Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Will Boris Johnson win a seat at the next election? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,014
edited December 2023 in General
imageWill Boris Johnson win a seat at the next election? – politicalbetting.com

This market from Ladbrokes on whether our last but one First Lord of the Treasury will win a seat at the next election and I understand why No is such the overwhelming favourite. Boris Johnson is earning serious money and may not want to give that up or have to declare it, nor does leading the Tories in opposition seem appealing to somebody as famously lazy and distracted as Boris Johnson.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,357
    edited November 2023
    First like Caesar at Pharsalus.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,952
    No.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,465
    Has Suella Braverman never heard of Sam Goldwyn ?

  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,178
    If he returns to Parliament won't he still have to serve his suspension? Or does a GE cancel that, a bit like these police officers signing up for a different force?
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    If he returns to Parliament won't he still have to serve his suspension? Or does a GE cancel that, a bit like these police officers signing up for a different force?

    Cancels it.

    However there's nothing stopping the new Parliament from reimposing the suspension.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,178
    edited November 2023

    ydoethur said:

    If he returns to Parliament won't he still have to serve his suspension? Or does a GE cancel that, a bit like these police officers signing up for a different force?

    Cancels it.

    However there's nothing stopping the new Parliament from reimposing the suspension.
    Then I suggest that could be an additional hurdle. Starmer and Labour would have no reason to be nice to Johnson and Hoyle hates his guts.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,121
    edited November 2023

    Surely not.

    Liar, liar, pants on fire.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    If he returns to Parliament won't he still have to serve his suspension? Or does a GE cancel that, a bit like these police officers signing up for a different force?

    Cancels it.

    However there's nothing stopping the new Parliament from reimposing the suspension.
    Then I suggest that could be an additional hurdle. Starmer and Labour would have no reason to be nice to Johnson and Hoyle hates his guts.
    Nah, the Privileges Committee is supposed to be non partisan.

    It would require a few hurdles to be jumped and would also set an unfortunate precedent.

    Starmer being a lawyer means he's a man of probity so wouldn't do this.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,937

    ydoethur said:

    If he returns to Parliament won't he still have to serve his suspension? Or does a GE cancel that, a bit like these police officers signing up for a different force?

    Cancels it.

    However there's nothing stopping the new Parliament from reimposing the suspension.
    Reimposing the suspension would be wrong IMO, if he is re-elected.
  • Options

    ydoethur said:

    If he returns to Parliament won't he still have to serve his suspension? Or does a GE cancel that, a bit like these police officers signing up for a different force?

    Cancels it.

    However there's nothing stopping the new Parliament from reimposing the suspension.
    Reimposing the suspension would be wrong IMO, if he is re-elected.
    He absconded before serving his sentence.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    He would have to either get on the list of Conservative candidates - or win as an independent. Either way, there would be huge tactical voting against him. If the mood by the election is to give the Tories a kicking, it will be doubly so for him. "Were you up for Boris?" is not what his ego wants to hear.

    So next general election? Nah. If he has any ambitions of "doing a Churchill", it will have to wait.

    He'll need to reinvent himself first. Partly because he will be bald by then.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,937

    ydoethur said:

    If he returns to Parliament won't he still have to serve his suspension? Or does a GE cancel that, a bit like these police officers signing up for a different force?

    Cancels it.

    However there's nothing stopping the new Parliament from reimposing the suspension.
    Reimposing the suspension would be wrong IMO, if he is re-elected.
    He absconded before serving his sentence.
    That's a poor comparison, isn't it? And it would be a perfect way to make parliament and the committee look like an undemocratic witch-hunt.

    It's a mistake to make your enemy look like a victim. That would do exactly that (see also Farage and Natwest).
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,253
    Who “wouldn’t want better odds”??
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,121

    ydoethur said:

    If he returns to Parliament won't he still have to serve his suspension? Or does a GE cancel that, a bit like these police officers signing up for a different force?

    Cancels it.

    However there's nothing stopping the new Parliament from reimposing the suspension.
    Reimposing the suspension would be wrong IMO, if he is re-elected.
    On grounds of precedent, perhaps. But the man drove a coach and horses through Parliamentary etiquette and the Ministerial Code. He brought Parliament into disrepute.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,253
    edited November 2023

    He would have to either get on the list of Conservative candidates - or win as an independent. Either way, there would be huge tactical voting against him. If the mood by the election is to give the Tories a kicking, it will be doubly so for him. "Were you up for Boris?" is not what his ego wants to hear.

    So next general election? Nah. If he has any ambitions of "doing a Churchill", it will have to wait.

    He'll need to reinvent himself first. Partly because he will be bald by then.

    As you say, he would further tarnish the brand and remind voters of stuff the party is desperately hoping we might forget, or at least overlook….
  • Options
    IanB2 said:

    He would have to either get on the list of Conservative candidates - or win as an independent. Either way, there would be huge tactical voting against him. If the mood by the election is to give the Tories a kicking, it will be doubly so for him. "Were you up for Boris?" is not what his ego wants to hear.

    So next general election? Nah. If he has any ambitions of "doing a Churchill", it will have to wait.

    He'll need to reinvent himself first. Partly because he will be bald by then.

    As you say, he would further tarnish the brand and remind voters of stuff the party is desperately hoping we might forget, or at least overlook….
    Bless, you genuinely think Boris Johnson would put the needs of others ahead of his own selfish desires?
  • Options
    El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,870
    edited November 2023
    Weirdly the Henley Conservative PPC selection (his old constituency) is still unresolved after endless allegations of mispractice.

    But I haven’t seen any great appetite locally for recalling Boris. It’s an outside chance of a LibDem gain - the District Council is LD-dominated - though that would probably require a Daveygasm.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,253

    IanB2 said:

    He would have to either get on the list of Conservative candidates - or win as an independent. Either way, there would be huge tactical voting against him. If the mood by the election is to give the Tories a kicking, it will be doubly so for him. "Were you up for Boris?" is not what his ego wants to hear.

    So next general election? Nah. If he has any ambitions of "doing a Churchill", it will have to wait.

    He'll need to reinvent himself first. Partly because he will be bald by then.

    As you say, he would further tarnish the brand and remind voters of stuff the party is desperately hoping we might forget, or at least overlook….
    Bless, you genuinely think Boris Johnson would put the needs of others ahead of his own selfish desires?
    As Mark says, he would need to get approved and selected first.
  • Options
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    He would have to either get on the list of Conservative candidates - or win as an independent. Either way, there would be huge tactical voting against him. If the mood by the election is to give the Tories a kicking, it will be doubly so for him. "Were you up for Boris?" is not what his ego wants to hear.

    So next general election? Nah. If he has any ambitions of "doing a Churchill", it will have to wait.

    He'll need to reinvent himself first. Partly because he will be bald by then.

    As you say, he would further tarnish the brand and remind voters of stuff the party is desperately hoping we might forget, or at least overlook….
    Bless, you genuinely think Boris Johnson would put the needs of others ahead of his own selfish desires?
    As Mark says, he would need to get approved and selected first.
    Here's a thought.

    Boris Johnson stands as a Reform candidate.

    It would be like Churchill's Liberal years.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,121
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    He would have to either get on the list of Conservative candidates - or win as an independent. Either way, there would be huge tactical voting against him. If the mood by the election is to give the Tories a kicking, it will be doubly so for him. "Were you up for Boris?" is not what his ego wants to hear.

    So next general election? Nah. If he has any ambitions of "doing a Churchill", it will have to wait.

    He'll need to reinvent himself first. Partly because he will be bald by then.

