The thing that has given me pause is the really, really negative numbers for Starmer in that sample.
That isn’t just a “meh, he’s ok”. That’s a full scale dislike. If that in any way holds then the Tory challenge is to try and weaponise that and get those people out to vote.
Agreed. But to really capitalise on the Starmer “meh” factor the Tories need a really good, charismatic leader as a contrast
That’s not Sunak (who is OK, but not inspiring) neither is it any of the leading candidates to replace him
The Tories need to go into opposition and find a hidden Blair or Thatcher
A big problem facing the Tories is their unpopularity with women - which is a big change from the normal. They will need to address that in opposition with a leadership team that demonstrably understands issues that concern female voters - and that means avoiding like the plague the sort of people they have elected in the past such as Tory boys (Hague, Cameron), wonks (Sunak), or idealogues (IDS).
Who does that leave? I would respectfully suggest a front-bench dominated by women of whom the Tories have quite a few options: Mordaunt, Badenoch, Donelan, Keegan to name but four. (Maybe not Braverman). With one of them leader, and the others in leading positions, post 2024 politics could become quite interesting.
My vote is braverman and I reckon she could be much more popular than the commentariat (which despises her) complacently assumes
Yeah, never misunderestimate a Cambridge educated lawyer, they are the best, particularly ones of Asian heritage.
Her speech at conference was the only half-decent showing by a member of the Cabinet and showed serious intent.
What, even better than Penny's lengthy and repetitive "Stand Up And Fight" performance?
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
Further to the (GE) betting. You can lay the highest 2 bands (151/200 and 201+) on betfair's Net Con Seat Losses market and get yourself the following profile:
Landslide: Lose £45 No Landslide: Win £100
This seems to me a nice book for people in the 'Labour lead is soft' camp.
Further to the (GE) betting. You can lay the highest 2 bands (151/200 and 201+) on betfair's Net Con Seat Losses market and get yourself the following profile:
Landslide: Lose £45 No Landslide: Win £100
This seems to me a nice book for people in the 'Labour lead is soft' camp.
A nice psychological hedge for anyone hoping for a 1997-style high.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
You present, yet again, the worst case as the base case. One can see why you were drawn to journalism. What are your views on the Australia-Hong Kong trade agreement?
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
But part of that treading is finding gainful, useful employment for the young men of Gaza. Otherwise they’ll simply reinvent Hamas.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
That strikes me as somewhat complacent. Sure all these regimes may have reasons to avoid escalation, but they are also sensibly alert to the feelings of the people. If Israel kills 30,000 Gazans, the demand for action might become irresistible, especially for more nervous governments
Hezbollah is the most likely source, they basically are the Lebanese army
Further to the (GE) betting. You can lay the highest 2 bands (151/200 and 201+) on betfair's Net Con Seat Losses market and get yourself the following profile:
Landslide: Lose £45 No Landslide: Win £100
This seems to me a nice book for people in the 'Labour lead is soft' camp.
A nice psychological hedge for anyone hoping for a 1997-style high.
Yep, you could do a lot worse than 'buy' a bit of that. If it does turn out a 'were you up for Mogg?' night, well what's a few quid. Course I'm a Pro so I don't do this sort of thing.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
Also bear in mind the following about Iran:
1. The Palestinians are Arab Sunnis. The Iranians are Persian Shias. The Ayatollahs don't really care about them and won't take any risks for them. 2. The Iranian regime has its own problems. All the young people hate them. 3. The presence of a US carrier battle group in the Med. A formidable deterrent.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
You present, yet again, the worst case as the base case. One can see why you were drawn to journalism. What are your views on the Australia-Hong Kong trade agreement?
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
You present, yet again, the worst case as the base case. One can see why you were drawn to journalism. What are your views on the Australia-Hong Kong trade agreement?
It is why 95% of journalists are painful parasites on society. They love bad news. Eternal pessimists who erroneously think that the world respects them because they can elegantly string a few words together (just), when in reality they are sicko gloom mongers who find it difficult not to show their excitement when they get to report on something grotesque. @Leon likes to point out things he claims he "called right" like some pigmy PB Donald Trump. Eg. "The lab leak" - not proven. He claims he "called right" on AI. lol. He doesn't understand the first thing about it. Aliens! Certain nuclear war (thankfully completely wrong), supported Johnson (dumb!) Truss (dumb), Brexit (dumber)
Only about 10% of 1992 Tories switched to Labour in 1997 and look how that worked out.
The Labour vote increased by 2m from 1992-7, some of which was LD tactical voting (the LD vote actually fell over the two elections, despite the LDs more than doubling their number of MPs).
By contrast, the Tory vote fell by fully 5m. Many 1992 Tories simply sat out the Blair landslide, content to watch it happen.
Given that Corbyn's gone, Brexit's done, Starmer's inoffensive and the Tories' rating is not so much down the toilet as through the sewage works and out into the river, it's easy to see why many 2019 Tories - and especially their first-time voters and those voting tactically to keep Labour out - could well simply abstain. I'd predict that many of that 23% DK will end up as DNV (and remember that for those who do return to the Tory fold, there are balancing 2019 Labour voters who are currently DK / LD / Grn who are, IMO, at least as likely to return, though not all will there either).
In other words, the dynamic that worked so strongly to Labour's favour is highly likely to repeat itself, albeit at lower levels of enthusiasm on both sides - as if we jump straight from 1992 to 2001.
The issue isn't how many 2019 Tory voters switch from the Tories to Labour it's how many more tory voters decide that it's not worth the hassle to go out and vote on a wet October evening...
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
You present, yet again, the worst case as the base case. One can see why you were drawn to journalism. What are your views on the Australia-Hong Kong trade agreement?
It is why 95% of journalists are painful parasites on society. They love bad news. Eternal pessimists who erroneously think that the world respects them because they can elegantly string a few words together (just), when in reality they are sicko gloom mongers who find it difficult not to show their excitement when they get to report on something grotesque. @Leon likes to point out things he claims he "called right" like some pigmy PB Donald Trump. Eg. "The lab leak" - not proven. He claims he "called right" on AI. lol. He doesn't understand the first thing about it. Aliens! Certain nuclear war (thankfully completely wrong), supported Johnson (dumb!) Truss (dumb), Brexit (dumber)
That's flint knappers dealt with. If you think about it, it's their job to strike sparks.
Argentina just released birth statistics for 2022, and the TFR just keeps on dropping. Last year it reached a new record low of 1.36 children per woman. Some provinces have already reached the ultra low levels common in Spain. https://twitter.com/BirthGauge/status/1719272596351369284
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
You present, yet again, the worst case as the base case. One can see why you were drawn to journalism. What are your views on the Australia-Hong Kong trade agreement?
The site is political betting. Assessment of risk is its essence.
And while something might not be likely *this time*, that doesn't mean it's not likely, sooner or later, if the scenario is replayed often enough.
Bear in mind the bigger picture too. Iran is the key backer of both Hamas and Hezbollah re Israel but also now a key backer of Russia (see the now energetic Russian support for the pro-Palestine Arab movement). The Gaza war is a distraction for American politicians in providing aid to Ukraine - cui bono?
Politics is generally messy, and diplomacy is just politics on a bigger stage. Conspiracy theories are usually wrong for many reasons but not least they assume a level of control over events that not only doesn't exist but cannot exist. However, that doesn't mean that interests don't align at times (or are perceived to, by those that matter, at least in triggering events).
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
That strikes me as somewhat complacent. Sure all these regimes may have reasons to avoid escalation, but they are also sensibly alert to the feelings of the people. If Israel kills 30,000 Gazans, the demand for action might become irresistible, especially for more nervous governments
Hezbollah is the most likely source, they basically are the Lebanese army
I'm struggling to see any compelling reason to prevent Bibi going in hard. The only thing that might possibly have a bearing is western pressure. But the significant countries are largely squared: US, UK and Germany. The only person with any leverage is Joe Biden whose administration will surely be active behind the scenes. The fact that he manifestly "gets" the pain of the Israelis, and Blinken is Jewish, is very helpful in this. Hopefully they can prevent the worst excesses.
Only about 10% of 1992 Tories switched to Labour in 1997 and look how that worked out.
The Labour vote increased by 2m from 1992-7, some of which was LD tactical voting (the LD vote actually fell over the two elections, despite the LDs more than doubling their number of MPs).
By contrast, the Tory vote fell by fully 5m. Many 1992 Tories simply sat out the Blair landslide, content to watch it happen.
Given that Corbyn's gone, Brexit's done, Starmer's inoffensive and the Tories' rating is not so much down the toilet as through the sewage works and out into the river, it's easy to see why many 2019 Tories - and especially their first-time voters and those voting tactically to keep Labour out - could well simply abstain. I'd predict that many of that 23% DK will end up as DNV (and remember that for those who do return to the Tory fold, there are balancing 2019 Labour voters who are currently DK / LD / Grn who are, IMO, at least as likely to return, though not all will there either).
In other words, the dynamic that worked so strongly to Labour's favour is highly likely to repeat itself, albeit at lower levels of enthusiasm on both sides - as if we jump straight from 1992 to 2001.
The issue isn't how many 2019 Tory voters switch from the Tories to Labour it's how many more tory voters decide that it's not worth the hassle to go out and vote on a wet October evening...
There is also a small contingent who used to be Conservative voters who refused to do so while Johnson who was in charge, but might do with Sunak there, particularly if there is a chance of a large Labour majority.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
I suspect the IDF will keep moving into Gaza for a week or two, flatten some more bits of it, throw grenades into Hamas tunnels. Then withdraw and say job done. The equivalent of the George W Bush "Mission Accomplished" banner. There will be rebuilding and humanitarian aid. Then in a few years the whole cycle of violence will start again.
What the last couple of weeks has revealed has been a wider problem, that of the trojan horse of antisemitism in the west. I am less worried about the Israelis slugging it out with Hamas, which seems to be part of an inevitable pattern of violence, than I am the morons chanting "gas the Jews" in Australia", daubing stars of David on the walls of Jewish homes in Paris, or chanting "from the river to the sea" right next to the bloody Kindertransport Memorial, without any sense of self-awareness. Ditto the "keep the world tidy" posters at protests while posters of kidnapped Israelis are torn down in major western cities, and people shout "Hitler was right" in Harvard Square.
Something very, very ugly has been exposed here. While the Middle East has always been a powder keg, we thought the stain of antisemitism was gone from Europe and the US. I fear that is the lasting consequence of the last few weeks. Not the Israeli/Palestinian cycle of violence, but resurgent antisemitism in the West, and how Jews around the world no longer feel safe.
Only about 10% of 1992 Tories switched to Labour in 1997 and look how that worked out.
The Labour vote increased by 2m from 1992-7, some of which was LD tactical voting (the LD vote actually fell over the two elections, despite the LDs more than doubling their number of MPs).
By contrast, the Tory vote fell by fully 5m. Many 1992 Tories simply sat out the Blair landslide, content to watch it happen.
Given that Corbyn's gone, Brexit's done, Starmer's inoffensive and the Tories' rating is not so much down the toilet as through the sewage works and out into the river, it's easy to see why many 2019 Tories - and especially their first-time voters and those voting tactically to keep Labour out - could well simply abstain. I'd predict that many of that 23% DK will end up as DNV (and remember that for those who do return to the Tory fold, there are balancing 2019 Labour voters who are currently DK / LD / Grn who are, IMO, at least as likely to return, though not all will there either).
In other words, the dynamic that worked so strongly to Labour's favour is highly likely to repeat itself, albeit at lower levels of enthusiasm on both sides - as if we jump straight from 1992 to 2001.
The issue isn't how many 2019 Tory voters switch from the Tories to Labour it's how many more tory voters decide that it's not worth the hassle to go out and vote on a wet October evening...
It's both.
And I expect it'll be a November evening. October would mean cancelling the conferences (or the Tory one anyway), and that's the only reliably decent chance Sunak or his successor will have to set the narrative to their favour.
Argentina just released birth statistics for 2022, and the TFR just keeps on dropping. Last year it reached a new record low of 1.36 children per woman. Some provinces have already reached the ultra low levels common in Spain. https://twitter.com/BirthGauge/status/1719272596351369284
It's happening everywhere. World population on the cusp of decline. Just in time, incidentally, for the robots to take over the empty space.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
You present, yet again, the worst case as the base case. One can see why you were drawn to journalism. What are your views on the Australia-Hong Kong trade agreement?
It is why 95% of journalists are painful parasites on society. They love bad news. Eternal pessimists who erroneously think that the world respects them because they can elegantly string a few words together (just), when in reality they are sicko gloom mongers who find it difficult not to show their excitement when they get to report on something grotesque. @Leon likes to point out things he claims he "called right" like some pigmy PB Donald Trump. Eg. "The lab leak" - not proven. He claims he "called right" on AI. lol. He doesn't understand the first thing about it. Aliens! Certain nuclear war (thankfully completely wrong), supported Johnson (dumb!) Truss (dumb), Brexit (dumber)
Still, I'm not as sheep-molestingly dumb as you, and certainly not as scrotum-tighteningly boring, so I have some small cause to console myself
New mortgage deal agreed. 2 year fix (as broker recommends avoiding 5 year deals as not enough of a discount vs risk of rates dropping in 2 years). £250 extra a month. Yay!
Only about 10% of 1992 Tories switched to Labour in 1997 and look how that worked out.
