicester in that corridor.
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.
There's a Yuri Yessopovich typing the exact opposite of this shit on a forum in Russia.
Why, in your mind, is it 'shit' ?
If you @ me it's much easier for me to see when you have name-checked me. I might have missed this.
All very interesting your commentary, but pure fantasy and, as you seem keen to avoid acknowledging, motivated by your historical determinism. What you think or hope might happen won't necessarily happen.
This is a betting website. The idea is to discuss what may happen in the future, and come up with scenarios. Something you seem rather hesitant to do, preferring to carp from the sidelines.
It’s going to be a slow path of consistent execution and building credibility - the budget is probably the next opportunity
That’s a defensive strategy and may be it’s playing for a draw, but when you are an innings in and following on…
(Incidentally it’s the answer to the “why now” question on Sue Grey’s job. Starmer is trying to drag up the past to throw the Tories off their stride. I’d be surprised if she has a significant role in the new government- she’s being used.)
The two issues where the middling sort are correct in being puzzled are these: Why so many and so hard to remove from countries like Albania who should be white-listed. And, critically, How can it be right for us to have to accept people fleeing France.
Because it is very difficult to remove people from this country who do not want to be removed.
It requires a level of force that most people are very uncomfortable with.
Not sure most people object to forcible removal of those here illegally.
Suspect that depends on two things.
First, what does forcible removal look like? The concrete reality is probably less popular than those two words.
Second, what happens when you replace "those here illegally" with a face, name and story?
As we know, how you frame the question can affect the answer a lot.
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
The two issues where the middling sort are correct in being puzzled are these: Why so many and so hard to remove from countries like Albania who should be white-listed. And, critically, How can it be right for us to have to accept people fleeing France.
Because it is very difficult to remove people from this country who do not want to be removed.
It requires a level of force that most people are very uncomfortable with.
Obviously it's a horrible subject, with no decent solutions except much better governments in large parts of the world, covering 2 or 3 billion people, and world peace.
Removal to France or other EU/EU applicant countries is not the same as removal to Syria or Afghanistan. And if it always occurred when people had come from a safe country then, as is the plan, the incentive to try to come would cease.
This of course should go along with capacity to apply from those countries for residence in the UK.
BTW does Labour have a policy? This is not going to be easy for anyone, including Labour.
@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
Nevertheless, the constituency of Rutland and Melton borders one of the Leicester city seats and so includes areas that might be described as suburban Leicester.
Not for much longer. It will be (plus PPC selected):
Rutland, Stamford and the Stamford and Harborough Villages - Alicia Kearns Melton & Syston - Ed Argar
Melton and Syston sounds like something that would contain a lot more 'suburban Leicester' type voters than Melton and Rutland.
Yep it represents a North East corridor out from Leicester and Syston is between Melton and Leicester in that corridor.
Ah, I think I understand your previous post now - the constituency containing Rutland will no longer have anything bordering Leicester. The Melton & Syston constituency is probably still safe Conservative I guess.
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.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
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.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
NIMBYism and an awful planning system are our problems.
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
Justifiable seems a bit of a weird word to use for some of these things. In what sense is homosexuality something that needs to be justified? The form of the question itself seems to demonstrate quite how far attitudes have changed.
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.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
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.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Really. I usually zone out from the ‘everything is racist’ arguments one sees from time to time but I’d be interested to know why this is the case?
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
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.
There's a Yuri Yessopovich typing the exact opposite of this shit on a forum in Russia.
Why, in your mind, is it 'shit' ?
If you @ me it's much easier for me to see when you have name-checked me. I might have missed this.
All very interesting your commentary, but pure fantasy and, as you seem keen to avoid acknowledging, motivated by your historical determinism. What you think or hope might happen won't necessarily happen.
This is a betting website. The idea is to discuss what may happen in the future, and come up with scenarios. Something you seem rather hesitant to do, preferring to carp from the sidelines.
"carp from the sidelines" = not jumping (with two feet) to conclusions based upon scant and incomplete evidence.