    As you say, he would further tarnish the brand and remind voters of stuff the party is desperately hoping we might forget, or at least overlook….
    Bless, you genuinely think Boris Johnson would put the needs of others ahead of his own selfish desires?
    As Mark says, he would need to get approved and selected first.
    He remains catnip to the blue rinse brigade. I don't know the mechanics of the Conservative Party. Do the blue rinsers still oil the wheels of the party?
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,253
    edited November 2023

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    He would have to either get on the list of Conservative candidates - or win as an independent. Either way, there would be huge tactical voting against him. If the mood by the election is to give the Tories a kicking, it will be doubly so for him. "Were you up for Boris?" is not what his ego wants to hear.

    So next general election? Nah. If he has any ambitions of "doing a Churchill", it will have to wait.

    He'll need to reinvent himself first. Partly because he will be bald by then.

    As you say, he would further tarnish the brand and remind voters of stuff the party is desperately hoping we might forget, or at least overlook….
    Bless, you genuinely think Boris Johnson would put the needs of others ahead of his own selfish desires?
    As Mark says, he would need to get approved and selected first.
    Here's a thought.

    Boris Johnson stands as a Reform candidate.

    It would be like Churchill's Liberal years.
    And he’d probably take the cash payment (allegedly) on offer…or was that just for sitting MPs?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,465
    Nigelb said:

    Has Suella Braverman never heard of Sam Goldwyn ?

    A verbal contract is not worth the paper it's written on.

    Details have emerged of the controversial deal allegedly struck between Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and former Home Secretary Suella Braverman on immigration...
    https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1729020142648988112
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,465
    Dave and George never had a constitutional court to contend with.

    This is almost as stupid as the U.S. debt limit.

    Germany chokes on its own austerity medicine
    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-debt-austerity-climate-olaf-scholz-christian-lindner/
    ...Last week’s jaw-dropping constitutional court ruling that effectively rendered the core of the German government’s legislative agenda null and void has left the country in a collective shock. In order to circumvent Germany’s self-imposed deficit strictures, which give governments little room to spend more than they collect in taxes, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s coalition relied on a network of “special funds” outside the main budget. Scholz was convinced the government could tap the money without violating the so-called debt brake.

    The court, in no uncertain terms, disagreed. The ruling raises questions about the government’s ability to access a total of €869 billion parked outside the federal budget in 29 “special funds.” The court’s move forced the government to both freeze new spending and put approval of next year’s budget on hold.

    A week after the decision, both the magnitude of the ruling and the reality that there’s no easy way out have become increasingly clear. Though Scholz has promised to come up with a new plan “very quickly,” few see a resolution without imposing austerity...

  • Options

    Weirdly the Henley Conservative PPC selection (his old constituency) is still unresolved after endless allegations of mispractice.

    But I haven’t seen any great appetite locally for recalling Boris. It’s an outside chance of a LibDem gain - the District Council is LD-dominated - though that would probably require a Daveygasm.

    This is the election where us LDs come out of nowhere and surprise a few people. Maybe...
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,465

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    He would have to either get on the list of Conservative candidates - or win as an independent. Either way, there would be huge tactical voting against him. If the mood by the election is to give the Tories a kicking, it will be doubly so for him. "Were you up for Boris?" is not what his ego wants to hear.

    So next general election? Nah. If he has any ambitions of "doing a Churchill", it will have to wait.

    He'll need to reinvent himself first. Partly because he will be bald by then.

    As you say, he would further tarnish the brand and remind voters of stuff the party is desperately hoping we might forget, or at least overlook….
    Bless, you genuinely think Boris Johnson would put the needs of others ahead of his own selfish desires?
    As Mark says, he would need to get approved and selected first.
    Here's a thought.

    Boris Johnson stands as a Reform candidate.

    It would be like Churchill's Liberal years.
    They'd have to rename it Rehab.
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Has Suella Braverman never heard of Sam Goldwyn ?

    A verbal contract is not worth the paper it's written on.

    Details have emerged of the controversial deal allegedly struck between Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and former Home Secretary Suella Braverman on immigration...
    https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1729020142648988112
    As I have advised various clients, a *written* contract is not worth the paper it is written on *unless* you are prepared to defend it in court. And as they aren't...
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,993
    For balance, a modestly interesting FT article on how Ukraine can still win. As long as the west keeps the faith

    To my mind it singularly fails to say exactly how victory happens, or what it looks like. But it may improve the morale of less pessimistic PBers

    https://www.ft.com/content/822e4e21-a631-496e-accd-1c9d6288573c
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,465

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Has Suella Braverman never heard of Sam Goldwyn ?

    A verbal contract is not worth the paper it's written on.

    Details have emerged of the controversial deal allegedly struck between Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and former Home Secretary Suella Braverman on immigration...
    https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1729020142648988112
    As I have advised various clients, a *written* contract is not worth the paper it is written on *unless* you are prepared to defend it in court. And as they aren't...
    Enforce, rather than defend, surely ?

    The amusing thing is that it is a verbal agreement, which Suella has then written down.

    Less credible than a Met officer's notebook.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,629
    edited November 2023
    Leon said:

    For balance, a modestly interesting FT article on how Ukraine can still win. As long as the west keeps the faith

    To my mind it singularly fails to say exactly how victory happens, or what it looks like. But it may improve the morale of less pessimistic PBers

    https://www.ft.com/content/822e4e21-a631-496e-accd-1c9d6288573c

    A very long, slow grind seems most likely to me now.

    History never repeats exactly but look at the Soviets in Afghanistan 1979-1989 (which brought the Soviet empire down of course) or the US in Vietnam for pointers.

    On balance, I'd say the Ukrainians are less likely to give up on Ukraine than the Russians in the long term.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,465
    edited November 2023
    Leon said:

    For balance, a modestly interesting FT article on how Ukraine can still win. As long as the west keeps the faith

    To my mind it singularly fails to say exactly how victory happens, or what it looks like. But it may improve the morale of less pessimistic PBers

    https://www.ft.com/content/822e4e21-a631-496e-accd-1c9d6288573c

    It's not really a question of optimism or pessimism - Ukraine has no other alternative.

    What value would a peace agreement have if Trump were elected next year ?
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,405
    edited November 2023
    How far up the safe seat list would he have to be to survive contact with the general electorate?

    As things stand, seats like Mid Beds and Selby aren't secure for the Conservatives. Swingback might help, but I wouldn't be sure about that.

    And whilst there are voters whole love Boris, there are others, probably more, who hate him. (I suspect that one of the reasons for the low swing in the Uxbridge BE was the lack of a "Kick Johnson in the Johnson" factor.) BoJo standing for the Conservatives would be to invite a White Suit candidate. Are there any Conservative seats that could survive that?

    And BoJo's image as a winner is partly derived from avoiding running when he risks being a loser. "I would have been brilliant if they hadn't stopped me standing" is much better for the brand and ego.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,465
    The Middle Eastern sense of humour.

    The United Arab Emirates planned to use its role as the host of UN climate talks as an opportunity to strike oil and gas deals, the BBC has learned.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67508331

  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754
    Nigelb said:

    The Middle Eastern sense of humour.

    The United Arab Emirates planned to use its role as the host of UN climate talks as an opportunity to strike oil and gas deals, the BBC has learned.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67508331

    No doubt following the UK's lead on Net Zero
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,629
    Nigelb said:

    Dave and George never had a constitutional court to contend with.

    This is almost as stupid as the U.S. debt limit.

    Germany chokes on its own austerity medicine
    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-debt-austerity-climate-olaf-scholz-christian-lindner/
    ...Last week’s jaw-dropping constitutional court ruling that effectively rendered the core of the German government’s legislative agenda null and void has left the country in a collective shock. In order to circumvent Germany’s self-imposed deficit strictures, which give governments little room to spend more than they collect in taxes, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s coalition relied on a network of “special funds” outside the main budget. Scholz was convinced the government could tap the money without violating the so-called debt brake.

    The court, in no uncertain terms, disagreed. The ruling raises questions about the government’s ability to access a total of €869 billion parked outside the federal budget in 29 “special funds.” The court’s move forced the government to both freeze new spending and put approval of next year’s budget on hold.