The Labour vote increased by 2m from 1992-7, some of which was LD tactical voting (the LD vote actually fell over the two elections, despite the LDs more than doubling their number of MPs).
By contrast, the Tory vote fell by fully 5m. Many 1992 Tories simply sat out the Blair landslide, content to watch it happen.
Given that Corbyn's gone, Brexit's done, Starmer's inoffensive and the Tories' rating is not so much down the toilet as through the sewage works and out into the river, it's easy to see why many 2019 Tories - and especially their first-time voters and those voting tactically to keep Labour out - could well simply abstain. I'd predict that many of that 23% DK will end up as DNV (and remember that for those who do return to the Tory fold, there are balancing 2019 Labour voters who are currently DK / LD / Grn who are, IMO, at least as likely to return, though not all will there either).
In other words, the dynamic that worked so strongly to Labour's favour is highly likely to repeat itself, albeit at lower levels of enthusiasm on both sides - as if we jump straight from 1992 to 2001.
The issue isn't how many 2019 Tory voters switch from the Tories to Labour it's how many more tory voters decide that it's not worth the hassle to go out and vote on a wet October evening...
It's both.
And I expect it'll be a November evening. October would mean cancelling the conferences (or the Tory one anyway), and that's the only reliably decent chance Sunak or his successor will have to set the narrative to their favour.
Or a cold evening in January. With snow either present or probable over much of the land. I’d say I was glad I’ve got a postal vote if the postal service round here wasn’t so crap.
Argentina just released birth statistics for 2022, and the TFR just keeps on dropping. Last year it reached a new record low of 1.36 children per woman. Some provinces have already reached the ultra low levels common in Spain. https://twitter.com/BirthGauge/status/1719272596351369284
It's happening everywhere. World population on the cusp of decline. Just in time, incidentally, for the robots to take over the empty space.
The two wars on at the moment have similar TFRs between the warring factions but markedly different from each other:
Only about 10% of 1992 Tories switched to Labour in 1997 and look how that worked out.
The Labour vote increased by 2m from 1992-7, some of which was LD tactical voting (the LD vote actually fell over the two elections, despite the LDs more than doubling their number of MPs).
By contrast, the Tory vote fell by fully 5m. Many 1992 Tories simply sat out the Blair landslide, content to watch it happen.
Given that Corbyn's gone, Brexit's done, Starmer's inoffensive and the Tories' rating is not so much down the toilet as through the sewage works and out into the river, it's easy to see why many 2019 Tories - and especially their first-time voters and those voting tactically to keep Labour out - could well simply abstain. I'd predict that many of that 23% DK will end up as DNV (and remember that for those who do return to the Tory fold, there are balancing 2019 Labour voters who are currently DK / LD / Grn who are, IMO, at least as likely to return, though not all will there either).
In other words, the dynamic that worked so strongly to Labour's favour is highly likely to repeat itself, albeit at lower levels of enthusiasm on both sides - as if we jump straight from 1992 to 2001.
The issue isn't how many 2019 Tory voters switch from the Tories to Labour it's how many more tory voters decide that it's not worth the hassle to go out and vote on a wet October evening...
It's both.
And I expect it'll be a November evening. October would mean cancelling the conferences (or the Tory one anyway), and that's the only reliably decent chance Sunak or his successor will have to set the narrative to their favour.
Or a cold evening in January. With snow either present or probable over much of the land. I’d say I was glad I’ve got a postal vote if the postal service round here wasn’t so crap.
No, I think stringing it out to January would look hopelessly lacking in self-confidence for the Tories once parliament returned in October (to do what?), and an election over Xmas and the New Year would piss off voters and journalists - not to mention activists - immensely.
Only about 10% of 1992 Tories switched to Labour in 1997 and look how that worked out.
The Labour vote increased by 2m from 1992-7, some of which was LD tactical voting (the LD vote actually fell over the two elections, despite the LDs more than doubling their number of MPs).
By contrast, the Tory vote fell by fully 5m. Many 1992 Tories simply sat out the Blair landslide, content to watch it happen.
Given that Corbyn's gone, Brexit's done, Starmer's inoffensive and the Tories' rating is not so much down the toilet as through the sewage works and out into the river, it's easy to see why many 2019 Tories - and especially their first-time voters and those voting tactically to keep Labour out - could well simply abstain. I'd predict that many of that 23% DK will end up as DNV (and remember that for those who do return to the Tory fold, there are balancing 2019 Labour voters who are currently DK / LD / Grn who are, IMO, at least as likely to return, though not all will there either).
In other words, the dynamic that worked so strongly to Labour's favour is highly likely to repeat itself, albeit at lower levels of enthusiasm on both sides - as if we jump straight from 1992 to 2001.
The issue isn't how many 2019 Tory voters switch from the Tories to Labour it's how many more tory voters decide that it's not worth the hassle to go out and vote on a wet October evening...
It's both.
And I expect it'll be a November evening. October would mean cancelling the conferences (or the Tory one anyway), and that's the only reliably decent chance Sunak or his successor will have to set the narrative to their favour.
From the looks of Labours last conference, you can pull in vital monies for the campaign.* Could financials turn Rishi's head?
*by selling bits of your dignity to the big outsourcers and shittifiers.
New mortgage deal agreed. 2 year fix (as broker recommends avoiding 5 year deals as not enough of a discount vs risk of rates dropping in 2 years). £250 extra a month. Yay!
I'm sure recommending 2 year deals over 5 year ones has nothing to do with his or her commission fees!
Argentina just released birth statistics for 2022, and the TFR just keeps on dropping. Last year it reached a new record low of 1.36 children per woman. Some provinces have already reached the ultra low levels common in Spain. https://twitter.com/BirthGauge/status/1719272596351369284
It's happening everywhere. World population on the cusp of decline. Just in time, incidentally, for the robots to take over the empty space.
Depopulation is palpable in Sicily. Offocially it has only lost 4% of its population since its peak but it feels like a whole lot more. Entire streets with no one there. Entire suburbs. Everyone gone
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
But part of that treading is finding gainful, useful employment for the young men of Gaza. Otherwise they’ll simply reinvent Hamas.
Interesting Harvard paper, co-authored by Ed Balls, on UK regional economic disparities, and how they might be addressed.
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/mrcbg/files/198_AWP_final.pdf ...In this context, what should policy focus on? In this paper, we emphasise the large and persistent productivity differentials between London and its environs and the rest of the UK – driven largely by the underperformance of non-London cities – as the key force underlying the UK’s persistent regional economic inequality. This suggests a central focus for policy seeking to “level up” lagging regions: boosting productivity in regions outside London and the broader South of England, with a focus in particular on high productivity potential urban agglomerations.
How to do this? ... ..we find evidence consistent with (i) specific shortages of STEM degree-level skills; (ii) binding transport infrastructure constraints within major non-London conurbations; (iii) a failure of public innovation policy to support clusters beyond the South East, in particular through the regional distribution of public support for Research and Development (R&D); and (iv) missed opportunities for higher internal mobility due to London’s overheating housing market.64
The relative importance of each of the factors we have identified depends on the underlying economic model. If regional economies best approximate the neoclassical model, alleviating constraints on STEM education and transport infrastructure will be paramount (alongside ensuring that general education and skills keep pace with firms’ demand). If knowledge spillovers are fundamentally important to innovative activity and the generation of high-productivity clusters in the UK’s non-London city-regions, doing more to increase public investment in R&D in areas outside London and the greater South East may be the most important. If the forces generating path dependency in formerly industrialised regions and agglomeration economies in the greater London area are too strong, it may be very difficult for policy to do much to stimulate productivity growth in the UK’s other city-regions. This might mean that the only policy tool remaining is improving housing affordability to allow people to move to opportunity – enabling equality of opportunity for individuals from each region, even if not equality of outcome across regions...
I applaud the mention of a ((fairly dismal) third option - nothing can be done except build a lot more homes in the Southeast.
Only about 10% of 1992 Tories switched to Labour in 1997 and look how that worked out.
The Labour vote increased by 2m from 1992-7, some of which was LD tactical voting (the LD vote actually fell over the two elections, despite the LDs more than doubling their number of MPs).
By contrast, the Tory vote fell by fully 5m. Many 1992 Tories simply sat out the Blair landslide, content to watch it happen.
Given that Corbyn's gone, Brexit's done, Starmer's inoffensive and the Tories' rating is not so much down the toilet as through the sewage works and out into the river, it's easy to see why many 2019 Tories - and especially their first-time voters and those voting tactically to keep Labour out - could well simply abstain. I'd predict that many of that 23% DK will end up as DNV (and remember that for those who do return to the Tory fold, there are balancing 2019 Labour voters who are currently DK / LD / Grn who are, IMO, at least as likely to return, though not all will there either).
In other words, the dynamic that worked so strongly to Labour's favour is highly likely to repeat itself, albeit at lower levels of enthusiasm on both sides - as if we jump straight from 1992 to 2001.
The issue isn't how many 2019 Tory voters switch from the Tories to Labour it's how many more tory voters decide that it's not worth the hassle to go out and vote on a wet October evening...
It's both.
And I expect it'll be a November evening. October would mean cancelling the conferences (or the Tory one anyway), and that's the only reliably decent chance Sunak or his successor will have to set the narrative to their favour.
Or a cold evening in January. With snow either present or probable over much of the land. I’d say I was glad I’ve got a postal vote if the postal service round here wasn’t so crap.
No, I think stringing it out to January would look hopelessly lacking in self-confidence for the Tories once parliament returned in October (to do what?), and an election over Xmas and the New Year would piss off voters and journalists - not to mention activists - immensely.
While I largely agree with you, if nothing has, so far, turned up to benefit the Government, there might be the temptation to hang on in the hope that ‘something’ will!
Only about 10% of 1992 Tories switched to Labour in 1997 and look how that worked out.
The Labour vote increased by 2m from 1992-7, some of which was LD tactical voting (the LD vote actually fell over the two elections, despite the LDs more than doubling their number of MPs).
By contrast, the Tory vote fell by fully 5m. Many 1992 Tories simply sat out the Blair landslide, content to watch it happen.
Given that Corbyn's gone, Brexit's done, Starmer's inoffensive and the Tories' rating is not so much down the toilet as through the sewage works and out into the river, it's easy to see why many 2019 Tories - and especially their first-time voters and those voting tactically to keep Labour out - could well simply abstain. I'd predict that many of that 23% DK will end up as DNV (and remember that for those who do return to the Tory fold, there are balancing 2019 Labour voters who are currently DK / LD / Grn who are, IMO, at least as likely to return, though not all will there either).
In other words, the dynamic that worked so strongly to Labour's favour is highly likely to repeat itself, albeit at lower levels of enthusiasm on both sides - as if we jump straight from 1992 to 2001.
The issue isn't how many 2019 Tory voters switch from the Tories to Labour it's how many more tory voters decide that it's not worth the hassle to go out and vote on a wet October evening...
It's both.
And I expect it'll be a November evening. October would mean cancelling the conferences (or the Tory one anyway), and that's the only reliably decent chance Sunak or his successor will have to set the narrative to their favour.
Or a cold evening in January. With snow either present or probable over much of the land. I’d say I was glad I’ve got a postal vote if the postal service round here wasn’t so crap.
No, I think stringing it out to January would look hopelessly lacking in self-confidence for the Tories once parliament returned in October (to do what?), and an election over Xmas and the New Year would piss off voters and journalists - not to mention activists - immensely.
Rishi will surely call the election at the Cons Party COnference in Sept/Oct. Polling day in November.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
But part of that treading is finding gainful, useful employment for the young men of Gaza. Otherwise they’ll simply reinvent Hamas.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
But part of that treading is finding gainful, useful employment for the young men of Gaza. Otherwise they’ll simply reinvent Hamas.
That would logical, intelligent and humane.
We are discussing Middle East politics here.
You are cynical. I am basically an optimist. Though God knows why I should be when, as you point out, we are discussing Middle Eastern politics.
Only about 10% of 1992 Tories switched to Labour in 1997 and look how that worked out.
The Labour vote increased by 2m from 1992-7, some of which was LD tactical voting (the LD vote actually fell over the two elections, despite the LDs more than doubling their number of MPs).
By contrast, the Tory vote fell by fully 5m. Many 1992 Tories simply sat out the Blair landslide, content to watch it happen.
Given that Corbyn's gone, Brexit's done, Starmer's inoffensive and the Tories' rating is not so much down the toilet as through the sewage works and out into the river, it's easy to see why many 2019 Tories - and especially their first-time voters and those voting tactically to keep Labour out - could well simply abstain. I'd predict that many of that 23% DK will end up as DNV (and remember that for those who do return to the Tory fold, there are balancing 2019 Labour voters who are currently DK / LD / Grn who are, IMO, at least as likely to return, though not all will there either).
In other words, the dynamic that worked so strongly to Labour's favour is highly likely to repeat itself, albeit at lower levels of enthusiasm on both sides - as if we jump straight from 1992 to 2001.
The issue isn't how many 2019 Tory voters switch from the Tories to Labour it's how many more tory voters decide that it's not worth the hassle to go out and vote on a wet October evening...
There is also a small contingent who used to be Conservative voters who refused to do so while Johnson who was in charge, but might do with Sunak there, particularly if there is a chance of a large Labour majority.