I have only carped at people who set out "likely" courses of action of the war and who point to various Youtube clips as proof if proof be needed of their hypothesis. Some even use footage from video games to support their positions.
@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
Nevertheless, the constituency of Rutland and Melton borders one of the Leicester city seats and so includes areas that might be described as suburban Leicester.
Not for much longer. It will be (plus PPC selected):
Rutland, Stamford and the Stamford and Harborough Villages - Alicia Kearns Melton & Syston - Ed Argar
Melton and Syston sounds like something that would contain a lot more 'suburban Leicester' type voters than Melton and Rutland.
Yep it represents a North East corridor out from Leicester and Syston is between Melton and Leicester in that corridor.
Ah, I think I understand your previous post now - the constituency containing Rutland will no longer have anything bordering Leicester. The Melton & Syston constituency is probably still safe Conservative I guess.
Yes the core of it is Alan Duncan's old constituency which is one of the safest Cons seats in the country.
@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
Only due to the ridiculousness of local government boundaries.
No, Rutland is its own county again now with its own unitary authority. Rutland is not in Leicestershire
Part of the parliamentary constituency "Rutland and Melton" is though. It's possible Foxy's patients live in Melton.
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.
There's a Yuri Yessopovich typing the exact opposite of this shit on a forum in Russia.
Why, in your mind, is it 'shit' ?
If you @ me it's much easier for me to see when you have name-checked me. I might have missed this.
All very interesting your commentary, but pure fantasy and, as you seem keen to avoid acknowledging, motivated by your historical determinism. What you think or hope might happen won't necessarily happen.
This is a betting website. The idea is to discuss what may happen in the future, and come up with scenarios. Something you seem rather hesitant to do, preferring to carp from the sidelines.
"carp from the sidelines" = not jumping (with two feet) to conclusions based upon scant and incomplete evidence.
I have only carped at people who set out "likely" courses of action of the war and who point to various Youtube clips as proof if proof be needed of their hypothesis. Some even use footage from video games to support their positions.
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.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
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.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Really. I usually zone out from the ‘everything is racist’ arguments one sees from time to time but I’d be interested to know why this is the case?
See above. Our planning model harms the young, and the young are much more likely to be non-white. It's not someone setting out to hurt non-white people, but it hurts them just the same.
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
So 58% still think casual sex morally unjustifiable and 52% think abortion morally unjustifiable.
That is actually far higher than I would have thought would be the case in the UK of 2023. Maybe hope for Jacob Rees Mogg and Kate Forbes yet?
Read the small print. 58% gave casual sex a score of 7 or lower on a 10-point scale where 1 was always unjustifiable and 10 was always justifiable.
We don't know how many people gave a score of 3-7, but we can be confident that some people will have done so, and that they wouldn't agree with your interpretation of their answer.
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
So 58% still think casual sex morally unjustifiable and 52% think abortion morally unjustifiable.
That is actually far higher than I would have thought would be the case in the UK of 2023. Maybe hope for Jacob Rees Mogg and Kate Forbes yet?
Read the small print. 58% gave casual sex a score of 7 or lower on a 10-point scale where 1 was always unjustifiable and 10 was always justifiable.
We don't know how many people gave a score of 3-7, but we can be confident that some people will have done so, and that they wouldn't agree with your interpretation of their answer.
Even a score of 5 for casual sex would be far lower than I would have expected in the UK of 2023 and Tinder etc
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.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The definition of institutional racism, as used by government enquiries and other bodies, is that the *outcomes* for minority groups are worse. No need to find the actions that caused the difference.
In the case of housing, the limitation of supply means that better housing is occupied by the older, whiter population. Some ethnic minorities (of recent entrance to the U.K.) have horrific housing problems, relatively. In general, the later, less white, generations have worse and worse outcomes.
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.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The main issue is probably old vs. young. Older WWC people who bought their council houses under Maggie are sitting relatively prettily.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
Or inner London v the rest.