    A week after the decision, both the magnitude of the ruling and the reality that there’s no easy way out have become increasingly clear. Though Scholz has promised to come up with a new plan “very quickly,” few see a resolution without imposing austerity...

    Naive question maybe, but can't the German government legislate to change the deficit rules?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,465

    Nigelb said:

    Dave and George never had a constitutional court to contend with.

    This is almost as stupid as the U.S. debt limit.

    Germany chokes on its own austerity medicine
    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-debt-austerity-climate-olaf-scholz-christian-lindner/
    ...Last week’s jaw-dropping constitutional court ruling that effectively rendered the core of the German government’s legislative agenda null and void has left the country in a collective shock. In order to circumvent Germany’s self-imposed deficit strictures, which give governments little room to spend more than they collect in taxes, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s coalition relied on a network of “special funds” outside the main budget. Scholz was convinced the government could tap the money without violating the so-called debt brake.

    The court, in no uncertain terms, disagreed. The ruling raises questions about the government’s ability to access a total of €869 billion parked outside the federal budget in 29 “special funds.” The court’s move forced the government to both freeze new spending and put approval of next year’s budget on hold.

    A week after the decision, both the magnitude of the ruling and the reality that there’s no easy way out have become increasingly clear. Though Scholz has promised to come up with a new plan “very quickly,” few see a resolution without imposing austerity...

    Naive question maybe, but can't the German government legislate to change the deficit rules?
    The 'debt brake' is in the constitution, and rewriting that is rather more difficult than just legislating.

    Easier to legislate away the US debt limit. And that hasn't happened.
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    Dave and George never had a constitutional court to contend with.

    This is almost as stupid as the U.S. debt limit.

    Germany chokes on its own austerity medicine
    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-debt-austerity-climate-olaf-scholz-christian-lindner/
    ...Last week’s jaw-dropping constitutional court ruling that effectively rendered the core of the German government’s legislative agenda null and void has left the country in a collective shock. In order to circumvent Germany’s self-imposed deficit strictures, which give governments little room to spend more than they collect in taxes, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s coalition relied on a network of “special funds” outside the main budget. Scholz was convinced the government could tap the money without violating the so-called debt brake.

    The court, in no uncertain terms, disagreed. The ruling raises questions about the government’s ability to access a total of €869 billion parked outside the federal budget in 29 “special funds.” The court’s move forced the government to both freeze new spending and put approval of next year’s budget on hold.

    A week after the decision, both the magnitude of the ruling and the reality that there’s no easy way out have become increasingly clear. Though Scholz has promised to come up with a new plan “very quickly,” few see a resolution without imposing austerity...

    The historic justification is to avoid hyperinflation leading to Nazism. Revisionists suggest it was not inflation but austerity which led to the rise of the Nazis.
  • Options
    I'm looking at the Dem nomination polling, the fact that ballot registrations have closed for several of the most important early states and the fact that it's now barely 9 months until the Democratic National Convention. And I cannot work out why Gavin Newsom is still so short, other than he's a relatively photogenic incumbent governor of California and not obviously deranged.

    Can someone explain to me please?
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,937

    Leon said:

    For balance, a modestly interesting FT article on how Ukraine can still win. As long as the west keeps the faith

    To my mind it singularly fails to say exactly how victory happens, or what it looks like. But it may improve the morale of less pessimistic PBers

    https://www.ft.com/content/822e4e21-a631-496e-accd-1c9d6288573c

    A very long, slow grind seems most likely to me now.

    History never repeats exactly but look at the Soviets in Afghanistan 1979-1989 (which brought the Soviet empire down of course) or the US in Vietnam for pointers.

    On balance, I'd say the Ukrainians are less likely to give up on Ukraine than the Russians in the long term.
    Back in Feb 22, in the very first days of the war, when it looked as though Kyiv would fall, I said on here that Ukraine would eventually be free again. It may take decades, but the Russian government would fid it hard to keep.

    Russia appears to be using ethnic cleansing and similar techniques in the areas it has gained in an effort to stop this: exporting Ukrainians and importing Russians - a bit like Stalin did to (e.g.) the Crimean tartars. But doubt even that would work.

    (And again, it is notable how silent the likes of Owen Jones are over Russia's actions compared to Israel's.)
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,316

    Nigelb said:

    Dave and George never had a constitutional court to contend with.

    This is almost as stupid as the U.S. debt limit.

    Germany chokes on its own austerity medicine
    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-debt-austerity-climate-olaf-scholz-christian-lindner/
    ...Last week’s jaw-dropping constitutional court ruling that effectively rendered the core of the German government’s legislative agenda null and void has left the country in a collective shock. In order to circumvent Germany’s self-imposed deficit strictures, which give governments little room to spend more than they collect in taxes, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s coalition relied on a network of “special funds” outside the main budget. Scholz was convinced the government could tap the money without violating the so-called debt brake.

    The court, in no uncertain terms, disagreed. The ruling raises questions about the government’s ability to access a total of €869 billion parked outside the federal budget in 29 “special funds.” The court’s move forced the government to both freeze new spending and put approval of next year’s budget on hold.

    A week after the decision, both the magnitude of the ruling and the reality that there’s no easy way out have become increasingly clear. Though Scholz has promised to come up with a new plan “very quickly,” few see a resolution without imposing austerity...

    Naive question maybe, but can't the German government legislate to change the deficit rules?
    You’d get into constitutional changes pretty quickly. Constitutional courts tend not to like attempts to remove any of their powers…

    Germany has a special thing about deficit spending and inflation.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,960

    How far up the safe seat list would he have to be to survive contact with the general electorate?

    As things stand, seats like Mid Beds and Selby aren't secure for the Conservatives. Swingback might help, but I wouldn't be sure about that.

    And whilst there are voters whole love Boris, there are others, probably more, who hate him. (I suspect that one of the reasons for the low swing in the Uxbridge BE was the lack of a "Kick Johnson in the Johnson" factor.) BoJo standing for the Conservatives would be to invite a White Suit candidate. Are there any Conservative seats that could survive that?

    And BoJo's image as a winner is partly derived from avoiding running when he risks being a loser. "I would have been brilliant if they hadn't stopped me standing" is much better for the brand and ego.

    Good morning everybody.
    While I agree with everything our colleague has written here I would make one point. Johnson, plus family (or at least some of them) appeared at the anti-Semitism March yesterday. Why, I wonder, did he do that?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,465

    I'm looking at the Dem nomination polling, the fact that ballot registrations have closed for several of the most important early states and the fact that it's now barely 9 months until the Democratic National Convention. And I cannot work out why Gavin Newsom is still so short, other than he's a relatively photogenic incumbent governor of California and not obviously deranged.

    Can someone explain to me please?

    There's a non zero chance that Biden might step down.
    But I agree, his odds seem too short.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,465
    edited November 2023

    How far up the safe seat list would he have to be to survive contact with the general electorate?

    As things stand, seats like Mid Beds and Selby aren't secure for the Conservatives. Swingback might help, but I wouldn't be sure about that.

    And whilst there are voters whole love Boris, there are others, probably more, who hate him. (I suspect that one of the reasons for the low swing in the Uxbridge BE was the lack of a "Kick Johnson in the Johnson" factor.) BoJo standing for the Conservatives would be to invite a White Suit candidate. Are there any Conservative seats that could survive that?

    And BoJo's image as a winner is partly derived from avoiding running when he risks being a loser. "I would have been brilliant if they hadn't stopped me standing" is much better for the brand and ego.

    Good morning everybody.
    While I agree with everything our colleague has written here I would make one point. Johnson, plus family (or at least some of them) appeared at the anti-Semitism March yesterday. Why, I wonder, did he do that?
    It's not impossible for him to do the right thing once in a while.
    See also, for example, Ukraine.