That's a useful, if minor, point. It certainly applies to Scotland which possibly helps to explain a bit why the Tory vote appears to be holding up north of the border. Boris was definitely a drag in 2019 in complete contrast with Northern England.
Every year I forget, kind of. Then every year late autumn comes along and WHAM, and with the sure and certain knowledge that winter lurks beyond
It’s the dreaded rundown to Christmas too…
I enjoy Christmas, I am not a Scrooge. But I don’t like the fact that at this time of year you have to juggle work, with shit weather, with cold and flu season, and on top of all that, all the organisation for the busiest social time of the year.
Give me January any day. At least then you’re just coping with the work and the shit weather.
Argentina just released birth statistics for 2022, and the TFR just keeps on dropping. Last year it reached a new record low of 1.36 children per woman. Some provinces have already reached the ultra low levels common in Spain. https://twitter.com/BirthGauge/status/1719272596351369284
It's happening everywhere. World population on the cusp of decline. Just in time, incidentally, for the robots to take over the empty space.
Depopulation is palpable in Sicily. Offocially it has only lost 4% of its population since its peak but it feels like a whole lot more. Entire streets with no one there. Entire suburbs. Everyone gone
I understand declining populations also become more urban over time, which makes sense given young vs old demographics plus the usual drift of young adults to the cities, and means you'd expect to see a very visible depopulation of rural areas first.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
But part of that treading is finding gainful, useful employment for the young men of Gaza. Otherwise they’ll simply reinvent Hamas.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
But part of that treading is finding gainful, useful employment for the young men of Gaza. Otherwise they’ll simply reinvent Hamas.
That would logical, intelligent and humane.
We are discussing Middle East politics here.
You are cynical. I am basically an optimist. Though God knows why I should be when, as you point out, we are discussing Middle Eastern politics.
It’s not cynical to observe the same action (or inaction) repeated, multiple times, over decades and predicting that the same actions will be done again.
Argentina just released birth statistics for 2022, and the TFR just keeps on dropping. Last year it reached a new record low of 1.36 children per woman. Some provinces have already reached the ultra low levels common in Spain. https://twitter.com/BirthGauge/status/1719272596351369284
It's happening everywhere. World population on the cusp of decline. Just in time, incidentally, for the robots to take over the empty space.
Depopulation is palpable in Sicily. Offocially it has only lost 4% of its population since its peak but it feels like a whole lot more. Entire streets with no one there. Entire suburbs. Everyone gone
A suspended Labour MP is suing the Conservative MP Chris Clarkson, who accused him of “seeking to justify the murderous actions of Hamas” in the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Andy McDonald, who represents the Middlesbrough constituency, said much of what he has said over the last few days about recent events in Israel and Palestine had been “deliberately distorted and misinterpreted”.
The 65-year-old MP was placed on “precautionary suspension” on Monday, as a Labour party spokesman said the comments he made that included the words “between the river and the sea” at a pro-Palestine rally were “deeply offensive”.
Some pro-Palestinian protesters have chanted “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” during recent demonstrations in London.
McDonald said: “In my speech to a mass rally on 28 October 2023, I called for peace in the Israel-Gaza war and in particular for an immediate comprehensively-binding ceasefire.
“I said: ‘We will not rest until we have justice. Until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea, can live in peaceful liberty.’
“Mr Clarkson’s statement is highly defamatory and caused serious harm to my reputation.
“I am not prepared to stand by, while an MP or others peddle the lie that I have sought to justify the actions of Hamas on 7 October 2023, including the awful murder of 1,400 people in Israel.”
The Guardian understands Clarkson is aware of the action, and was unable to comment because the process has started.
ON TOPIC - I realise this has become quite a hot topic more recently - probably because of Labour's big leads, and the Tories antics over the last few years, but is it so much more significant than in the past?
I thought one of the changes that polling companies made after past elections, was to redistribute a percentage of don't knows back to their previous vote. Was I imagining this, or does it still happen?
Argentina just released birth statistics for 2022, and the TFR just keeps on dropping. Last year it reached a new record low of 1.36 children per woman. Some provinces have already reached the ultra low levels common in Spain. https://twitter.com/BirthGauge/status/1719272596351369284
It's happening everywhere. World population on the cusp of decline. Just in time, incidentally, for the robots to take over the empty space.
Depopulation is palpable in Sicily. Offocially it has only lost 4% of its population since its peak but it feels like a whole lot more. Entire streets with no one there. Entire suburbs. Everyone gone
Despite Inspector Montalbano? Blimey.
Though having said that, the streets of Sicily always appeared eerily empty of people whenever I watched it.
Every year I forget, kind of. Then every year late autumn comes along and WHAM, and with the sure and certain knowledge that winter lurks beyond
It’s the dreaded rundown to Christmas too…
I enjoy Christmas, I am not a Scrooge. But I don’t like the fact that at this time of year you have to juggle work, with shit weather, with cold and flu season, and on top of all that, all the organisation for the busiest social time of the year.
Give me January any day. At least then you’re just coping with the work and the shit weather.
I quite enjoy in a hatey way the damp darkness and shitness. It is seasonal and I like weather and moods to be seasonal. In recent years we seem to have developed a proper rainy season from mid October to late November, something we can really moan about.
It's the time of year to sit in pubs in the gloaming of late Sunday afternoon with Gerry Rafferty's Baker Street playing, or possibly David Gray's Babylon, and to ponder on the passing of time. Which reminds me it must be a full 12 months since I posted on that topic here on PB.
A suspended Labour MP is suing the Conservative MP Chris Clarkson, who accused him of “seeking to justify the murderous actions of Hamas” in the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Andy McDonald, who represents the Middlesbrough constituency, said much of what he has said over the last few days about recent events in Israel and Palestine had been “deliberately distorted and misinterpreted”.
The 65-year-old MP was placed on “precautionary suspension” on Monday, as a Labour party spokesman said the comments he made that included the words “between the river and the sea” at a pro-Palestine rally were “deeply offensive”.
Some pro-Palestinian protesters have chanted “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” during recent demonstrations in London.
McDonald said: “In my speech to a mass rally on 28 October 2023, I called for peace in the Israel-Gaza war and in particular for an immediate comprehensively-binding ceasefire.
“I said: ‘We will not rest until we have justice. Until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea, can live in peaceful liberty.’
“Mr Clarkson’s statement is highly defamatory and caused serious harm to my reputation.
“I am not prepared to stand by, while an MP or others peddle the lie that I have sought to justify the actions of Hamas on 7 October 2023, including the awful murder of 1,400 people in Israel.”
The Guardian understands Clarkson is aware of the action, and was unable to comment because the process has started.
A suspended Labour MP is suing the Conservative MP Chris Clarkson, who accused him of “seeking to justify the murderous actions of Hamas” in the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Andy McDonald, who represents the Middlesbrough constituency, said much of what he has said over the last few days about recent events in Israel and Palestine had been “deliberately distorted and misinterpreted”.
The 65-year-old MP was placed on “precautionary suspension” on Monday, as a Labour party spokesman said the comments he made that included the words “between the river and the sea” at a pro-Palestine rally were “deeply offensive”.
Some pro-Palestinian protesters have chanted “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” during recent demonstrations in London.
McDonald said: “In my speech to a mass rally on 28 October 2023, I called for peace in the Israel-Gaza war and in particular for an immediate comprehensively-binding ceasefire.
“I said: ‘We will not rest until we have justice. Until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea, can live in peaceful liberty.’
“Mr Clarkson’s statement is highly defamatory and caused serious harm to my reputation.
“I am not prepared to stand by, while an MP or others peddle the lie that I have sought to justify the actions of Hamas on 7 October 2023, including the awful murder of 1,400 people in Israel.”
The Guardian understands Clarkson is aware of the action, and was unable to comment because the process has started.
I'm not a lawyer but if I were a friend of Clarkson, I'd advise him to seek the best deal he can, now. McDonald's use of the phrase was stupid given its connotations but within the context of his speech can't be seen as anything other than a geographical description.
However, as I'm not his friend, a court battle would be much funnier.
A suspended Labour MP is suing the Conservative MP Chris Clarkson, who accused him of “seeking to justify the murderous actions of Hamas” in the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Andy McDonald, who represents the Middlesbrough constituency, said much of what he has said over the last few days about recent events in Israel and Palestine had been “deliberately distorted and misinterpreted”.
The 65-year-old MP was placed on “precautionary suspension” on Monday, as a Labour party spokesman said the comments he made that included the words “between the river and the sea” at a pro-Palestine rally were “deeply offensive”.
Some pro-Palestinian protesters have chanted “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” during recent demonstrations in London.
McDonald said: “In my speech to a mass rally on 28 October 2023, I called for peace in the Israel-Gaza war and in particular for an immediate comprehensively-binding ceasefire.
“I said: ‘We will not rest until we have justice. Until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea, can live in peaceful liberty.’
“Mr Clarkson’s statement is highly defamatory and caused serious harm to my reputation.
“I am not prepared to stand by, while an MP or others peddle the lie that I have sought to justify the actions of Hamas on 7 October 2023, including the awful murder of 1,400 people in Israel.”
The Guardian understands Clarkson is aware of the action, and was unable to comment because the process has started.
Only about 10% of 1992 Tories switched to Labour in 1997 and look how that worked out.
The Labour vote increased by 2m from 1992-7, some of which was LD tactical voting (the LD vote actually fell over the two elections, despite the LDs more than doubling their number of MPs).
By contrast, the Tory vote fell by fully 5m. Many 1992 Tories simply sat out the Blair landslide, content to watch it happen.
Given that Corbyn's gone, Brexit's done, Starmer's inoffensive and the Tories' rating is not so much down the toilet as through the sewage works and out into the river, it's easy to see why many 2019 Tories - and especially their first-time voters and those voting tactically to keep Labour out - could well simply abstain. I'd predict that many of that 23% DK will end up as DNV (and remember that for those who do return to the Tory fold, there are balancing 2019 Labour voters who are currently DK / LD / Grn who are, IMO, at least as likely to return, though not all will there either).
In other words, the dynamic that worked so strongly to Labour's favour is highly likely to repeat itself, albeit at lower levels of enthusiasm on both sides - as if we jump straight from 1992 to 2001.
The issue isn't how many 2019 Tory voters switch from the Tories to Labour it's how many more tory voters decide that it's not worth the hassle to go out and vote on a wet October evening...
It's both.
And I expect it'll be a November evening. October would mean cancelling the conferences (or the Tory one anyway), and that's the only reliably decent chance Sunak or his successor will have to set the narrative to their favour.
Or a cold evening in January. With snow either present or probable over much of the land. I’d say I was glad I’ve got a postal vote if the postal service round here wasn’t so crap.
No, I think stringing it out to January would look hopelessly lacking in self-confidence for the Tories once parliament returned in October (to do what?), and an election over Xmas and the New Year would piss off voters and journalists - not to mention activists - immensely.
Rishi will surely call the election at the Cons Party COnference in Sept/Oct. Polling day in November.
Yes, that's been my expectation pretty much since Truss was elected.
Argentina just released birth statistics for 2022, and the TFR just keeps on dropping. Last year it reached a new record low of 1.36 children per woman. Some provinces have already reached the ultra low levels common in Spain. https://twitter.com/BirthGauge/status/1719272596351369284
It's happening everywhere. World population on the cusp of decline. Just in time, incidentally, for the robots to take over the empty space.
Depopulation is palpable in Sicily. Offocially it has only lost 4% of its population since its peak but it feels like a whole lot more. Entire streets with no one there. Entire suburbs. Everyone gone
Every year I forget, kind of. Then every year late autumn comes along and WHAM, and with the sure and certain knowledge that winter lurks beyond
You've got to live in the moment. Appreciate and make the most of what this time of year brings. Eg I change from lager to bitter once November comes. Rather than being outside in the warm sun with an Estrella as I would have been just a few weeks ago, or would be now if I were in Florida or Tenerife, I sit inside with a pint of Old Wallop.
Completely off-topic (sorry!) - but wondering if any one can help.
I've moved to a new apartment building with its own completely new Postcode (registered with the post-office in July 23). Ir's valid at the Post Office therefore as a mailing address. Postcode is failing to appear either in Google Maps or Apple Maps, and very few companies recognise it in their databases- which is a pain for insurance, deliveries and even would you believe it registering to vote and Council Tax (Local Council don't even recognise the Postcode!!)
I've badgered Apple and Google Maps reporting to add the new address without any luck. How long do new Postcodes take to be recognised?
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
But part of that treading is finding gainful, useful employment for the young men of Gaza. Otherwise they’ll simply reinvent Hamas.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
But part of that treading is finding gainful, useful employment for the young men of Gaza. Otherwise they’ll simply reinvent Hamas.
That would logical, intelligent and humane.
We are discussing Middle East politics here.
You are cynical. I am basically an optimist. Though God knows why I should be when, as you point out, we are discussing Middle Eastern politics.
It’s not cynical to observe the same action (or inaction) repeated, multiple times, over decades and predicting that the same actions will be done again.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
But part of that treading is finding gainful, useful employment for the young men of Gaza. Otherwise they’ll simply reinvent Hamas.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
But part of that treading is finding gainful, useful employment for the young men of Gaza. Otherwise they’ll simply reinvent Hamas.
That would logical, intelligent and humane.
We are discussing Middle East politics here.