In inner London only 42% own the property they live in with or without a mortgage now. In Outer London though 62% own the property they live in and in the UK overall 66% own the property they live in
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
Justifiable seems a bit of a weird word to use for some of these things. In what sense is homosexuality something that needs to be justified? The form of the question itself seems to demonstrate quite how far attitudes have changed.
Describing homosexuality as an "action" is bizarre. Unless the graph uses different wording to the question, which is always possible.
I think most people would assume the big change in attitudes was in the period 1997-2010, not 2010-present, so the findings are certainly interesting.
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.
There's a Yuri Yessopovich typing the exact opposite of this shit on a forum in Russia.
The difference is that your and Yuri's beloved Mother Russia is losing the war it started, whereas everything Jossias wrote is correct even if it leaves you and Yuri feeling butthurt.
“The polling detail is less bad for the Tories for although they have lost perhaps a fifth of their GE2019 vote to LAB the shift has not been any more than that.”
How does this compare historically Mike?
How does the fifth shift compare with final shift Lab > Con 2010; Con > Lab 1997?
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.
We cannot house all our own people. Sooner or later the "We are full up" sign will have to go up.
But why can't we house everyone?
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
This.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
Everything is racist if you can find an excuse for it to be so. Its more likely to be racist against the wwc.
The definition of institutional racism, as used by government enquiries and other bodies, is that the *outcomes* for minority groups are worse. No need to find the actions that caused the difference.
In the case of housing, the limitation of supply means that better housing is occupied by the older, whiter population. Some ethnic minorities (of recent entrance to the U.K.) have horrific housing problems, relatively. In general, the later, less white, generations have worse and worse outcomes.
This is racism, as define by HMG.
Ah, yes: "institutional racism": what happens when nobody is actually racist.
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???
DOH! that is the whole point
Yep. The penny still not dropped for Horse and other Labour posters.
Stop posting that this is an unworkable policy horse. Just look at the polling where large chunks of Lab and Lib Dem voters are right behind Braverman and her policy, and Labour are about to vote against it.
Consider yourself a traitor to this great Country and it’s Way Of Life, Horse.
This is the fight against smugglers, crime, gangsters, drugs.
If we tolerate Labour blocking this, our own children will be next.
New: it's easy to forget quite how far and recently GB has changed in social attitudes: - in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now - divorce went from 30% to 64% - casual sex from 12% to 42% - abortion from 20% to 48%
Justifiable seems a bit of a weird word to use for some of these things. In what sense is homosexuality something that needs to be justified? The form of the question itself seems to demonstrate quite how far attitudes have changed.
Describing homosexuality as an "action" is bizarre. Unless the graph uses different wording to the question, which is always possible.
I think most people would assume the big change in attitudes was in the period 1997-2010, not 2010-present, so the findings are certainly interesting.
I find it particularly surprising that in 2009 only 12% thought casual sex 'justifiable'. That isn't my memory of 2009.
The two issues where the middling sort are correct in being puzzled are these: Why so many and so hard to remove from countries like Albania who should be white-listed. And, critically, How can it be right for us to have to accept people fleeing France.
Because it is very difficult to remove people from this country who do not want to be removed.
It requires a level of force that most people are very uncomfortable with.
Obviously it's a horrible subject, with no decent solutions except much better governments in large parts of the world, covering 2 or 3 billion people, and world peace.
Removal to France or other EU/EU applicant countries is not the same as removal to Syria or Afghanistan. And if it always occurred when people had come from a safe country then, as is the plan, the incentive to try to come would cease.
This of course should go along with capacity to apply from those countries for residence in the UK.
BTW does Labour have a policy? This is not going to be easy for anyone, including Labour.
Good morning
Labour seem to think they can arrest all the people smugglers and the problem goes away
The suggestion safe routes should include France/Calais would attract tens of thousands just making things worse
Unfortunately the debate is so polarised, but it is clear this is an important issue in the country
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.