    Also, he's too lazy and impulsive to be truly Machiavellian.
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    I'm looking at the Dem nomination polling, the fact that ballot registrations have closed for several of the most important early states and the fact that it's now barely 9 months until the Democratic National Convention. And I cannot work out why Gavin Newsom is still so short, other than he's a relatively photogenic incumbent governor of California and not obviously deranged.

    Can someone explain to me please?

    There's a non zero chance that Biden might step down.
    But I agree, his odds seem too short.
    It's non zero but 6/1 is very short.

    Primaries open in barely 6 weeks. Running out of time.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,960
    Flanner said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    He would have to either get on the list of Conservative candidates - or win as an independent. Either way, there would be huge tactical voting against him. If the mood by the election is to give the Tories a kicking, it will be doubly so for him. "Were you up for Boris?" is not what his ego wants to hear.

    So next general election? Nah. If he has any ambitions of "doing a Churchill", it will have to wait.

    He'll need to reinvent himself first. Partly because he will be bald by then.

    As you say, he would further tarnish the brand and remind voters of stuff the party is desperately hoping we might forget, or at least overlook….
    Bless, you genuinely think Boris Johnson would put the needs of others ahead of his own selfish desires?
    As Mark says, he would need to get approved and selected first.
    He remains catnip to the blue rinse brigade. I don't know the mechanics of the Conservative Party. Do the blue rinsers still oil the wheels of the party?
    As an anti-Tory activist in a Blue Wall seat that used to be hyper-safe Tory heartland, I'd say blue-rinsers are close to extinct. The boom in high life-expectancy Boomers means most of our pensioners are opinionated graduates, who've jacked up property prices and unintentionally forced working-class Tories out , while the remaining elderly Tories are these days typically too busy with their bucket lists and looking after grandchildren to push leaflets out for an unpopular Tory - or even turn up at Tory Party meetings.

    This probably doesn't stop the reduced Tory membership (mainly eccentric young right-wingers on the make) from exerting the control over local Party decisions once held by retired local businesspeople. But it does mean the elderly middle class vote LD, Green or centrist Labour - or simply don't vote.
    ‘Eccentric young right-wingers’
    Are you by any chance referring to our own HYUFD?
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,005
    edited November 2023

    Nigelb said:

    Dave and George never had a constitutional court to contend with.

    This is almost as stupid as the U.S. debt limit.

    Germany chokes on its own austerity medicine
    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-debt-austerity-climate-olaf-scholz-christian-lindner/
    ...Last week’s jaw-dropping constitutional court ruling that effectively rendered the core of the German government’s legislative agenda null and void has left the country in a collective shock. In order to circumvent Germany’s self-imposed deficit strictures, which give governments little room to spend more than they collect in taxes, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s coalition relied on a network of “special funds” outside the main budget. Scholz was convinced the government could tap the money without violating the so-called debt brake.

    The court, in no uncertain terms, disagreed. The ruling raises questions about the government’s ability to access a total of €869 billion parked outside the federal budget in 29 “special funds.” The court’s move forced the government to both freeze new spending and put approval of next year’s budget on hold.

    A week after the decision, both the magnitude of the ruling and the reality that there’s no easy way out have become increasingly clear. Though Scholz has promised to come up with a new plan “very quickly,” few see a resolution without imposing austerity...

    The historic justification is to avoid hyperinflation leading to Nazism. Revisionists suggest it was not inflation but austerity which led to the rise of the Nazis.
    Of course the hyper inflation and the austerity caused by the 1929 crash were separated by several years but it seems to be commonly accepted that the German collective memory has conflated the two.
  • Options
    Slick videos or more 'authentic' content? The Israel-Gaza battles raging on TikTok and X
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67497299

    The BBC looks at the social media battle for public opinion.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,552
    Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,465
    edited November 2023

    Nigelb said:

    I'm looking at the Dem nomination polling, the fact that ballot registrations have closed for several of the most important early states and the fact that it's now barely 9 months until the Democratic National Convention. And I cannot work out why Gavin Newsom is still so short, other than he's a relatively photogenic incumbent governor of California and not obviously deranged.

    Can someone explain to me please?

    There's a non zero chance that Biden might step down.
    But I agree, his odds seem too short.
    It's non zero but 6/1 is very short.

    Primaries open in barely 6 weeks. Running out of time.
    It does seem slightly crazy that he's a quarter the odds of Harris.
    Thanks for noting that - I last shorted him around 8.

    Realistically, though, there aren't many alternatives to Biden this late in the game, so either of those two would be decent long odds shouts. It's just that his are too short.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,875
    Nigelb said:

    It's not impossible for him to do the right thing once in a while.

    No, but the odds are longer than his electoral chances...
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938

    Weirdly the Henley Conservative PPC selection (his old constituency) is still unresolved after endless allegations of mispractice.

    But I haven’t seen any great appetite locally for recalling Boris. It’s an outside chance of a LibDem gain - the District Council is LD-dominated - though that would probably require a Daveygasm.

    This is the election where us LDs come out of nowhere and surprise a few people. Maybe...
    The last time the LibDems "blew the bloody doors off" was 1997, when they dropped three quarters of a million votes, and yet increased their number of seats by 150%.

    Could that happen again?

    Well, I'm always amused by the way that LD seat and vote share seem uncorrelated, but I suspect that 2024 will see the LDs increase their vote share modestly, and get their seat numbers back in the 20s (and possibly even the high 20s). But I don't see them achieving anything like their 1997 result.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,993

    Leon said:

    For balance, a modestly interesting FT article on how Ukraine can still win. As long as the west keeps the faith

    To my mind it singularly fails to say exactly how victory happens, or what it looks like. But it may improve the morale of less pessimistic PBers

    https://www.ft.com/content/822e4e21-a631-496e-accd-1c9d6288573c

    A very long, slow grind seems most likely to me now.

    History never repeats exactly but look at the Soviets in Afghanistan 1979-1989 (which brought the Soviet empire down of course) or the US in Vietnam for pointers.

    On balance, I'd say the Ukrainians are less likely to give up on Ukraine than the Russians in the long term.
    I can’t see either side giving up

    Russia will certainly never cede Crimea (nor, likely, the Donbas - dunno about the other oblasts)

    Ukraine will always want revenge on Russia - and the return of Crimea and the Donbas

    For Russia to win the Ukrainians have to completely give up and maybe the whole country has to collapse. Really really unlikely. For Ukraine to win the Putin regime has to fall AND a more peaceable replacement has to take over. Also highly unlikely

    I don’t know how this square is circled. It’s probably impossible. My desire therefore is for large scale fighting to cease for now so at least thousands stop dying every week… then both sides will rearm and await round 2 but in that time Putin could die and then there might be a chance at a better peace for Kyiv

    Yes I know I’ll go and stand in the Fucking Appeaser Corner
  • Options


    Surely not.

    Liar, liar, pants on fire.

    I've just this morning finished Tim Milne's book on Kim Philby, one of Cambridge University's most decorated alumni, and Nadine's The Plot is next off the pile.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938

    Nigelb said:

    I'm looking at the Dem nomination polling, the fact that ballot registrations have closed for several of the most important early states and the fact that it's now barely 9 months until the Democratic National Convention. And I cannot work out why Gavin Newsom is still so short, other than he's a relatively photogenic incumbent governor of California and not obviously deranged.

    Can someone explain to me please?

    There's a non zero chance that Biden might step down.
    But I agree, his odds seem too short.
    It's non zero but 6/1 is very short.

    Primaries open in barely 6 weeks. Running out of time.
    The Democratic Primaries start later, due to Iowa being downgraded to Super Tuesday. New Hampshire in on January 23, and South Carolina on February 3.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,552
    rcs1000 said:

    Weirdly the Henley Conservative PPC selection (his old constituency) is still unresolved after endless allegations of mispractice.

    But I haven’t seen any great appetite locally for recalling Boris. It’s an outside chance of a LibDem gain - the District Council is LD-dominated - though that would probably require a Daveygasm.