You are cynical. I am basically an optimist. Though God knows why I should be when, as you point out, we are discussing Middle Eastern politics.
It’s not cynical to observe the same action (or inaction) repeated, multiple times, over decades and predicting that the same actions will be done again.
Repeating the same action and hoping for a different result = madness.
"Using the Synthetic Control Method, we estimate the causal effect of not implementing a mandatory lockdown in Sweden in the period from the end of February 2020 to the end of September 2020, a time when vaccines were as yet not available. We find that not imposing a mandatory lockdown resulted in a lower reduction of mobility and a substantial increase in mortality. Our results indicates that up to about 4411 of the 46554 deaths registered in Sweden during this period could have been avoided had Sweden implemented a mandatory lockdown."
Only about 10% of 1992 Tories switched to Labour in 1997 and look how that worked out.
The Labour vote increased by 2m from 1992-7, some of which was LD tactical voting (the LD vote actually fell over the two elections, despite the LDs more than doubling their number of MPs).
By contrast, the Tory vote fell by fully 5m. Many 1992 Tories simply sat out the Blair landslide, content to watch it happen.
Given that Corbyn's gone, Brexit's done, Starmer's inoffensive and the Tories' rating is not so much down the toilet as through the sewage works and out into the river, it's easy to see why many 2019 Tories - and especially their first-time voters and those voting tactically to keep Labour out - could well simply abstain. I'd predict that many of that 23% DK will end up as DNV (and remember that for those who do return to the Tory fold, there are balancing 2019 Labour voters who are currently DK / LD / Grn who are, IMO, at least as likely to return, though not all will there either).
In other words, the dynamic that worked so strongly to Labour's favour is highly likely to repeat itself, albeit at lower levels of enthusiasm on both sides - as if we jump straight from 1992 to 2001.
The issue isn't how many 2019 Tory voters switch from the Tories to Labour it's how many more tory voters decide that it's not worth the hassle to go out and vote on a wet October evening...
It's both.
And I expect it'll be a November evening. October would mean cancelling the conferences (or the Tory one anyway), and that's the only reliably decent chance Sunak or his successor will have to set the narrative to their favour.
Or a cold evening in January. With snow either present or probable over much of the land. I’d say I was glad I’ve got a postal vote if the postal service round here wasn’t so crap.
No, I think stringing it out to January would look hopelessly lacking in self-confidence for the Tories once parliament returned in October (to do what?), and an election over Xmas and the New Year would piss off voters and journalists - not to mention activists - immensely.
Rishi will surely call the election at the Cons Party COnference in Sept/Oct. Polling day in November.
Yes, that's been my expectation pretty much since Truss was elected.
You were expecting Rishi Sunak to be calling the next GE once Liz Truss became PM? That's impressively prescient.
"Using the Synthetic Control Method, we estimate the causal effect of not implementing a mandatory lockdown in Sweden in the period from the end of February 2020 to the end of September 2020, a time when vaccines were as yet not available. We find that not imposing a mandatory lockdown resulted in a lower reduction of mobility and a substantial increase in mortality. Our results indicates that up to about 4411 of the 46554 deaths registered in Sweden during this period could have been avoided had Sweden implemented a mandatory lockdown."
I'd have rather taken my chances with death than be subjected to house arrest for another moment.
A suspended Labour MP is suing the Conservative MP Chris Clarkson, who accused him of “seeking to justify the murderous actions of Hamas” in the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Andy McDonald, who represents the Middlesbrough constituency, said much of what he has said over the last few days about recent events in Israel and Palestine had been “deliberately distorted and misinterpreted”.
The 65-year-old MP was placed on “precautionary suspension” on Monday, as a Labour party spokesman said the comments he made that included the words “between the river and the sea” at a pro-Palestine rally were “deeply offensive”.
Some pro-Palestinian protesters have chanted “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” during recent demonstrations in London.
McDonald said: “In my speech to a mass rally on 28 October 2023, I called for peace in the Israel-Gaza war and in particular for an immediate comprehensively-binding ceasefire.
“I said: ‘We will not rest until we have justice. Until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea, can live in peaceful liberty.’
“Mr Clarkson’s statement is highly defamatory and caused serious harm to my reputation.
“I am not prepared to stand by, while an MP or others peddle the lie that I have sought to justify the actions of Hamas on 7 October 2023, including the awful murder of 1,400 people in Israel.”
The Guardian understands Clarkson is aware of the action, and was unable to comment because the process has started.
I'm not a lawyer but if I were a friend of Clarkson, I'd advise him to seek the best deal he can, now. McDonald's use of the phrase was stupid given its connotations but within the context of his speech can't be seen as anything other than a geographical description.
However, as I'm not his friend, a court battle would be much funnier.
It's fairly clear cut. Clarkson tweeted that McDonald sought to "justify the murderous actions of Hamas". McDonald has done no such thing, either in his rally speech or elsewhere. Indeed, he has clearly condemned the murderous rampage of Hamas on October 7.
Your advice would be good if Clarkson had any friends, but I rather doubt that. Nevertheless, I expect a grovelling apology shortly.
Politico.com - Opinion | Why Nikki Haley Might Become Donald Trump’s Biggest Rival There’s a reason she might eclipse Ron DeSantis.
Rich Lowry is a contributing writer for POLITICO Magazine and the editor-in-chief of the National Review, a conservative news and opinion publication.
Nikki Haley isn’t exactly sweeping all before her, but she’s had a sustained rise that marks one of the major events in a presidential primary race with few new dynamics.
She’s tied with Ron DeSantis for second in Iowa, and is in second place in New Hampshire and South Carolina. She’s still not remotely close to Donald Trump in the 2024 Republican contest, but to have caught or overtaken DeSantis — given the buzz that the Florida governor had earlier in the year — is an accomplishment in itself.
In New Hampshire, a St. Anselm poll in March had Trump at 42 percent, DeSantis at 29 and Haley at 4. The latest USA Today poll in the state had Trump at 49 percent, Haley at 19 and DeSantis at 10.
Now, this may be inconsequential shuffling among no-hope candidates; it certainly is if Trump stays at roughly 50 percent. Worse, Haley eclipsing DeSantis may mean a candidate lacking broad-enough appeal in the party to win a majority is nudging aside the candidate with, in theory, the right profile to get to 50 percent plus 1.
That said, rising is better than falling, and running a campaign that has shown results is better than running one that hasn’t. Why has she ascended and what does it mean?
Haley has been helped immeasurably by the debates, where she’s been cogent, well-informed and combative. She’s tapped into the tough and unapologetic Thatcherite model of what a female politician should be that’s still so resonant for Republicans.
There was a tendency to pair her at the outset of the race with Sen. Tim Scott, a fellow South Carolinian who also has a more conventional Republican message. Scott, though, has been outworked and outperformed by the former governor. . . .
The DeSantis approach to the race has been inside-out — establish a spot in the center of the MAGA-ish Republican Party, and expand on both edges, winning enough Trump-friendly and Trump-skeptical voters to get to a winning plurality or a majority.
The Haley approach has been outside-in — establish dominance among the Trump-skeptical wing of the party and then use that strength to eat into soft Trump supporters willing to give her a look as she rises. . . .
One problem, though, is that DeSantis has always been subject to two different pincer movements — from above and below, and from MAGA and non-MAGA.
From above, because Trump has attacked him more than anyone else, and from below, because everyone else has had an incentive to try to overtake him for second place. . . .
A suspended Labour MP is suing the Conservative MP Chris Clarkson, who accused him of “seeking to justify the murderous actions of Hamas” in the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Andy McDonald, who represents the Middlesbrough constituency, said much of what he has said over the last few days about recent events in Israel and Palestine had been “deliberately distorted and misinterpreted”.
The 65-year-old MP was placed on “precautionary suspension” on Monday, as a Labour party spokesman said the comments he made that included the words “between the river and the sea” at a pro-Palestine rally were “deeply offensive”.
Some pro-Palestinian protesters have chanted “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” during recent demonstrations in London.
McDonald said: “In my speech to a mass rally on 28 October 2023, I called for peace in the Israel-Gaza war and in particular for an immediate comprehensively-binding ceasefire.
“I said: ‘We will not rest until we have justice. Until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea, can live in peaceful liberty.’
“Mr Clarkson’s statement is highly defamatory and caused serious harm to my reputation.
“I am not prepared to stand by, while an MP or others peddle the lie that I have sought to justify the actions of Hamas on 7 October 2023, including the awful murder of 1,400 people in Israel.”
The Guardian understands Clarkson is aware of the action, and was unable to comment because the process has started.
I'm not a lawyer but if I were a friend of Clarkson, I'd advise him to seek the best deal he can, now. McDonald's use of the phrase was stupid given its connotations but within the context of his speech can't be seen as anything other than a geographical description.
However, as I'm not his friend, a court battle would be much funnier.
I am positively tumescent at the idea of one MP suing another MP.
This would be more entertaining than the Wagatha Christie trial.
A suspended Labour MP is suing the Conservative MP Chris Clarkson, who accused him of “seeking to justify the murderous actions of Hamas” in the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Andy McDonald, who represents the Middlesbrough constituency, said much of what he has said over the last few days about recent events in Israel and Palestine had been “deliberately distorted and misinterpreted”.
The 65-year-old MP was placed on “precautionary suspension” on Monday, as a Labour party spokesman said the comments he made that included the words “between the river and the sea” at a pro-Palestine rally were “deeply offensive”.
Some pro-Palestinian protesters have chanted “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” during recent demonstrations in London.
McDonald said: “In my speech to a mass rally on 28 October 2023, I called for peace in the Israel-Gaza war and in particular for an immediate comprehensively-binding ceasefire.
“I said: ‘We will not rest until we have justice. Until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea, can live in peaceful liberty.’
“Mr Clarkson’s statement is highly defamatory and caused serious harm to my reputation.
“I am not prepared to stand by, while an MP or others peddle the lie that I have sought to justify the actions of Hamas on 7 October 2023, including the awful murder of 1,400 people in Israel.”
The Guardian understands Clarkson is aware of the action, and was unable to comment because the process has started.
I'm not a lawyer but if I were a friend of Clarkson, I'd advise him to seek the best deal he can, now. McDonald's use of the phrase was stupid given its connotations but within the context of his speech can't be seen as anything other than a geographical description.
However, as I'm not his friend, a court battle would be much funnier.
I am positively tumescent at the idea of one MP suing another MP.
This would be more entertaining than the Wagatha Christie trial.
But far less uplifting, in whatever ways one may be uplifted.
A suspended Labour MP is suing the Conservative MP Chris Clarkson, who accused him of “seeking to justify the murderous actions of Hamas” in the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Andy McDonald, who represents the Middlesbrough constituency, said much of what he has said over the last few days about recent events in Israel and Palestine had been “deliberately distorted and misinterpreted”.
The 65-year-old MP was placed on “precautionary suspension” on Monday, as a Labour party spokesman said the comments he made that included the words “between the river and the sea” at a pro-Palestine rally were “deeply offensive”.
Some pro-Palestinian protesters have chanted “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” during recent demonstrations in London.
McDonald said: “In my speech to a mass rally on 28 October 2023, I called for peace in the Israel-Gaza war and in particular for an immediate comprehensively-binding ceasefire.
“I said: ‘We will not rest until we have justice. Until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea, can live in peaceful liberty.’
“Mr Clarkson’s statement is highly defamatory and caused serious harm to my reputation.
“I am not prepared to stand by, while an MP or others peddle the lie that I have sought to justify the actions of Hamas on 7 October 2023, including the awful murder of 1,400 people in Israel.”
The Guardian understands Clarkson is aware of the action, and was unable to comment because the process has started.
Only about 10% of 1992 Tories switched to Labour in 1997 and look how that worked out.
The Labour vote increased by 2m from 1992-7, some of which was LD tactical voting (the LD vote actually fell over the two elections, despite the LDs more than doubling their number of MPs).
By contrast, the Tory vote fell by fully 5m. Many 1992 Tories simply sat out the Blair landslide, content to watch it happen.
Given that Corbyn's gone, Brexit's done, Starmer's inoffensive and the Tories' rating is not so much down the toilet as through the sewage works and out into the river, it's easy to see why many 2019 Tories - and especially their first-time voters and those voting tactically to keep Labour out - could well simply abstain. I'd predict that many of that 23% DK will end up as DNV (and remember that for those who do return to the Tory fold, there are balancing 2019 Labour voters who are currently DK / LD / Grn who are, IMO, at least as likely to return, though not all will there either).
In other words, the dynamic that worked so strongly to Labour's favour is highly likely to repeat itself, albeit at lower levels of enthusiasm on both sides - as if we jump straight from 1992 to 2001.
The issue isn't how many 2019 Tory voters switch from the Tories to Labour it's how many more tory voters decide that it's not worth the hassle to go out and vote on a wet October evening...
It's both.
And I expect it'll be a November evening. October would mean cancelling the conferences (or the Tory one anyway), and that's the only reliably decent chance Sunak or his successor will have to set the narrative to their favour.
Sunak really is buggered if he doesn't use the coming year to set the narrative...
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
But part of that treading is finding gainful, useful employment for the young men of Gaza. Otherwise they’ll simply reinvent Hamas.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
But part of that treading is finding gainful, useful employment for the young men of Gaza. Otherwise they’ll simply reinvent Hamas.