There's a Yuri Yessopovich typing the exact opposite of this shit on a forum in Russia.
Why, in your mind, is it 'shit' ?
If you @ me it's much easier for me to see when you have name-checked me. I might have missed this.
All very interesting your commentary, but pure fantasy and, as you seem keen to avoid acknowledging, motivated by your historical determinism. What you think or hope might happen won't necessarily happen.
This is a betting website. The idea is to discuss what may happen in the future, and come up with scenarios. Something you seem rather hesitant to do, preferring to carp from the sidelines.
"carp from the sidelines" = not jumping (with two feet) to conclusions based upon scant and incomplete evidence.
I have only carped at people who set out "likely" courses of action of the war and who point to various Youtube clips as proof if proof be needed of their hypothesis. Some even use footage from video games to support their positions.
Are you saying it's unlikely? Impossible?
So what's your alternative?
What's my alternative? What do I think will happen in the Russia-Ukraine war?
LOL. I have absolutely no idea.
If you think because PB is a betting site you have an obligation to call the course of the war then go for your life. Know only that it is complete bollocks.
Comments
That we have a government even asking this question shows how low down the morality tree we have been dragged. We do so very little compared to our neighbours. And whine bitterly about it. The west as a whole needs to collectively work on making these countries safer and more prosperous. Brown managed to do it - a diplomatic coordinated attack on unpayable debt. Written off. Breathing room for the poorest.
Fat chance of the Tories doing anything similar. Work with foreigners? Don't they know who we are?
If he holds that power over the base he's not losing. The others are still hoping for events to take him out, even though if he's charged with a crime you can put money on them still supporting him.
https://www.railtech.com/infrastructure/2023/01/20/ukrainian-railways-to-study-first-high-speed-rail-line-to-poland-in-european-gauge/
The initial plan seems to be to extend the standard gauge lines to Lviv.
Although the latter may be true as well, of course.
One day it will become obvious that the current international conventions cannot work, that the right to asylum must be limited and that only sane solution concerns the quality of government and governance in a large number of currently despotic countries.
The UN which governs the framework and attacks the west is the same UN whose members include all the countries people are legitimately fleeing.
So unless we want to give that up all of these ideas will be pointless. I assume the Tories don't actually want to do that because we like refugees from Ukraine and Hong Kong, so this is all just pointless grandstanding.
If you actually wanted to solve the problem you'd stop pissing off the French for a start.
What worries me more than anything mentioned in the thread is that the fact that the Conservatives are clearly trying to steal the GE through their blatant policies on voter suppression, taken from the Republican Party playlist.
Against that, I think the impact of the boundary changes can be overplayed. What needs to be remembered is that the current electoral geography is already incredibly favourable to the Conservatives. There will be a great variation from UNS, there always is, and it will be a lottery how that plays out. The potential downside from a random variation away from UNS is greater for the Conservatives than the upside, simply because the bias is already in their favour. So while the boundary changes will in themselves help the Conservatives, the odds are that the rest of the electoral geography will unwind slightly to counter that.
"The seats surrounding Leicester"
Lots of folk commute alonbg the Leicester-Peterborough railway.
LostPassword didn't say R&M was in Leicester He said surrounding seats. Which is exactly what R&M is.
And he didn't say Rutland he said Rutland and Melton. The constituency is in both Rutland and Leicestershire.
It's why attempts to realpolitik by suggesting doing nothing have not been heeded this time since demonstrably such a trade off will not stop Putinist ambitions, he wont stop there.
This is why the Ukrainian defence in places like Bakhmut and Vuhledar is so important. The aim is to inflict sufficiently heavy losses in manpower and equipment that the Russians are unable to hold their defensive lines elsewhere.
It's also why the people bemoaning the lack of recent Ukrainian advances are misunderstanding the nature of this war. Given heavy Russian losses in the current Russian offensive the conditions for a further Ukrainian advance are being created. A little patience is required.