    This is the election where us LDs come out of nowhere and surprise a few people. Maybe...
    The last time the LibDems "blew the bloody doors off" was 1997, when they dropped three quarters of a million votes, and yet increased their number of seats by 150%.

    Could that happen again?

    Well, I'm always amused by the way that LD seat and vote share seem uncorrelated, but I suspect that 2024 will see the LDs increase their vote share modestly, and get their seat numbers back in the 20s (and possibly even the high 20s). But I don't see them achieving anything like their 1997 result.
    Looking back over history Lib Dem seat count seems best negatively correlated with Tory vote share. I’ll do the maths later.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,679

    I'm looking at the Dem nomination polling, the fact that ballot registrations have closed for several of the most important early states and the fact that it's now barely 9 months until the Democratic National Convention. And I cannot work out why Gavin Newsom is still so short, other than he's a relatively photogenic incumbent governor of California and not obviously deranged.

    Can someone explain to me please?

    Biden's age puts a straight up actuarial chance on the table, and nobody likes Kamala. I think Newsom is the go to guy if it ends up being decided in the convention, for whatever reason. It would be a big stitch up, and I don't think he'd win the general, but that's what it looks like to me.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'm looking at the Dem nomination polling, the fact that ballot registrations have closed for several of the most important early states and the fact that it's now barely 9 months until the Democratic National Convention. And I cannot work out why Gavin Newsom is still so short, other than he's a relatively photogenic incumbent governor of California and not obviously deranged.

    Can someone explain to me please?

    There's a non zero chance that Biden might step down.
    But I agree, his odds seem too short.
    It's non zero but 6/1 is very short.

    Primaries open in barely 6 weeks. Running out of time.
    The Democratic Primaries start later, due to Iowa being downgraded to Super Tuesday. New Hampshire in on January 23, and South Carolina on February 3.
    As an aside (and as a deliberate strategy), the Biden campaign has chosen not to be on the ballot in New Hampshire.

    This means that - as it's an open primary - Democrats are free to vote for Republicans. This *might* make an upset rather more likely than would be expected.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,629
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    For balance, a modestly interesting FT article on how Ukraine can still win. As long as the west keeps the faith

    To my mind it singularly fails to say exactly how victory happens, or what it looks like. But it may improve the morale of less pessimistic PBers

    https://www.ft.com/content/822e4e21-a631-496e-accd-1c9d6288573c

    A very long, slow grind seems most likely to me now.

    History never repeats exactly but look at the Soviets in Afghanistan 1979-1989 (which brought the Soviet empire down of course) or the US in Vietnam for pointers.

    On balance, I'd say the Ukrainians are less likely to give up on Ukraine than the Russians in the long term.
    I can’t see either side giving up

    Russia will certainly never cede Crimea (nor, likely, the Donbas - dunno about the other oblasts)

    Ukraine will always want revenge on Russia - and the return of Crimea and the Donbas

    For Russia to win the Ukrainians have to completely give up and maybe the whole country has to collapse. Really really unlikely. For Ukraine to win the Putin regime has to fall AND a more peaceable replacement has to take over. Also highly unlikely

    I don’t know how this square is circled. It’s probably impossible. My desire therefore is for large scale fighting to cease for now so at least thousands stop dying every week… then both sides will rearm and await round 2 but in that time Putin could die and then there might be a chance at a better peace for Kyiv

    Yes I know I’ll go and stand in the Fucking Appeaser Corner
    List of hostile invasions in past 1,000 years successfully held in the long-term by the invader:

    1. The Norman conquest.
    2. ...er?

  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    For balance, a modestly interesting FT article on how Ukraine can still win. As long as the west keeps the faith

    To my mind it singularly fails to say exactly how victory happens, or what it looks like. But it may improve the morale of less pessimistic PBers

    https://www.ft.com/content/822e4e21-a631-496e-accd-1c9d6288573c

    A very long, slow grind seems most likely to me now.

    History never repeats exactly but look at the Soviets in Afghanistan 1979-1989 (which brought the Soviet empire down of course) or the US in Vietnam for pointers.

    On balance, I'd say the Ukrainians are less likely to give up on Ukraine than the Russians in the long term.
    I can’t see either side giving up

    Russia will certainly never cede Crimea (nor, likely, the Donbas - dunno about the other oblasts)

    Ukraine will always want revenge on Russia - and the return of Crimea and the Donbas

    For Russia to win the Ukrainians have to completely give up and maybe the whole country has to collapse. Really really unlikely. For Ukraine to win the Putin regime has to fall AND a more peaceable replacement has to take over. Also highly unlikely

    I don’t know how this square is circled. It’s probably impossible. My desire therefore is for large scale fighting to cease for now so at least thousands stop dying every week… then both sides will rearm and await round 2 but in that time Putin could die and then there might be a chance at a better peace for Kyiv

    Yes I know I’ll go and stand in the Fucking Appeaser Corner
    I can't see any scenario where Ukraine stops fighting, because they know what will happen in that event.

    Which means that Sherlock Holmes maxim applies: whatever remains, no matter how implausible, is the answer.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,629


    Surely not.

    Liar, liar, pants on fire.

    It's the blond-rinse brigade.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938

    I'm looking at the Dem nomination polling, the fact that ballot registrations have closed for several of the most important early states and the fact that it's now barely 9 months until the Democratic National Convention. And I cannot work out why Gavin Newsom is still so short, other than he's a relatively photogenic incumbent governor of California and not obviously deranged.

    Can someone explain to me please?

    It's also not entirely clear that Newsom would even win a Primary in California.

    I guess his path to the nomination is:

    Biden goes for the nomination, but has to pull out at some point in the first half of 2024 (probably due to health reasons). Harris is rejected by party bigwigs as being a voter repellant. And therefore they need to find someone else.

    Ta da! Newsom.

    Possible. Maybe even plausible. But I'd want decent odds.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,234

    Nigelb said:

    Dave and George never had a constitutional court to contend with.

    This is almost as stupid as the U.S. debt limit.

    Germany chokes on its own austerity medicine
    https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-debt-austerity-climate-olaf-scholz-christian-lindner/
    ...Last week’s jaw-dropping constitutional court ruling that effectively rendered the core of the German government’s legislative agenda null and void has left the country in a collective shock. In order to circumvent Germany’s self-imposed deficit strictures, which give governments little room to spend more than they collect in taxes, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s coalition relied on a network of “special funds” outside the main budget. Scholz was convinced the government could tap the money without violating the so-called debt brake.

    The court, in no uncertain terms, disagreed. The ruling raises questions about the government’s ability to access a total of €869 billion parked outside the federal budget in 29 “special funds.” The court’s move forced the government to both freeze new spending and put approval of next year’s budget on hold.

    A week after the decision, both the magnitude of the ruling and the reality that there’s no easy way out have become increasingly clear. Though Scholz has promised to come up with a new plan “very quickly,” few see a resolution without imposing austerity...

    Naive question maybe, but can't the German government legislate to change the deficit rules?
    You’d get into constitutional changes pretty quickly. Constitutional courts tend not to like attempts to remove any of their powers…

    Germany has a special thing about deficit spending and inflation.
    Actually the government can declare an emergency and suspend the debt brake (as they did the last 3 years). Which is no doubt what they will try to do.

    The debt brake has been part of the constitution since 2009, it would need a two thirds majority in both houses of parliament to remove it.
  • Options

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    For balance, a modestly interesting FT article on how Ukraine can still win. As long as the west keeps the faith

    To my mind it singularly fails to say exactly how victory happens, or what it looks like. But it may improve the morale of less pessimistic PBers

    https://www.ft.com/content/822e4e21-a631-496e-accd-1c9d6288573c

    A very long, slow grind seems most likely to me now.

    History never repeats exactly but look at the Soviets in Afghanistan 1979-1989 (which brought the Soviet empire down of course) or the US in Vietnam for pointers.