That would logical, intelligent and humane.
We are discussing Middle East politics here.
You are cynical. I am basically an optimist. Though God knows why I should be when, as you point out, we are discussing Middle Eastern politics.
It’s not cynical to observe the same action (or inaction) repeated, multiple times, over decades and predicting that the same actions will be done again.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
But part of that treading is finding gainful, useful employment for the young men of Gaza. Otherwise they’ll simply reinvent Hamas.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
But part of that treading is finding gainful, useful employment for the young men of Gaza. Otherwise they’ll simply reinvent Hamas.
That would logical, intelligent and humane.
We are discussing Middle East politics here.
You are cynical. I am basically an optimist. Though God knows why I should be when, as you point out, we are discussing Middle Eastern politics.
It’s not cynical to observe the same action (or inaction) repeated, multiple times, over decades and predicting that the same actions will be done again.
Repeating the same action and hoping for a different result = madness.
See what you mean.
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
Only about 10% of 1992 Tories switched to Labour in 1997 and look how that worked out.
The Labour vote increased by 2m from 1992-7, some of which was LD tactical voting (the LD vote actually fell over the two elections, despite the LDs more than doubling their number of MPs).
By contrast, the Tory vote fell by fully 5m. Many 1992 Tories simply sat out the Blair landslide, content to watch it happen.
Given that Corbyn's gone, Brexit's done, Starmer's inoffensive and the Tories' rating is not so much down the toilet as through the sewage works and out into the river, it's easy to see why many 2019 Tories - and especially their first-time voters and those voting tactically to keep Labour out - could well simply abstain. I'd predict that many of that 23% DK will end up as DNV (and remember that for those who do return to the Tory fold, there are balancing 2019 Labour voters who are currently DK / LD / Grn who are, IMO, at least as likely to return, though not all will there either).
In other words, the dynamic that worked so strongly to Labour's favour is highly likely to repeat itself, albeit at lower levels of enthusiasm on both sides - as if we jump straight from 1992 to 2001.
The issue isn't how many 2019 Tory voters switch from the Tories to Labour it's how many more tory voters decide that it's not worth the hassle to go out and vote on a wet October evening...
It's both.
And I expect it'll be a November evening. October would mean cancelling the conferences (or the Tory one anyway), and that's the only reliably decent chance Sunak or his successor will have to set the narrative to their favour.
Sunak really is buggered if he doesn't use the coming year to set the narrative...
If he doesnt have any policies whats he going to do ?
Only about 10% of 1992 Tories switched to Labour in 1997 and look how that worked out.
The Labour vote increased by 2m from 1992-7, some of which was LD tactical voting (the LD vote actually fell over the two elections, despite the LDs more than doubling their number of MPs).
By contrast, the Tory vote fell by fully 5m. Many 1992 Tories simply sat out the Blair landslide, content to watch it happen.
Given that Corbyn's gone, Brexit's done, Starmer's inoffensive and the Tories' rating is not so much down the toilet as through the sewage works and out into the river, it's easy to see why many 2019 Tories - and especially their first-time voters and those voting tactically to keep Labour out - could well simply abstain. I'd predict that many of that 23% DK will end up as DNV (and remember that for those who do return to the Tory fold, there are balancing 2019 Labour voters who are currently DK / LD / Grn who are, IMO, at least as likely to return, though not all will there either).
In other words, the dynamic that worked so strongly to Labour's favour is highly likely to repeat itself, albeit at lower levels of enthusiasm on both sides - as if we jump straight from 1992 to 2001.
The issue isn't how many 2019 Tory voters switch from the Tories to Labour it's how many more tory voters decide that it's not worth the hassle to go out and vote on a wet October evening...
It's both.
And I expect it'll be a November evening. October would mean cancelling the conferences (or the Tory one anyway), and that's the only reliably decent chance Sunak or his successor will have to set the narrative to their favour.
Or a cold evening in January. With snow either present or probable over much of the land. I’d say I was glad I’ve got a postal vote if the postal service round here wasn’t so crap.
No, I think stringing it out to January would look hopelessly lacking in self-confidence for the Tories once parliament returned in October (to do what?), and an election over Xmas and the New Year would piss off voters and journalists - not to mention activists - immensely.
Rishi will surely call the election at the Cons Party COnference in Sept/Oct. Polling day in November.
Yes, that's been my expectation pretty much since Truss was elected.
You were expecting Rishi Sunak to be calling the next GE once Liz Truss became PM? That's impressively prescient.
Ha. Well, I didn't necessarily expect it to play out quite as it has - or wouldn't have confidently predicted it to have done - but yes, I expected her to bomb the Tories' reputation even more (and Johnson had already done enough damage), and you don't call an election when you're behind.
Granted, there was (and still is) the chance that they go May 2024 to avoid a local election drubbing becoming part of the narrative but PMs rarely worry about councillors and 'Tory losses' is built in now; and there was the chance of a snap election on a new PM taking office if Truss too got the boot (though as it turned out, that'd have been impractical due to the time of year, and also the extent to which she screwed up the economy). Nov 2024 always looked like the obvious window.
A suspended Labour MP is suing the Conservative MP Chris Clarkson, who accused him of “seeking to justify the murderous actions of Hamas” in the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Andy McDonald, who represents the Middlesbrough constituency, said much of what he has said over the last few days about recent events in Israel and Palestine had been “deliberately distorted and misinterpreted”.
The 65-year-old MP was placed on “precautionary suspension” on Monday, as a Labour party spokesman said the comments he made that included the words “between the river and the sea” at a pro-Palestine rally were “deeply offensive”.
Some pro-Palestinian protesters have chanted “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” during recent demonstrations in London.
McDonald said: “In my speech to a mass rally on 28 October 2023, I called for peace in the Israel-Gaza war and in particular for an immediate comprehensively-binding ceasefire.
“I said: ‘We will not rest until we have justice. Until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea, can live in peaceful liberty.’
“Mr Clarkson’s statement is highly defamatory and caused serious harm to my reputation.
“I am not prepared to stand by, while an MP or others peddle the lie that I have sought to justify the actions of Hamas on 7 October 2023, including the awful murder of 1,400 people in Israel.”
The Guardian understands Clarkson is aware of the action, and was unable to comment because the process has started.
I wonder who could articulate what that actually means. In effect it means and might be intended to mean that Israel stops what it's doing.
That sounds about right. It's a call for Israel to stop the carnage. Not everyone saying this is an utter disgrace, I wouldn't have thought. It depends on their motives and their agenda.
Only about 10% of 1992 Tories switched to Labour in 1997 and look how that worked out.
The Labour vote increased by 2m from 1992-7, some of which was LD tactical voting (the LD vote actually fell over the two elections, despite the LDs more than doubling their number of MPs).
By contrast, the Tory vote fell by fully 5m. Many 1992 Tories simply sat out the Blair landslide, content to watch it happen.
Given that Corbyn's gone, Brexit's done, Starmer's inoffensive and the Tories' rating is not so much down the toilet as through the sewage works and out into the river, it's easy to see why many 2019 Tories - and especially their first-time voters and those voting tactically to keep Labour out - could well simply abstain. I'd predict that many of that 23% DK will end up as DNV (and remember that for those who do return to the Tory fold, there are balancing 2019 Labour voters who are currently DK / LD / Grn who are, IMO, at least as likely to return, though not all will there either).
In other words, the dynamic that worked so strongly to Labour's favour is highly likely to repeat itself, albeit at lower levels of enthusiasm on both sides - as if we jump straight from 1992 to 2001.
The issue isn't how many 2019 Tory voters switch from the Tories to Labour it's how many more tory voters decide that it's not worth the hassle to go out and vote on a wet October evening...
It's both.
And I expect it'll be a November evening. October would mean cancelling the conferences (or the Tory one anyway), and that's the only reliably decent chance Sunak or his successor will have to set the narrative to their favour.
Sunak really is buggered if he doesn't use the coming year to set the narrative...
He is, and he won't.
Sunak has tried to set the narrative - his five tests or objectives or whatever - but no-one's buying that, mainly because he's setting his own questions and marking his own homework. What else does he have?
In an ideal campaigning world, you set up a nice (or nasty) bogeyman and then campaign against it. But what? There's no obvious and credible option. Unlike for his opponents.
A suspended Labour MP is suing the Conservative MP Chris Clarkson, who accused him of “seeking to justify the murderous actions of Hamas” in the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Andy McDonald, who represents the Middlesbrough constituency, said much of what he has said over the last few days about recent events in Israel and Palestine had been “deliberately distorted and misinterpreted”.
The 65-year-old MP was placed on “precautionary suspension” on Monday, as a Labour party spokesman said the comments he made that included the words “between the river and the sea” at a pro-Palestine rally were “deeply offensive”.
Some pro-Palestinian protesters have chanted “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” during recent demonstrations in London.
McDonald said: “In my speech to a mass rally on 28 October 2023, I called for peace in the Israel-Gaza war and in particular for an immediate comprehensively-binding ceasefire.
“I said: ‘We will not rest until we have justice. Until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea, can live in peaceful liberty.’
“Mr Clarkson’s statement is highly defamatory and caused serious harm to my reputation.
“I am not prepared to stand by, while an MP or others peddle the lie that I have sought to justify the actions of Hamas on 7 October 2023, including the awful murder of 1,400 people in Israel.”
The Guardian understands Clarkson is aware of the action, and was unable to comment because the process has started.
Politico.com - Opinion | Why Nikki Haley Might Become Donald Trump’s Biggest Rival There’s a reason she might eclipse Ron DeSantis.
Rich Lowry is a contributing writer for POLITICO Magazine and the editor-in-chief of the National Review, a conservative news and opinion publication.
Nikki Haley isn’t exactly sweeping all before her, but she’s had a sustained rise that marks one of the major events in a presidential primary race with few new dynamics.
She’s tied with Ron DeSantis for second in Iowa, and is in second place in New Hampshire and South Carolina. She’s still not remotely close to Donald Trump in the 2024 Republican contest, but to have caught or overtaken DeSantis — given the buzz that the Florida governor had earlier in the year — is an accomplishment in itself.
In New Hampshire, a St. Anselm poll in March had Trump at 42 percent, DeSantis at 29 and Haley at 4. The latest USA Today poll in the state had Trump at 49 percent, Haley at 19 and DeSantis at 10.
Now, this may be inconsequential shuffling among no-hope candidates; it certainly is if Trump stays at roughly 50 percent. Worse, Haley eclipsing DeSantis may mean a candidate lacking broad-enough appeal in the party to win a majority is nudging aside the candidate with, in theory, the right profile to get to 50 percent plus 1.
That said, rising is better than falling, and running a campaign that has shown results is better than running one that hasn’t. Why has she ascended and what does it mean?
Haley has been helped immeasurably by the debates, where she’s been cogent, well-informed and combative. She’s tapped into the tough and unapologetic Thatcherite model of what a female politician should be that’s still so resonant for Republicans.
There was a tendency to pair her at the outset of the race with Sen. Tim Scott, a fellow South Carolinian who also has a more conventional Republican message. Scott, though, has been outworked and outperformed by the former governor. . . .
The DeSantis approach to the race has been inside-out — establish a spot in the center of the MAGA-ish Republican Party, and expand on both edges, winning enough Trump-friendly and Trump-skeptical voters to get to a winning plurality or a majority.
The Haley approach has been outside-in — establish dominance among the Trump-skeptical wing of the party and then use that strength to eat into soft Trump supporters willing to give her a look as she rises. . . .
One problem, though, is that DeSantis has always been subject to two different pincer movements — from above and below, and from MAGA and non-MAGA.
From above, because Trump has attacked him more than anyone else, and from below, because everyone else has had an incentive to try to overtake him for second place. . . .
There's no chance of Haley going bad and accepting VP to Trump, is there?
Completely off-topic (sorry!) - but wondering if any one can help.
I've moved to a new apartment building with its own completely new Postcode (registered with the post-office in July 23). Ir's valid at the Post Office therefore as a mailing address. Postcode is failing to appear either in Google Maps or Apple Maps, and very few companies recognise it in their databases- which is a pain for insurance, deliveries and even would you believe it registering to vote and Council Tax (Local Council don't even recognise the Postcode!!)
I've badgered Apple and Google Maps reporting to add the new address without any luck. How long do new Postcodes take to be recognised?
Royal Mail's PAF file is updated daily, but people tend update monthly or quarterly. We do one update a year as we do B2B so less need
A suspended Labour MP is suing the Conservative MP Chris Clarkson, who accused him of “seeking to justify the murderous actions of Hamas” in the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Andy McDonald, who represents the Middlesbrough constituency, said much of what he has said over the last few days about recent events in Israel and Palestine had been “deliberately distorted and misinterpreted”.
The 65-year-old MP was placed on “precautionary suspension” on Monday, as a Labour party spokesman said the comments he made that included the words “between the river and the sea” at a pro-Palestine rally were “deeply offensive”.
Some pro-Palestinian protesters have chanted “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” during recent demonstrations in London.
McDonald said: “In my speech to a mass rally on 28 October 2023, I called for peace in the Israel-Gaza war and in particular for an immediate comprehensively-binding ceasefire.
“I said: ‘We will not rest until we have justice. Until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea, can live in peaceful liberty.’
“Mr Clarkson’s statement is highly defamatory and caused serious harm to my reputation.