The two things that would make a future Ukrainian advance more difficult would be a further Russian mobilization, and the supply of large quantities of ammunition and equipment from China.
What's your alternative, though ?
If we force a Ukrainian ceasefire, we effectively force the surrender of Ukraine (though that might take a number of years).
Crimea was a pretty good demonstration that territorial concessions to the current aggressor don't work.
But the net effect of this kind of inflammatory language will be to encourage anti-Tory tactical voting.
With those numbers, what will be on offer to the country is either a continuity of practical, sensibile government under Rishi Sunak; or an unstable Red-Green-Yellow-Purple coalition/something-less collection of arrangements, that will start to fall apart as soon as Starmer enters Downing Street.
There is no love out there on the doorsteps for Labour. Even less for a hotch-potch of parties fighting like ferrets in a sack. Do not be surprised if the exit poll surprises on the upside for the Tories.
There is a lot that will become obvious in hindsight when we see which side is able to conduct offensive operations later in the spring.
I know you can read. I was having a crack at the silliness of Rutland being it's own county, that's all, which accepted it was it's own entity you baffling man.
Who are you even arguing with when you pull this sort of thing? It isn't other posters as they aren't making the points you argue against.
Numerous colleagues who worked alongside Gray note that, while now in her mid-60s, she appeared in no mood to step back.
Her name had been touted by Business and Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch as a candidate for head of that department back in October when the position became vacant, according to a fourth government official.
However, as first reported by the Express — and confirmed to POLITICO by a person with knowledge of the process — Case was instrumental in blocking the move.
https://www.politico.eu/article/one-last-job-why-sue-gray-turned-her-back-on-whitehall-labour-keir-starmer-partygate/
For example, replacing Jez by beige is probably worth a decent number of seats to Labour. Even if they don't gain a single vote, fewer people will go to the trouble of voting to keep Labour out.
Has anyone run the numbers on this?
The puzzled middling sort (which is most people - look at the acceptance of Hong Kong and Ukraine refugees, and that 30% of babies in UK are born to foreign born mothers) deserve something better than liberal whining and blaming, and populist tabloid rubbish.
In truth the UK is harder to get to than many countries directly from a refugee state. Distance and the sea see to that (think Canada).
The two issues where the middling sort are correct in being puzzled are these: Why so many and so hard to remove from countries like Albania who should be white-listed. And, critically, How can it be right for us to have to accept people fleeing France.
Address those two specifically and middling opinion will support it, and neither extreme will prevail.
It's not lack of land and it's not lack of money to buy bricks or pay builders.
It's just that we don't want to build stuff. And that works less well as an excuse.
The policy of not building houses to match population is institutionally racist, incidentally.
He’s also quite intelligent, but has no empathy, moral centre (hence his regular flirtations with accelerationism, ‘dark enlightenment’ and authoritarianism) or - most damningly - humour. Exactly the sort of person who should never be let anywhere near government. He actually met his match in Johnson though, his equal in vanity.
Particularly when you consider that a fair chunk of our generation is state owned already - just that it's foreign states that own it.
State-owned electricity generation firm ‘could save Britons nearly £21bn a year’
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/07/state-owned-electricity-generation-firm-save-common-wealth
As @Roger’s chum put it “The only thing wrong with France, is that it’s full of the French”
- in 2009 just 33% thought homosexuality was justifiable, 66% now
- divorce went from 30% to 64%
- casual sex from 12% to 42%
- abortion from 20% to 48%
https://twitter.com/bobbyduffykings/status/1633021565099966471?s=46
So much to pull apart here. The whole 13-years-of-Conservative-government bit, of course, but also the idea that MPs are traitors for doing their job of scrutinising (almost certainly terrible, in this case) legislation.
But boats are the symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. It's what happens to these people when they get here that's the problem, which is a mixture of an intractable international problem, Home Office incompetence in processing claims and a political unwillingness to be honest about the issues.
All very interesting your commentary, but pure fantasy and, as you seem keen to avoid acknowledging, motivated by your historical determinism. What you think or hope might happen won't necessarily happen.