    On balance, I'd say the Ukrainians are less likely to give up on Ukraine than the Russians in the long term.
    I can’t see either side giving up

    Russia will certainly never cede Crimea (nor, likely, the Donbas - dunno about the other oblasts)

    Ukraine will always want revenge on Russia - and the return of Crimea and the Donbas

    For Russia to win the Ukrainians have to completely give up and maybe the whole country has to collapse. Really really unlikely. For Ukraine to win the Putin regime has to fall AND a more peaceable replacement has to take over. Also highly unlikely

    I don’t know how this square is circled. It’s probably impossible. My desire therefore is for large scale fighting to cease for now so at least thousands stop dying every week… then both sides will rearm and await round 2 but in that time Putin could die and then there might be a chance at a better peace for Kyiv

    Yes I know I’ll go and stand in the Fucking Appeaser Corner
    List of hostile invasions in past 1,000 years successfully held in the long-term by the invader:

    1. The Norman conquest.
    2. ...er?

    The Malvinas.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,937
    This gave me a much-needed laugh this morning:

    "I was set upon by a group of immigrants in Dublin yesterday. They gave me a triple heart bypass and saved my life 🫀😊"

    https://twitter.com/Davis27271307/status/1728741518322864188

    Though some of the replies are... interesting... :(
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,386

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    For balance, a modestly interesting FT article on how Ukraine can still win. As long as the west keeps the faith

    To my mind it singularly fails to say exactly how victory happens, or what it looks like. But it may improve the morale of less pessimistic PBers

    https://www.ft.com/content/822e4e21-a631-496e-accd-1c9d6288573c

    A very long, slow grind seems most likely to me now.

    History never repeats exactly but look at the Soviets in Afghanistan 1979-1989 (which brought the Soviet empire down of course) or the US in Vietnam for pointers.

    On balance, I'd say the Ukrainians are less likely to give up on Ukraine than the Russians in the long term.
    I can’t see either side giving up

    Russia will certainly never cede Crimea (nor, likely, the Donbas - dunno about the other oblasts)

    Ukraine will always want revenge on Russia - and the return of Crimea and the Donbas

    For Russia to win the Ukrainians have to completely give up and maybe the whole country has to collapse. Really really unlikely. For Ukraine to win the Putin regime has to fall AND a more peaceable replacement has to take over. Also highly unlikely

    I don’t know how this square is circled. It’s probably impossible. My desire therefore is for large scale fighting to cease for now so at least thousands stop dying every week… then both sides will rearm and await round 2 but in that time Putin could die and then there might be a chance at a better peace for Kyiv

    Yes I know I’ll go and stand in the Fucking Appeaser Corner
    List of hostile invasions in past 1,000 years successfully held in the long-term by the invader:

    1. The Norman conquest.
    2. ...er?

    The Malvinas.
    Invasions of uninhabited islands don't count, surely?
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,447
    edited November 2023

    ydoethur said:

    If he returns to Parliament won't he still have to serve his suspension? Or does a GE cancel that, a bit like these police officers signing up for a different force?

    Cancels it.

    However there's nothing stopping the new Parliament from reimposing the suspension.
    Reimposing the suspension would be wrong IMO, if he is re-elected.
    On grounds of precedent, perhaps. But the man drove a coach and horses through Parliamentary etiquette and the Ministerial Code. He brought Parliament into disrepute.
    I don't think that is acceptable. Of course the suspension should be re-imposed, and that should be the usual rule.

    The former corrupt MP for Ashfield & then Beaconsfield, Tim Smith, took £25k in cash from Mohammed Al-Fayed, and was not held to account for his criminality because he stepped down at an election.

    Is that what we want in our legislature?

    Do we tolerate abuse, corruption and criminality for the sake of ... what?

    Where do we draw the line?

    We all know that an entire phalanx of MPs got away with expenses fraud back before the expenses scandal, and very few were held to serious account.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    For balance, a modestly interesting FT article on how Ukraine can still win. As long as the west keeps the faith

    To my mind it singularly fails to say exactly how victory happens, or what it looks like. But it may improve the morale of less pessimistic PBers

    https://www.ft.com/content/822e4e21-a631-496e-accd-1c9d6288573c

    A very long, slow grind seems most likely to me now.

    History never repeats exactly but look at the Soviets in Afghanistan 1979-1989 (which brought the Soviet empire down of course) or the US in Vietnam for pointers.

    On balance, I'd say the Ukrainians are less likely to give up on Ukraine than the Russians in the long term.
    I can’t see either side giving up

    Russia will certainly never cede Crimea (nor, likely, the Donbas - dunno about the other oblasts)

    Ukraine will always want revenge on Russia - and the return of Crimea and the Donbas

    For Russia to win the Ukrainians have to completely give up and maybe the whole country has to collapse. Really really unlikely. For Ukraine to win the Putin regime has to fall AND a more peaceable replacement has to take over. Also highly unlikely

    I don’t know how this square is circled. It’s probably impossible. My desire therefore is for large scale fighting to cease for now so at least thousands stop dying every week… then both sides will rearm and await round 2 but in that time Putin could die and then there might be a chance at a better peace for Kyiv

    Yes I know I’ll go and stand in the Fucking Appeaser Corner
    List of hostile invasions in past 1,000 years successfully held in the long-term by the invader:

    1. The Norman conquest.
    2. ...er?

    The Malvinas.
    Which had a population of a few dozen people* at the time the British took formal control in 1833.

    * Quite a few of which were... errrr... British
  • Options
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    For balance, a modestly interesting FT article on how Ukraine can still win. As long as the west keeps the faith

    To my mind it singularly fails to say exactly how victory happens, or what it looks like. But it may improve the morale of less pessimistic PBers

    https://www.ft.com/content/822e4e21-a631-496e-accd-1c9d6288573c

    A very long, slow grind seems most likely to me now.

    History never repeats exactly but look at the Soviets in Afghanistan 1979-1989 (which brought the Soviet empire down of course) or the US in Vietnam for pointers.

    On balance, I'd say the Ukrainians are less likely to give up on Ukraine than the Russians in the long term.
    I can’t see either side giving up

    Russia will certainly never cede Crimea (nor, likely, the Donbas - dunno about the other oblasts)

    Ukraine will always want revenge on Russia - and the return of Crimea and the Donbas

    For Russia to win the Ukrainians have to completely give up and maybe the whole country has to collapse. Really really unlikely. For Ukraine to win the Putin regime has to fall AND a more peaceable replacement has to take over. Also highly unlikely

    I don’t know how this square is circled. It’s probably impossible. My desire therefore is for large scale fighting to cease for now so at least thousands stop dying every week… then both sides will rearm and await round 2 but in that time Putin could die and then there might be a chance at a better peace for Kyiv

    Yes I know I’ll go and stand in the Fucking Appeaser Corner
    List of hostile invasions in past 1,000 years successfully held in the long-term by the invader:

    1. The Norman conquest.
    2. ...er?

    The Malvinas.
    Invasions of uninhabited islands don't count, surely?
    Wasn’t there a Spanish garrison on the islands when we seized The Malvinas?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938
    It's only a matter of time before Nick Clegg is also indicted:

    https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-meta-spokesperson-criminal-wanted-list/
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,447
    Good morning everyone.

    I see a little debate already about 'can Ukraine win' 'what about a ceasefire', and so on.

    There was a very good interview by Ward Carroll (Youtube military commentator) with Professor Justin Bronk (of RUSI), on the long term prospects in Ukraine.

    Worth a listen imo. Especially the second half, including on the implications for other regions if Western countries are not able to cause defeat of a washed-up enemy on their own doorstep.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmMclP8dlI0
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    For balance, a modestly interesting FT article on how Ukraine can still win. As long as the west keeps the faith

    To my mind it singularly fails to say exactly how victory happens, or what it looks like. But it may improve the morale of less pessimistic PBers

    https://www.ft.com/content/822e4e21-a631-496e-accd-1c9d6288573c

    A very long, slow grind seems most likely to me now.