“I am not prepared to stand by, while an MP or others peddle the lie that I have sought to justify the actions of Hamas on 7 October 2023, including the awful murder of 1,400 people in Israel.”
The Guardian understands Clarkson is aware of the action, and was unable to comment because the process has started.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
But part of that treading is finding gainful, useful employment for the young men of Gaza. Otherwise they’ll simply reinvent Hamas.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
But part of that treading is finding gainful, useful employment for the young men of Gaza. Otherwise they’ll simply reinvent Hamas.
That would logical, intelligent and humane.
We are discussing Middle East politics here.
You are cynical. I am basically an optimist. Though God knows why I should be when, as you point out, we are discussing Middle Eastern politics.
It’s not cynical to observe the same action (or inaction) repeated, multiple times, over decades and predicting that the same actions will be done again.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
But part of that treading is finding gainful, useful employment for the young men of Gaza. Otherwise they’ll simply reinvent Hamas.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
But part of that treading is finding gainful, useful employment for the young men of Gaza. Otherwise they’ll simply reinvent Hamas.
That would logical, intelligent and humane.
We are discussing Middle East politics here.
You are cynical. I am basically an optimist. Though God knows why I should be when, as you point out, we are discussing Middle Eastern politics.
It’s not cynical to observe the same action (or inaction) repeated, multiple times, over decades and predicting that the same actions will be done again.
Repeating the same action and hoping for a different result = madness.
See what you mean.
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
Only about 10% of 1992 Tories switched to Labour in 1997 and look how that worked out.
The Labour vote increased by 2m from 1992-7, some of which was LD tactical voting (the LD vote actually fell over the two elections, despite the LDs more than doubling their number of MPs).
By contrast, the Tory vote fell by fully 5m. Many 1992 Tories simply sat out the Blair landslide, content to watch it happen.
Given that Corbyn's gone, Brexit's done, Starmer's inoffensive and the Tories' rating is not so much down the toilet as through the sewage works and out into the river, it's easy to see why many 2019 Tories - and especially their first-time voters and those voting tactically to keep Labour out - could well simply abstain. I'd predict that many of that 23% DK will end up as DNV (and remember that for those who do return to the Tory fold, there are balancing 2019 Labour voters who are currently DK / LD / Grn who are, IMO, at least as likely to return, though not all will there either).
In other words, the dynamic that worked so strongly to Labour's favour is highly likely to repeat itself, albeit at lower levels of enthusiasm on both sides - as if we jump straight from 1992 to 2001.
The issue isn't how many 2019 Tory voters switch from the Tories to Labour it's how many more tory voters decide that it's not worth the hassle to go out and vote on a wet October evening...
It's both.
And I expect it'll be a November evening. October would mean cancelling the conferences (or the Tory one anyway), and that's the only reliably decent chance Sunak or his successor will have to set the narrative to their favour.
Sunak really is buggered if he doesn't use the coming year to set the narrative...
If he doesnt have any policies whats he going to do ?
Await developments, in the hope that "something will turn up".
Of course, chance that, in the end, something will turn DOWN. As in sad case of Mr Micawber.
Completely off-topic (sorry!) - but wondering if any one can help.
I've moved to a new apartment building with its own completely new Postcode (registered with the post-office in July 23). Ir's valid at the Post Office therefore as a mailing address. Postcode is failing to appear either in Google Maps or Apple Maps, and very few companies recognise it in their databases- which is a pain for insurance, deliveries and even would you believe it registering to vote and Council Tax (Local Council don't even recognise the Postcode!!)
I've badgered Apple and Google Maps reporting to add the new address without any luck. How long do new Postcodes take to be recognised?
I dunno. But my school has a completely separate Primary School right next door. But with totally different entrances. One on a Main road. The other on a winding, mazy estate with no obvious direct connecting road. (You basically have to drive right the way around the estate to the one entrance). Then take a series of turns, avoiding cul-de-sacs to find the only correct route through). The two sites have been transposed on Google Maps for years. Despite numerous complaints. All deliveries end up at the wrong entrances. It's almost impossible to give oral directions from one site to the other by road. There have been numerous complaints.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
But part of that treading is finding gainful, useful employment for the young men of Gaza. Otherwise they’ll simply reinvent Hamas.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
But part of that treading is finding gainful, useful employment for the young men of Gaza. Otherwise they’ll simply reinvent Hamas.
That would logical, intelligent and humane.
We are discussing Middle East politics here.
You are cynical. I am basically an optimist. Though God knows why I should be when, as you point out, we are discussing Middle Eastern politics.
It’s not cynical to observe the same action (or inaction) repeated, multiple times, over decades and predicting that the same actions will be done again.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
But part of that treading is finding gainful, useful employment for the young men of Gaza. Otherwise they’ll simply reinvent Hamas.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
Peter Ziehan quite persuasive on this - there will not be an escalation, as there is no-one to escalate.
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least. Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel. Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway. Iraq. Ditto Lebanon. Broken state. Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel. Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
The big unspoken is that everyone on that list (apart from Iran) wants Hamas trodden on, hard. Israel doing it for them is a win, for them.
But part of that treading is finding gainful, useful employment for the young men of Gaza. Otherwise they’ll simply reinvent Hamas.
That would logical, intelligent and humane.
We are discussing Middle East politics here.
You are cynical. I am basically an optimist. Though God knows why I should be when, as you point out, we are discussing Middle Eastern politics.
It’s not cynical to observe the same action (or inaction) repeated, multiple times, over decades and predicting that the same actions will be done again.
Repeating the same action and hoping for a different result = madness.
See what you mean.
"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
WWI springs to mind.
Google the quote above….
Edit : Google Luigi Cadorna for the real world version
Only about 10% of 1992 Tories switched to Labour in 1997 and look how that worked out.
The Labour vote increased by 2m from 1992-7, some of which was LD tactical voting (the LD vote actually fell over the two elections, despite the LDs more than doubling their number of MPs).
By contrast, the Tory vote fell by fully 5m. Many 1992 Tories simply sat out the Blair landslide, content to watch it happen.
Given that Corbyn's gone, Brexit's done, Starmer's inoffensive and the Tories' rating is not so much down the toilet as through the sewage works and out into the river, it's easy to see why many 2019 Tories - and especially their first-time voters and those voting tactically to keep Labour out - could well simply abstain. I'd predict that many of that 23% DK will end up as DNV (and remember that for those who do return to the Tory fold, there are balancing 2019 Labour voters who are currently DK / LD / Grn who are, IMO, at least as likely to return, though not all will there either).
In other words, the dynamic that worked so strongly to Labour's favour is highly likely to repeat itself, albeit at lower levels of enthusiasm on both sides - as if we jump straight from 1992 to 2001.
The issue isn't how many 2019 Tory voters switch from the Tories to Labour it's how many more tory voters decide that it's not worth the hassle to go out and vote on a wet October evening...
It's both.
And I expect it'll be a November evening. October would mean cancelling the conferences (or the Tory one anyway), and that's the only reliably decent chance Sunak or his successor will have to set the narrative to their favour.
Sunak really is buggered if he doesn't use the coming year to set the narrative...
If he doesnt have any policies whats he going to do ?
Await developments, in the hope that "something will turn up".
Of course, chance that, in the end, something will turn DOWN. As in sad case of Mr Micawber.
Actually Micawber ended on a high. Though in Australia.
Only about 10% of 1992 Tories switched to Labour in 1997 and look how that worked out.
The Labour vote increased by 2m from 1992-7, some of which was LD tactical voting (the LD vote actually fell over the two elections, despite the LDs more than doubling their number of MPs).
By contrast, the Tory vote fell by fully 5m. Many 1992 Tories simply sat out the Blair landslide, content to watch it happen.
Given that Corbyn's gone, Brexit's done, Starmer's inoffensive and the Tories' rating is not so much down the toilet as through the sewage works and out into the river, it's easy to see why many 2019 Tories - and especially their first-time voters and those voting tactically to keep Labour out - could well simply abstain. I'd predict that many of that 23% DK will end up as DNV (and remember that for those who do return to the Tory fold, there are balancing 2019 Labour voters who are currently DK / LD / Grn who are, IMO, at least as likely to return, though not all will there either).
In other words, the dynamic that worked so strongly to Labour's favour is highly likely to repeat itself, albeit at lower levels of enthusiasm on both sides - as if we jump straight from 1992 to 2001.
The issue isn't how many 2019 Tory voters switch from the Tories to Labour it's how many more tory voters decide that it's not worth the hassle to go out and vote on a wet October evening...
It's both.
And I expect it'll be a November evening. October would mean cancelling the conferences (or the Tory one anyway), and that's the only reliably decent chance Sunak or his successor will have to set the narrative to their favour.
Sunak really is buggered if he doesn't use the coming year to set the narrative...
He is, and he won't.
Sunak has tried to set the narrative - his five tests or objectives or whatever - but no-one's buying that, mainly because he's setting his own questions and marking his own homework. What else does he have?
In an ideal campaigning world, you set up a nice (or nasty) bogeyman and then campaign against it. But what? There's no obvious and credible option. Unlike for his opponents.
On the whole Sunak's 5 tests are on issues where 'success' in his terms means doing rather worse than we expect from a competent government.
Government exists to keep inflation always low, to enable growth, to keep debt at sustainable levels, to ensure the NHS works and secure our borders.
"Working towards being slightly competent but nowhere close to good" is not a useful slogan.
Completely off-topic (sorry!) - but wondering if any one can help.
I've moved to a new apartment building with its own completely new Postcode (registered with the post-office in July 23). Ir's valid at the Post Office therefore as a mailing address. Postcode is failing to appear either in Google Maps or Apple Maps, and very few companies recognise it in their databases- which is a pain for insurance, deliveries and even would you believe it registering to vote and Council Tax (Local Council don't even recognise the Postcode!!)
I've badgered Apple and Google Maps reporting to add the new address without any luck. How long do new Postcodes take to be recognised?
I dunno. But my school has a completely separate Primary School right next door. But with totally different entrances. One on a Main road. The other on a winding, mazy estate with no obvious direct connecting road. (You basically have to drive around the estate. Then take a series of turns, avoiding cul-de-sacs to find the one correct route through). The two sites have been transposed on Google Maps for years. Despite numerous complaints. All deliveries end up at the wrong entrances. It's almost impossible to give oral directions from one site to the other by road. There have been numerous complaints.
Surely you realize, that in such matters corporate/government IT departments are judge, jury AND executioner.
Every year I forget, kind of. Then every year late autumn comes along and WHAM, and with the sure and certain knowledge that winter lurks beyond
You've got to live in the moment. Appreciate and make the most of what this time of year brings. Eg I change from lager to bitter once November comes. Rather than being outside in the warm sun with an Estrella as I would have been just a few weeks ago, or would be now if I were in Florida or Tenerife, I sit inside with a pint of Old Wallop.
Yeah, but your local in Belsize Park has a professional indoor ski slope at the back, under the lebanese cedar sauna complex, not all of us are that lucky
Every year I forget, kind of. Then every year late autumn comes along and WHAM, and with the sure and certain knowledge that winter lurks beyond
Strictly on the telly, Christmas in the offing - and it's my birthday month! What's not to like? February is my least favourite month, but at least it's short.
Politico.com - Opinion | Why Nikki Haley Might Become Donald Trump’s Biggest Rival There’s a reason she might eclipse Ron DeSantis.
Rich Lowry is a contributing writer for POLITICO Magazine and the editor-in-chief of the National Review, a conservative news and opinion publication.
Nikki Haley isn’t exactly sweeping all before her, but she’s had a sustained rise that marks one of the major events in a presidential primary race with few new dynamics.
She’s tied with Ron DeSantis for second in Iowa, and is in second place in New Hampshire and South Carolina. She’s still not remotely close to Donald Trump in the 2024 Republican contest, but to have caught or overtaken DeSantis — given the buzz that the Florida governor had earlier in the year — is an accomplishment in itself.
In New Hampshire, a St. Anselm poll in March had Trump at 42 percent, DeSantis at 29 and Haley at 4. The latest USA Today poll in the state had Trump at 49 percent, Haley at 19 and DeSantis at 10.
Now, this may be inconsequential shuffling among no-hope candidates; it certainly is if Trump stays at roughly 50 percent. Worse, Haley eclipsing DeSantis may mean a candidate lacking broad-enough appeal in the party to win a majority is nudging aside the candidate with, in theory, the right profile to get to 50 percent plus 1.
That said, rising is better than falling, and running a campaign that has shown results is better than running one that hasn’t. Why has she ascended and what does it mean?
Haley has been helped immeasurably by the debates, where she’s been cogent, well-informed and combative. She’s tapped into the tough and unapologetic Thatcherite model of what a female politician should be that’s still so resonant for Republicans.
There was a tendency to pair her at the outset of the race with Sen. Tim Scott, a fellow South Carolinian who also has a more conventional Republican message. Scott, though, has been outworked and outperformed by the former governor. . . .
The DeSantis approach to the race has been inside-out — establish a spot in the center of the MAGA-ish Republican Party, and expand on both edges, winning enough Trump-friendly and Trump-skeptical voters to get to a winning plurality or a majority.
The Haley approach has been outside-in — establish dominance among the Trump-skeptical wing of the party and then use that strength to eat into soft Trump supporters willing to give her a look as she rises. . . .