Either Putin will have reverse this (and start sending what he thinks of as proper Russians to the front) or he will be running out of man power much faster than the total running military age population suggests.
It requires a level of force that most people are very uncomfortable with.
Rutland, Stamford and the Stamford and Harborough Villages - Alicia Kearns
Melton & Syston - Ed Argar
spot the odd one out?
the correct answer to all of these is 'something in between', except for 'homosexuality' which is just who someone is and should never need to be 'justified'
Apols for not @ing you.
From the nadir that was Truss
Economic stability won some voters back
Windsor was an achievement and won some more back
It’s going to be a slow path of consistent execution and building credibility - the budget is probably the next opportunity
That’s a defensive strategy and may be it’s playing for a draw, but when you are an innings in and following on…
(Incidentally it’s the answer to the “why now” question on Sue Grey’s job. Starmer is trying to drag up the past to throw the Tories off their stride. I’d be surprised if she has a significant role in the new government- she’s being used.)
First, what does forcible removal look like? The concrete reality is probably less popular than those two words.
Second, what happens when you replace "those here illegally" with a face, name and story?
As we know, how you frame the question can affect the answer a lot.
That is actually far higher than I would have thought would be the case in the UK of 2023. Maybe hope for Jacob Rees Mogg and Kate Forbes yet?
Removal to France or other EU/EU applicant countries is not the same as removal to Syria or Afghanistan. And if it always occurred when people had come from a safe country then, as is the plan, the incentive to try to come would cease.
This of course should go along with capacity to apply from those countries for residence in the UK.
BTW does Labour have a policy? This is not going to be easy for anyone, including Labour.
Does the UK's racial mix look different for young and old people?
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/demographics/age-groups/latest
Median age: White 41, Asian 29, Black 30, Mixed 18, Other 30
I have only carped at people who set out "likely" courses of action of the war and who point to various Youtube clips as proof if proof be needed of their hypothesis. Some even use footage from video games to support their positions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutland_and_Melton_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
So what's your alternative?
We don't know how many people gave a score of 3-7, but we can be confident that some people will have done so, and that they wouldn't agree with your interpretation of their answer.
So only a minority of British voters still think abortion or casual sex are justifiable
In the case of housing, the limitation of supply means that better housing is occupied by the older, whiter population. Some ethnic minorities (of recent entrance to the U.K.) have horrific housing problems, relatively. In general, the later, less white, generations have worse and worse outcomes.
This is racism, as define by HMG.
In inner London only 42% own the property they live in with or without a mortgage now. In Outer London though 62% own the property they live in and in the UK overall 66% own the property they live in
https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/housing-tenure-borough
I think most people would assume the big change in attitudes was in the period 1997-2010, not 2010-present, so the findings are certainly interesting.
“The polling detail is less bad for the Tories for although they have lost perhaps a fifth of their GE2019 vote to LAB the shift has not been any more than that.”
How does this compare historically Mike?
How does the fifth shift compare with final shift Lab > Con 2010; Con > Lab 1997?
There are safe and legal routes for people to claim asylum in the UK. Not carte blanche for anyone who wants to though.
Stop posting that this is an unworkable policy horse. Just look at the polling where large chunks of Lab and Lib Dem voters are right behind Braverman and her policy, and Labour are about to vote against it.
Consider yourself a traitor to this great Country and it’s Way Of Life, Horse.
This is the fight against smugglers, crime, gangsters, drugs.
If we tolerate Labour blocking this, our own children will be next.
Met Office being extra jittery I suppose!
Labour seem to think they can arrest all the people smugglers and the problem goes away
The suggestion safe routes should include France/Calais would attract tens of thousands just making things worse
Unfortunately the debate is so polarised, but it is clear this is an important issue in the country
The debate today will be interesting
LOL. I have absolutely no idea.
If you think because PB is a betting site you have an obligation to call the course of the war then go for your life. Know only that it is complete bollocks.