    History never repeats exactly but look at the Soviets in Afghanistan 1979-1989 (which brought the Soviet empire down of course) or the US in Vietnam for pointers.

    On balance, I'd say the Ukrainians are less likely to give up on Ukraine than the Russians in the long term.
    I can’t see either side giving up

    Russia will certainly never cede Crimea (nor, likely, the Donbas - dunno about the other oblasts)

    Ukraine will always want revenge on Russia - and the return of Crimea and the Donbas

    For Russia to win the Ukrainians have to completely give up and maybe the whole country has to collapse. Really really unlikely. For Ukraine to win the Putin regime has to fall AND a more peaceable replacement has to take over. Also highly unlikely

    I don’t know how this square is circled. It’s probably impossible. My desire therefore is for large scale fighting to cease for now so at least thousands stop dying every week… then both sides will rearm and await round 2 but in that time Putin could die and then there might be a chance at a better peace for Kyiv

    Yes I know I’ll go and stand in the Fucking Appeaser Corner
    List of hostile invasions in past 1,000 years successfully held in the long-term by the invader:

    1. The Norman conquest.
    2. ...er?

    The Malvinas.
    Invasions of uninhabited islands don't count, surely?
    Wasn’t there a Spanish garrison on the islands when we seized The Malvinas?
    "In 1833, when the British reasserted control over the Falkland Islands, the population was quite small. The exact number is not precisely documented, but it's generally agreed that only a few dozen people were living there at the time. These would have included members of the small Argentine garrison, along with some - mostly British - settlers."
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,552
    edited November 2023

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    For balance, a modestly interesting FT article on how Ukraine can still win. As long as the west keeps the faith

    To my mind it singularly fails to say exactly how victory happens, or what it looks like. But it may improve the morale of less pessimistic PBers

    https://www.ft.com/content/822e4e21-a631-496e-accd-1c9d6288573c

    A very long, slow grind seems most likely to me now.

    History never repeats exactly but look at the Soviets in Afghanistan 1979-1989 (which brought the Soviet empire down of course) or the US in Vietnam for pointers.

    On balance, I'd say the Ukrainians are less likely to give up on Ukraine than the Russians in the long term.
    I can’t see either side giving up

    Russia will certainly never cede Crimea (nor, likely, the Donbas - dunno about the other oblasts)

    Ukraine will always want revenge on Russia - and the return of Crimea and the Donbas

    For Russia to win the Ukrainians have to completely give up and maybe the whole country has to collapse. Really really unlikely. For Ukraine to win the Putin regime has to fall AND a more peaceable replacement has to take over. Also highly unlikely

    I don’t know how this square is circled. It’s probably impossible. My desire therefore is for large scale fighting to cease for now so at least thousands stop dying every week… then both sides will rearm and await round 2 but in that time Putin could die and then there might be a chance at a better peace for Kyiv

    Yes I know I’ll go and stand in the Fucking Appeaser Corner
    List of hostile invasions in past 1,000 years successfully held in the long-term by the invader:

    1. The Norman conquest.
    2. ...er?

    There are plenty of examples. The entirety of Russia for a start.

    And the whole United States
  • Options

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    For balance, a modestly interesting FT article on how Ukraine can still win. As long as the west keeps the faith

    To my mind it singularly fails to say exactly how victory happens, or what it looks like. But it may improve the morale of less pessimistic PBers

    https://www.ft.com/content/822e4e21-a631-496e-accd-1c9d6288573c

    A very long, slow grind seems most likely to me now.

    History never repeats exactly but look at the Soviets in Afghanistan 1979-1989 (which brought the Soviet empire down of course) or the US in Vietnam for pointers.

    On balance, I'd say the Ukrainians are less likely to give up on Ukraine than the Russians in the long term.
    I can’t see either side giving up

    Russia will certainly never cede Crimea (nor, likely, the Donbas - dunno about the other oblasts)

    Ukraine will always want revenge on Russia - and the return of Crimea and the Donbas

    For Russia to win the Ukrainians have to completely give up and maybe the whole country has to collapse. Really really unlikely. For Ukraine to win the Putin regime has to fall AND a more peaceable replacement has to take over. Also highly unlikely

    I don’t know how this square is circled. It’s probably impossible. My desire therefore is for large scale fighting to cease for now so at least thousands stop dying every week… then both sides will rearm and await round 2 but in that time Putin could die and then there might be a chance at a better peace for Kyiv

    Yes I know I’ll go and stand in the Fucking Appeaser Corner
    List of hostile invasions in past 1,000 years successfully held in the long-term by the invader:

    1. The Norman conquest.
    2. ...er?

    Golan Heights?
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,447

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    For balance, a modestly interesting FT article on how Ukraine can still win. As long as the west keeps the faith

    To my mind it singularly fails to say exactly how victory happens, or what it looks like. But it may improve the morale of less pessimistic PBers

    https://www.ft.com/content/822e4e21-a631-496e-accd-1c9d6288573c

    A very long, slow grind seems most likely to me now.

    History never repeats exactly but look at the Soviets in Afghanistan 1979-1989 (which brought the Soviet empire down of course) or the US in Vietnam for pointers.

    On balance, I'd say the Ukrainians are less likely to give up on Ukraine than the Russians in the long term.
    I can’t see either side giving up

    Russia will certainly never cede Crimea (nor, likely, the Donbas - dunno about the other oblasts)

    Ukraine will always want revenge on Russia - and the return of Crimea and the Donbas

    For Russia to win the Ukrainians have to completely give up and maybe the whole country has to collapse. Really really unlikely. For Ukraine to win the Putin regime has to fall AND a more peaceable replacement has to take over. Also highly unlikely

    I don’t know how this square is circled. It’s probably impossible. My desire therefore is for large scale fighting to cease for now so at least thousands stop dying every week… then both sides will rearm and await round 2 but in that time Putin could die and then there might be a chance at a better peace for Kyiv

    Yes I know I’ll go and stand in the Fucking Appeaser Corner
    List of hostile invasions in past 1,000 years successfully held in the long-term by the invader:

    1. The Norman conquest.
    2. ...er?

    The Malvinas.
    Nearly all of Russia, for several centuries.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,189

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    For balance, a modestly interesting FT article on how Ukraine can still win. As long as the west keeps the faith

    To my mind it singularly fails to say exactly how victory happens, or what it looks like. But it may improve the morale of less pessimistic PBers

    https://www.ft.com/content/822e4e21-a631-496e-accd-1c9d6288573c

    A very long, slow grind seems most likely to me now.

    History never repeats exactly but look at the Soviets in Afghanistan 1979-1989 (which brought the Soviet empire down of course) or the US in Vietnam for pointers.

    On balance, I'd say the Ukrainians are less likely to give up on Ukraine than the Russians in the long term.
    I can’t see either side giving up

    Russia will certainly never cede Crimea (nor, likely, the Donbas - dunno about the other oblasts)

    Ukraine will always want revenge on Russia - and the return of Crimea and the Donbas

    For Russia to win the Ukrainians have to completely give up and maybe the whole country has to collapse. Really really unlikely. For Ukraine to win the Putin regime has to fall AND a more peaceable replacement has to take over. Also highly unlikely

    I don’t know how this square is circled. It’s probably impossible. My desire therefore is for large scale fighting to cease for now so at least thousands stop dying every week… then both sides will rearm and await round 2 but in that time Putin could die and then there might be a chance at a better peace for Kyiv

    Yes I know I’ll go and stand in the Fucking Appeaser Corner
    List of hostile invasions in past 1,000 years successfully held in the long-term by the invader:

    1. The Norman conquest.
    2. ...er?

    The Malvinas.
    Tibet
    Texas
    Taiwan

    Maybe you need to start with a T?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    For balance, a modestly interesting FT article on how Ukraine can still win. As long as the west keeps the faith

    To my mind it singularly fails to say exactly how victory happens, or what it looks like. But it may improve the morale of less pessimistic PBers

    https://www.ft.com/content/822e4e21-a631-496e-accd-1c9d6288573c

    A very long, slow grind seems most likely to me now.