One problem, though, is that DeSantis has always been subject to two different pincer movements — from above and below, and from MAGA and non-MAGA.
From above, because Trump has attacked him more than anyone else, and from below, because everyone else has had an incentive to try to overtake him for second place. . . .
There's no chance of Haley going bad and accepting VP to Trump, is there?
Yes. It was speculated about in 2016 and despite some ill-will since, Trump has proven willing to accept reformed sinners, as he'd see them, providing there's been no mortal sin. Of course, she'd have to utterly abase herself to his judgement and actions but that's standard for the GOP these days and a VP can hide more easily than most in the administration.
And crucially, the VP is a heart-beat* from the presidency, and Trump is old, unfit, obese and in mental decline, and Haley is very ambitious.
But it's Trump, so it's not a market I'd be entering, and certainly not on one of the favourites.
* And also an impeachment and a 25th amendment vote.
Only about 10% of 1992 Tories switched to Labour in 1997 and look how that worked out.
The Labour vote increased by 2m from 1992-7, some of which was LD tactical voting (the LD vote actually fell over the two elections, despite the LDs more than doubling their number of MPs).
By contrast, the Tory vote fell by fully 5m. Many 1992 Tories simply sat out the Blair landslide, content to watch it happen.
Given that Corbyn's gone, Brexit's done, Starmer's inoffensive and the Tories' rating is not so much down the toilet as through the sewage works and out into the river, it's easy to see why many 2019 Tories - and especially their first-time voters and those voting tactically to keep Labour out - could well simply abstain. I'd predict that many of that 23% DK will end up as DNV (and remember that for those who do return to the Tory fold, there are balancing 2019 Labour voters who are currently DK / LD / Grn who are, IMO, at least as likely to return, though not all will there either).
In other words, the dynamic that worked so strongly to Labour's favour is highly likely to repeat itself, albeit at lower levels of enthusiasm on both sides - as if we jump straight from 1992 to 2001.
The issue isn't how many 2019 Tory voters switch from the Tories to Labour it's how many more tory voters decide that it's not worth the hassle to go out and vote on a wet October evening...
It's both.
And I expect it'll be a November evening. October would mean cancelling the conferences (or the Tory one anyway), and that's the only reliably decent chance Sunak or his successor will have to set the narrative to their favour.
Sunak really is buggered if he doesn't use the coming year to set the narrative...
He is, and he won't.
Sunak has tried to set the narrative - his five tests or objectives or whatever - but no-one's buying that, mainly because he's setting his own questions and marking his own homework. What else does he have?
In an ideal campaigning world, you set up a nice (or nasty) bogeyman and then campaign against it. But what? There's no obvious and credible option. Unlike for his opponents.
On the whole Sunak's 5 tests are on issues where 'success' in his terms means doing rather worse than we expect from a competent government.
Government exists to keep inflation always low, to enable growth, to keep debt at sustainable levels, to ensure the NHS works and secure our borders.
"Working towards being slightly competent but nowhere close to good" is not a useful slogan.
Neither is "working towards a capable government delivering prosperity, quality services and security - but missing the lot by miles".
Politico.com - Opinion | Why Nikki Haley Might Become Donald Trump’s Biggest Rival There’s a reason she might eclipse Ron DeSantis.
Rich Lowry is a contributing writer for POLITICO Magazine and the editor-in-chief of the National Review, a conservative news and opinion publication.
Nikki Haley isn’t exactly sweeping all before her, but she’s had a sustained rise that marks one of the major events in a presidential primary race with few new dynamics.
She’s tied with Ron DeSantis for second in Iowa, and is in second place in New Hampshire and South Carolina. She’s still not remotely close to Donald Trump in the 2024 Republican contest, but to have caught or overtaken DeSantis — given the buzz that the Florida governor had earlier in the year — is an accomplishment in itself.
In New Hampshire, a St. Anselm poll in March had Trump at 42 percent, DeSantis at 29 and Haley at 4. The latest USA Today poll in the state had Trump at 49 percent, Haley at 19 and DeSantis at 10.
Now, this may be inconsequential shuffling among no-hope candidates; it certainly is if Trump stays at roughly 50 percent. Worse, Haley eclipsing DeSantis may mean a candidate lacking broad-enough appeal in the party to win a majority is nudging aside the candidate with, in theory, the right profile to get to 50 percent plus 1.
That said, rising is better than falling, and running a campaign that has shown results is better than running one that hasn’t. Why has she ascended and what does it mean?
Haley has been helped immeasurably by the debates, where she’s been cogent, well-informed and combative. She’s tapped into the tough and unapologetic Thatcherite model of what a female politician should be that’s still so resonant for Republicans.
There was a tendency to pair her at the outset of the race with Sen. Tim Scott, a fellow South Carolinian who also has a more conventional Republican message. Scott, though, has been outworked and outperformed by the former governor. . . .
The DeSantis approach to the race has been inside-out — establish a spot in the center of the MAGA-ish Republican Party, and expand on both edges, winning enough Trump-friendly and Trump-skeptical voters to get to a winning plurality or a majority.
The Haley approach has been outside-in — establish dominance among the Trump-skeptical wing of the party and then use that strength to eat into soft Trump supporters willing to give her a look as she rises. . . .
One problem, though, is that DeSantis has always been subject to two different pincer movements — from above and below, and from MAGA and non-MAGA.
From above, because Trump has attacked him more than anyone else, and from below, because everyone else has had an incentive to try to overtake him for second place. . . .
There's no chance of Haley going bad and accepting VP to Trump, is there?
If a President can't serve from prison, it may be a good way of getting the top job. I am unaware of the rules on that - maybe as there is not precedent there aren't any.
Otherwise, she has certainly emerged as the sane future of her party and would be a good choice for them in four years if she does not make it this time.
Only about 10% of 1992 Tories switched to Labour in 1997 and look how that worked out.
The Labour vote increased by 2m from 1992-7, some of which was LD tactical voting (the LD vote actually fell over the two elections, despite the LDs more than doubling their number of MPs).
By contrast, the Tory vote fell by fully 5m. Many 1992 Tories simply sat out the Blair landslide, content to watch it happen.
Given that Corbyn's gone, Brexit's done, Starmer's inoffensive and the Tories' rating is not so much down the toilet as through the sewage works and out into the river, it's easy to see why many 2019 Tories - and especially their first-time voters and those voting tactically to keep Labour out - could well simply abstain. I'd predict that many of that 23% DK will end up as DNV (and remember that for those who do return to the Tory fold, there are balancing 2019 Labour voters who are currently DK / LD / Grn who are, IMO, at least as likely to return, though not all will there either).
In other words, the dynamic that worked so strongly to Labour's favour is highly likely to repeat itself, albeit at lower levels of enthusiasm on both sides - as if we jump straight from 1992 to 2001.
The issue isn't how many 2019 Tory voters switch from the Tories to Labour it's how many more tory voters decide that it's not worth the hassle to go out and vote on a wet October evening...
It's both.
And I expect it'll be a November evening. October would mean cancelling the conferences (or the Tory one anyway), and that's the only reliably decent chance Sunak or his successor will have to set the narrative to their favour.
Sunak really is buggered if he doesn't use the coming year to set the narrative...
If he doesnt have any policies whats he going to do ?
The only thing he can do to try and keep things afloat is jettison the Chancellor. After that it's him.
Every year I forget, kind of. Then every year late autumn comes along and WHAM, and with the sure and certain knowledge that winter lurks beyond
Strictly on the telly, Christmas in the offing - and it's my birthday month! What's not to like? February is my least favourite month, but at least it's short.
Last night a drunk old guy was blocking my path in the newsagent's explaining to the bewildered owner that his mother had died when he was eleven, three days before Christmas, and five days before his birthday. The father, with whom he lived, had hidden this from him, telling him only after Christmas and the birthday had passed, so he might enjoy them. He has been unable to enjoy Christmas or his birthday since.
Argentina just released birth statistics for 2022, and the TFR just keeps on dropping. Last year it reached a new record low of 1.36 children per woman. Some provinces have already reached the ultra low levels common in Spain. https://twitter.com/BirthGauge/status/1719272596351369284
It's happening everywhere. World population on the cusp of decline. Just in time, incidentally, for the robots to take over the empty space.
Depopulation is palpable in Sicily. Offocially it has only lost 4% of its population since its peak but it feels like a whole lot more. Entire streets with no one there. Entire suburbs. Everyone gone
Despite Inspector Montalbano? Blimey.
or Mimi rather
Maybe there are some lucky PBers who have not yet read the 27 (or is it 28) Montalbano books by Andrea Camilleri. Make this winter the one you keep it at bay by reading them by the fireside.
And BTW Italy's birth rate (1.29) is lower than Argentina.
"Using the Synthetic Control Method, we estimate the causal effect of not implementing a mandatory lockdown in Sweden in the period from the end of February 2020 to the end of September 2020, a time when vaccines were as yet not available. We find that not imposing a mandatory lockdown resulted in a lower reduction of mobility and a substantial increase in mortality. Our results indicates that up to about 4411 of the 46554 deaths registered in Sweden during this period could have been avoided had Sweden implemented a mandatory lockdown."
This (from Tom Whipple going through Cummings' testimony) is something I found interesting. Those who say that they should have listened to Tegnell in September 2020 and followed his advice - well, apparently, they did.
I don’t see this getting anywhere but much worse. And the chances of a wider war expand daily
So if it does get much worse will this mean you've 'called it'?
No. To my mind you can only say you "called it" if you go against the prevailing wisdom, or you challenge some consensus
I did that with Covid, Lab Leak, Ukraine, AI, and others (in my extremely humble opinion)
I'm hardly alone in fearing a wider war springing from this dreadful Gaza conflict
Not sure how a wider war gets started.
The Arab world doesn’t want another standup war with Israel. Aside from the nuclear thing, the history is not good. Most of their leaders are “Presidents For Life”. Loosing a war is quite possibly fatal.
And they have the recent evidence that a lot of their Russian toys are not exactly winners.
Israel could strike Iran, I suppose, but to what end?
The most likely escalation - at least at first - is on the northern border. Say Hezbollah wades in, with the assistance of Iran. Hezbollah are a potent force, and they will worry Israel. So Israel responds by bombarding southern Lebanon
Then you have a wider war? Who knows how it unfurls from there
I don't think this is probable, but it is certainly very possible, and the possibiity grows as the nightmare in Gaza continues (ditto the West Bank)
You present, yet again, the worst case as the base case. One can see why you were drawn to journalism. What are your views on the Australia-Hong Kong trade agreement?
It is why 95% of journalists are painful parasites on society. They love bad news. Eternal pessimists who erroneously think that the world respects them because they can elegantly string a few words together (just), when in reality they are sicko gloom mongers who find it difficult not to show their excitement when they get to report on something grotesque. @Leon likes to point out things he claims he "called right" like some pigmy PB Donald Trump. Eg. "The lab leak" - not proven. He claims he "called right" on AI. lol. He doesn't understand the first thing about it. Aliens! Certain nuclear war (thankfully completely wrong), supported Johnson (dumb!) Truss (dumb), Brexit (dumber)
Still, I'm not as sheep-molestingly dumb as you, and certainly not as scrotum-tighteningly boring, so I have some small cause to console myself
lol. "Sheep-molestingly dumb" is quite amusing. Not being a practitioner of the art, I am not sure whether bestiality requires dumbness or otherwise. Boring: I have never been described as such by anyone who has met me, and I certainly wouldn't describe you as such, but then your inability to react with a pithy repost to my critique of some of your more ludicrous pronouncements seems to me to be somewhat disappointing. I would give you a 5 out of 10 for your response. I would score you lower but for the fact that the sheep-molestation epithet was quite amusing.
Every year I forget, kind of. Then every year late autumn comes along and WHAM, and with the sure and certain knowledge that winter lurks beyond
Strictly on the telly, Christmas in the offing - and it's my birthday month! What's not to like? February is my least favourite month, but at least it's short.
February is fine if you date the start of spring from the first flowering of crocus.
This follows the 40 days of Christmas starting on 25th December (the mistake is to start early and thus end it on the 25th), ending on 2nd February. Loads of people have diary space to do relaxed winter/Christmas fun things in January which they don't have in December because they are too busy not enjoying themselves.
Do you think Dominic Cummings COULDN'T be mentally unwell?
What I find staggering about Cummings is that someone with such a staggeringly unimpressive CV could be seen as some kind of strategic genius and put into such a position of power. Johnson's regime really was like some sort of bizarre version of "Trading Places" where sensible politicians and civil servants are replaced with random idiots who have no experience of anything.
Comments
Look at the possible actors who are close to the action.
Egypt. Nope. No interest whatever. Sisi not keen on Palestinians to say the least.
Jordan. Effectively a satelllite of Israel.
Syria. LOL. All the troublemakers on the other side of the country anyway.
Iraq. Ditto
Lebanon. Broken state.
Iran. Too distant. Has proxies like Hezbollah but they are not a state actor and cannot really "go to war" with Israel.
Saudi. New MBS leadership more interested in coming to terms with Israel than sponsoring a war with them.
It's a sideshow compared to Ukraine.
Landslide: Lose £45
No Landslide: Win £100
This seems to me a nice book for people in the 'Labour lead is soft' camp.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3BO6GP9NMY
Hezbollah is the most likely source, they basically are the Lebanese army
1. The Palestinians are Arab Sunnis. The Iranians are Persian Shias. The Ayatollahs don't really care about them and won't take any risks for them.
2. The Iranian regime has its own problems. All the young people hate them.
3. The presence of a US carrier battle group in the Med. A formidable deterrent.
I am hardly alone
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/30/lebanon-fears-regional-war-as-hezbollah-israel-fighting-intensifies
https://www.voanews.com/a/analysts-divided-over-whether-hezbollah-will-wage-war-with-israel/7337145.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/29/lebanon-israel-hezbollah-gaza-war/
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/11/2/this-is-nasrallahs-moment-will-hezbollahs-chief-declare-war-on-israel
If you think about it, it's their job to strike sparks.
https://twitter.com/BirthGauge/status/1719272596351369284
And while something might not be likely *this time*, that doesn't mean it's not likely, sooner or later, if the scenario is replayed often enough.
Bear in mind the bigger picture too. Iran is the key backer of both Hamas and Hezbollah re Israel but also now a key backer of Russia (see the now energetic Russian support for the pro-Palestine Arab movement). The Gaza war is a distraction for American politicians in providing aid to Ukraine - cui bono?
Politics is generally messy, and diplomacy is just politics on a bigger stage. Conspiracy theories are usually wrong for many reasons but not least they assume a level of control over events that not only doesn't exist but cannot exist. However, that doesn't mean that interests don't align at times (or are perceived to, by those that matter, at least in triggering events).
OTOH there are the Irish. No doubt the Israelis will treat their concerns with the greatest of respect.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/02/ireland-criticism-israel-eu-palestinian-rights
What the last couple of weeks has revealed has been a wider problem, that of the trojan horse of antisemitism in the west. I am less worried about the Israelis slugging it out with Hamas, which seems to be part of an inevitable pattern of violence, than I am the morons chanting "gas the Jews" in Australia", daubing stars of David on the walls of Jewish homes in Paris, or chanting "from the river to the sea" right next to the bloody Kindertransport Memorial, without any sense of self-awareness. Ditto the "keep the world tidy" posters at protests while posters of kidnapped Israelis are torn down in major western cities, and people shout "Hitler was right" in Harvard Square.
Something very, very ugly has been exposed here. While the Middle East has always been a powder keg, we thought the stain of antisemitism was gone from Europe and the US. I fear that is the lasting consequence of the last few weeks. Not the Israeli/Palestinian cycle of violence, but resurgent antisemitism in the West, and how Jews around the world no longer feel safe.
And I expect it'll be a November evening. October would mean cancelling the conferences (or the Tory one anyway), and that's the only reliably decent chance Sunak or his successor will have to set the narrative to their favour.
https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1720109100225216953
Palestinian territories 3.38, Israel 2.90
Russia 1.50, Ukraine 1.22
*by selling bits of your dignity to the big outsourcers and shittifiers.
We are discussing Middle East politics here.
EXCLUSIVE: Green MSPs fume as turncoat MSP Ash Regan set to join their Holyrood corridor
Party has raised safeguarding concerns about the possible arrangement due to them employing transgender staff members
Some sources said Regan was testing chairs...
https://twitter.com/conor_matchett/status/1719993165673832812
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/mrcbg/files/198_AWP_final.pdf
...In this context, what should policy focus on? In this paper, we emphasise the large and persistent productivity differentials between London and its environs and the rest of the UK – driven largely by the underperformance of non-London cities – as the key force underlying the UK’s persistent regional economic inequality. This suggests a central focus for policy seeking to “level up” lagging regions: boosting productivity in regions outside London and the broader South of England, with a focus in particular on high productivity potential urban agglomerations.
How to do this? ...
..we find evidence consistent with (i) specific shortages of STEM degree-level skills; (ii) binding transport infrastructure constraints within major non-London conurbations; (iii) a failure of public innovation policy to support clusters beyond the South East, in particular through the regional distribution of public support for Research and Development (R&D); and (iv) missed opportunities for higher internal mobility due to London’s overheating housing market.64
The relative importance of each of the factors we have identified depends on the underlying economic model. If regional economies best approximate the neoclassical model, alleviating constraints on STEM education and transport infrastructure will be paramount (alongside ensuring that general education and skills keep pace with firms’ demand). If knowledge spillovers are fundamentally important to innovative activity and the generation of high-productivity clusters in the UK’s non-London city-regions, doing more to increase public investment in R&D in areas outside London and the greater South East may be the most important. If the forces generating path dependency in formerly industrialised regions and agglomeration economies in the greater London area are too strong, it may be very difficult for policy to do much to stimulate productivity growth in the UK’s other city-regions. This might mean that the only policy tool remaining is improving housing affordability to allow people to move to opportunity – enabling equality of opportunity for individuals from each region, even if not equality of outcome across regions...
I applaud the mention of a ((fairly dismal) third option - nothing can be done except build a lot more homes in the Southeast.
Every year I forget, kind of. Then every year late autumn comes along and WHAM, and with the sure and certain knowledge that winter lurks beyond
I am basically an optimist. Though God knows why I should be when, as you point out, we are discussing Middle Eastern politics.
I enjoy Christmas, I am not a Scrooge. But I don’t like the fact that at this time of year you have to juggle work, with shit weather, with cold and flu season, and on top of all that, all the organisation for the busiest social time of the year.
Give me January any day. At least then you’re just coping with the work and the shit weather.
A suspended Labour MP is suing the Conservative MP Chris Clarkson, who accused him of “seeking to justify the murderous actions of Hamas” in the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Andy McDonald, who represents the Middlesbrough constituency, said much of what he has said over the last few days about recent events in Israel and Palestine had been “deliberately distorted and misinterpreted”.
The 65-year-old MP was placed on “precautionary suspension” on Monday, as a Labour party spokesman said the comments he made that included the words “between the river and the sea” at a pro-Palestine rally were “deeply offensive”.
Some pro-Palestinian protesters have chanted “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” during recent demonstrations in London.
McDonald said: “In my speech to a mass rally on 28 October 2023, I called for peace in the Israel-Gaza war and in particular for an immediate comprehensively-binding ceasefire.
“I said: ‘We will not rest until we have justice. Until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea, can live in peaceful liberty.’
“Mr Clarkson’s statement is highly defamatory and caused serious harm to my reputation.
“I am not prepared to stand by, while an MP or others peddle the lie that I have sought to justify the actions of Hamas on 7 October 2023, including the awful murder of 1,400 people in Israel.”
The Guardian understands Clarkson is aware of the action, and was unable to comment because the process has started.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/02/andy-mcdonald-to-sue-tory-mp-who-accused-him-of-seeking-to-justify-hamas-atrocity
I thought one of the changes that polling companies made after past elections, was to redistribute a percentage of don't knows back to their previous vote. Was I imagining this, or does it still happen?
It's the time of year to sit in pubs in the gloaming of late Sunday afternoon with Gerry Rafferty's Baker Street playing, or possibly David Gray's Babylon, and to ponder on the passing of time. Which reminds me it must be a full 12 months since I posted on that topic here on PB.
I wonder who could articulate what that actually means. In effect it means and might be intended to mean that Israel stops what it's doing.
However, as I'm not his friend, a court battle would be much funnier.
I've moved to a new apartment building with its own completely new Postcode (registered with the post-office in July 23). Ir's valid at the Post Office therefore as a mailing address. Postcode is failing to appear either in Google Maps or Apple Maps, and very few companies recognise it in their databases- which is a pain for insurance, deliveries and even would you believe it registering to vote and Council Tax (Local Council don't even recognise the Postcode!!)
I've badgered Apple and Google Maps reporting to add the new address without any luck. How long do new Postcodes take to be recognised?
See what you mean.
"Using the Synthetic Control Method, we estimate the causal effect of not implementing a mandatory lockdown in Sweden in the period from the end of February 2020 to the end of September 2020, a time when vaccines were as yet not available. We find that not imposing a mandatory lockdown resulted in a lower reduction of mobility and a substantial increase in mortality. Our results indicates that up to about 4411 of the 46554 deaths registered in Sweden during this period could have been avoided had Sweden implemented a mandatory lockdown."
Your advice would be good if Clarkson had any friends, but I rather doubt that. Nevertheless, I expect a grovelling apology shortly.
There’s a reason she might eclipse Ron DeSantis.
Rich Lowry is a contributing writer for POLITICO Magazine and the editor-in-chief of the National Review, a conservative news and opinion publication.
Nikki Haley isn’t exactly sweeping all before her, but she’s had a sustained rise that marks one of the major events in a presidential primary race with few new dynamics.
She’s tied with Ron DeSantis for second in Iowa, and is in second place in New Hampshire and South Carolina. She’s still not remotely close to Donald Trump in the 2024 Republican contest, but to have caught or overtaken DeSantis — given the buzz that the Florida governor had earlier in the year — is an accomplishment in itself.
In New Hampshire, a St. Anselm poll in March had Trump at 42 percent, DeSantis at 29 and Haley at 4. The latest USA Today poll in the state had Trump at 49 percent, Haley at 19 and DeSantis at 10.
Now, this may be inconsequential shuffling among no-hope candidates; it certainly is if Trump stays at roughly 50 percent. Worse, Haley eclipsing DeSantis may mean a candidate lacking broad-enough appeal in the party to win a majority is nudging aside the candidate with, in theory, the right profile to get to 50 percent plus 1.
That said, rising is better than falling, and running a campaign that has shown results is better than running one that hasn’t. Why has she ascended and what does it mean?
Haley has been helped immeasurably by the debates, where she’s been cogent, well-informed and combative. She’s tapped into the tough and unapologetic Thatcherite model of what a female politician should be that’s still so resonant for Republicans.
There was a tendency to pair her at the outset of the race with Sen. Tim Scott, a fellow South Carolinian who also has a more conventional Republican message. Scott, though, has been outworked and outperformed by the former governor. . . .
The DeSantis approach to the race has been inside-out — establish a spot in the center of the MAGA-ish Republican Party, and expand on both edges, winning enough Trump-friendly and Trump-skeptical voters to get to a winning plurality or a majority.
The Haley approach has been outside-in — establish dominance among the Trump-skeptical wing of the party and then use that strength to eat into soft Trump supporters willing to give her a look as she rises. . . .
One problem, though, is that DeSantis has always been subject to two different pincer movements — from above and below, and from MAGA and non-MAGA.
From above, because Trump has attacked him more than anyone else, and from below, because everyone else has had an incentive to try to overtake him for second place. . . .
This would be more entertaining than the Wagatha Christie trial.
Granted, there was (and still is) the chance that they go May 2024 to avoid a local election drubbing becoming part of the narrative but PMs rarely worry about councillors and 'Tory losses' is built in now; and there was the chance of a snap election on a new PM taking office if Truss too got the boot (though as it turned out, that'd have been impractical due to the time of year, and also the extent to which she screwed up the economy). Nov 2024 always looked like the obvious window.
Erik ten Hag on ‘thin ice’ as Man United consider alternatives
Club view Ruben Amorim, the Sporting Lisbon manager, and Zinédine Zidane as potential replacements but situation complicated by ownership uncertainty
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/erik-ten-hag-ruben-amorim-zinedine-zidane-manchester-united-8h7bqdnsq
Still astonishing to think that Erik Ten Hag has a bigger net spend in one year at Manchester United than Klopp has had in eight years at Liverpool.
Sunak has tried to set the narrative - his five tests or objectives or whatever - but no-one's buying that, mainly because he's setting his own questions and marking his own homework. What else does he have?
In an ideal campaigning world, you set up a nice (or nasty) bogeyman and then campaign against it. But what? There's no obvious and credible option. Unlike for his opponents.
(If jokes are appropriate at a time like this....)
Of course, chance that, in the end, something will turn DOWN. As in sad case of Mr Micawber.
But my school has a completely separate Primary School right next door. But with totally different entrances. One on a Main road. The other on a winding, mazy estate with no obvious direct connecting road. (You basically have to drive right the way around the estate to the one entrance). Then take a series of turns, avoiding cul-de-sacs to find the only correct route through).
The two sites have been transposed on Google Maps for years. Despite numerous complaints. All deliveries end up at the wrong entrances. It's almost impossible to give oral directions from one site to the other by road.
There have been numerous complaints.
Edit : Google Luigi Cadorna for the real world version
Government exists to keep inflation always low, to enable growth, to keep debt at sustainable levels, to ensure the NHS works and secure our borders.
"Working towards being slightly competent but nowhere close to good" is not a useful slogan.
And crucially, the VP is a heart-beat* from the presidency, and Trump is old, unfit, obese and in mental decline, and Haley is very ambitious.
But it's Trump, so it's not a market I'd be entering, and certainly not on one of the favourites.
* And also an impeachment and a 25th amendment vote.
Otherwise, she has certainly emerged as the sane future of her party and would be a good choice for them in four years if she does not make it this time.
Cheery, ain't it?
And BTW Italy's birth rate (1.29) is lower than Argentina.
Those who say that they should have listened to Tegnell in September 2020 and followed his advice - well, apparently, they did.
This follows the 40 days of Christmas starting on 25th December (the mistake is to start early and thus end it on the 25th), ending on 2nd February. Loads of people have diary space to do relaxed winter/Christmas fun things in January which they don't have in December because they are too busy not enjoying themselves.