    History never repeats exactly but look at the Soviets in Afghanistan 1979-1989 (which brought the Soviet empire down of course) or the US in Vietnam for pointers.

    On balance, I'd say the Ukrainians are less likely to give up on Ukraine than the Russians in the long term.
    I can’t see either side giving up

    Russia will certainly never cede Crimea (nor, likely, the Donbas - dunno about the other oblasts)

    Ukraine will always want revenge on Russia - and the return of Crimea and the Donbas

    For Russia to win the Ukrainians have to completely give up and maybe the whole country has to collapse. Really really unlikely. For Ukraine to win the Putin regime has to fall AND a more peaceable replacement has to take over. Also highly unlikely

    I don’t know how this square is circled. It’s probably impossible. My desire therefore is for large scale fighting to cease for now so at least thousands stop dying every week… then both sides will rearm and await round 2 but in that time Putin could die and then there might be a chance at a better peace for Kyiv

    Yes I know I’ll go and stand in the Fucking Appeaser Corner
    List of hostile invasions in past 1,000 years successfully held in the long-term by the invader:

    1. The Norman conquest.
    2. ...er?

    There are plenty of examples. The entirety of Russia for a start.

    And the whole United States
    Of course there are.

    But there are many more examples of invading forces failing. And there are even more examples of invading forces succeeding militarily, but being unable to hold onto captured territories.
  • Options
    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    If he returns to Parliament won't he still have to serve his suspension? Or does a GE cancel that, a bit like these police officers signing up for a different force?

    Cancels it.

    However there's nothing stopping the new Parliament from reimposing the suspension.
    Reimposing the suspension would be wrong IMO, if he is re-elected.
    On grounds of precedent, perhaps. But the man drove a coach and horses through Parliamentary etiquette and the Ministerial Code. He brought Parliament into disrepute.
    I don't think that is acceptable. Of course the suspension should be re-imposed, and that should be the usual rule.

    The former corrupt MP for Ashfield & then Beaconsfield, Tim Smith, took £25k in cash from Mohammed Al-Fayed, and was not held to account for his criminality because he stepped down at an election.

    Is that what we want in our legislature?

    Do we tolerate abuse, corruption and criminality for the sake of ... what?

    Where do we draw the line?

    We all know that an entire phalanx of MPs got away with expenses fraud back before the expenses scandal, and very few were held to serious account.
    We let the ruling class resign and move to a different job for more money when they are guilty of white collar crime in banking, the post office, the police, councils and most of the public and private sector. Why should it be any different for MPs?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,800
    edited November 2023

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    For balance, a modestly interesting FT article on how Ukraine can still win. As long as the west keeps the faith

    To my mind it singularly fails to say exactly how victory happens, or what it looks like. But it may improve the morale of less pessimistic PBers

    https://www.ft.com/content/822e4e21-a631-496e-accd-1c9d6288573c

    A very long, slow grind seems most likely to me now.

    History never repeats exactly but look at the Soviets in Afghanistan 1979-1989 (which brought the Soviet empire down of course) or the US in Vietnam for pointers.

    On balance, I'd say the Ukrainians are less likely to give up on Ukraine than the Russians in the long term.
    I can’t see either side giving up

    Russia will certainly never cede Crimea (nor, likely, the Donbas - dunno about the other oblasts)

    Ukraine will always want revenge on Russia - and the return of Crimea and the Donbas

    For Russia to win the Ukrainians have to completely give up and maybe the whole country has to collapse. Really really unlikely. For Ukraine to win the Putin regime has to fall AND a more peaceable replacement has to take over. Also highly unlikely

    I don’t know how this square is circled. It’s probably impossible. My desire therefore is for large scale fighting to cease for now so at least thousands stop dying every week… then both sides will rearm and await round 2 but in that time Putin could die and then there might be a chance at a better peace for Kyiv

    Yes I know I’ll go and stand in the Fucking Appeaser Corner
    List of hostile invasions in past 1,000 years successfully held in the long-term by the invader:

    1. The Norman conquest.
    2. ...er?

    Quite a few, but never simply forming a ruling caste, lording it over the majority.

    The ruling caste either has to assimilate (eg the Normans and Danes) or assimilate the conquered (eg China, Russia, USA) or wipe out the conquered (China, Russia and the USA again).
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,189
    TimS said:

    Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.

    Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.

    But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,679
    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    If he returns to Parliament won't he still have to serve his suspension? Or does a GE cancel that, a bit like these police officers signing up for a different force?

    Cancels it.

    However there's nothing stopping the new Parliament from reimposing the suspension.
    Reimposing the suspension would be wrong IMO, if he is re-elected.
    On grounds of precedent, perhaps. But the man drove a coach and horses through Parliamentary etiquette and the Ministerial Code. He brought Parliament into disrepute.
    I don't think that is acceptable. Of course the suspension should be re-imposed, and that should be the usual rule.

    The former corrupt MP for Ashfield & then Beaconsfield, Tim Smith, took £25k in cash from Mohammed Al-Fayed, and was not held to account for his criminality because he stepped down at an election.

    Is that what we want in our legislature?

    Do we tolerate abuse, corruption and criminality for the sake of ... what?

    Where do we draw the line?

    We all know that an entire phalanx of MPs got away with expenses fraud back before the expenses scandal, and very few were held to serious account.
    Yeah, questions regarding double jeopardy seem a bit insincere. He was found guilty by the legislature of misconduct and decided to quit rather than do his punishment - which no one else would be able to get away with if they did that in their job, or in the criminal realm. I think MPs in general are not used to consequences for their actions - whether this is from the House or from their constituents. And, unfortunately, FPTP makes that easier, not harder, by turning each election into a "vote against the bad party" message and turning partisan politics into football teams.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,993
    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.

    Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.

    But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
    I did say it was “modest”

    It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
  • Options
    Re the previous comment that "verbal contracts are not worth the paper they are written on". AFAIK whilst all formal contracts are verbal, i.e. in words, they may be oral, i.e. spoken, or written.
    Also a contract may be formed by performance where all parties having acted as though there was a contract in place without there being either an oral or written contract.
  • Options
    IcarusIcarus Posts: 898
    TimS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Weirdly the Henley Conservative PPC selection (his old constituency) is still unresolved after endless allegations of mispractice.

    But I haven’t seen any great appetite locally for recalling Boris. It’s an outside chance of a LibDem gain - the District Council is LD-dominated - though that would probably require a Daveygasm.

    This is the election where us LDs come out of nowhere and surprise a few people. Maybe...
    The last time the LibDems "blew the bloody doors off" was 1997, when they dropped three quarters of a million votes, and yet increased their number of seats by 150%.

    Could that happen again?

    Well, I'm always amused by the way that LD seat and vote share seem uncorrelated, but I suspect that 2024 will see the LDs increase their vote share modestly, and get their seat numbers back in the 20s (and possibly even the high 20s). But I don't see them achieving anything like their 1997 result.
    Looking back over history Lib Dem seat count seems best negatively correlated with Tory vote share. I’ll do the maths later.
    The Lib Dems are doing very well as far as the ground war is concerned, but in the General Election the air war will become more important. Sir Ed Davey isn't setting the heather alight but neither are Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir Starmer. If Farage campaigns strongly for Reform then they could easily get a 5% share of the vote which would deliver quite a few Blue Wall seats to the Liberal Democrats.
  • Options

    I'm looking at the Dem nomination polling, the fact that ballot registrations have closed for several of the most important early states and the fact that it's now barely 9 months until the Democratic National Convention. And I cannot work out why Gavin Newsom is still so short, other than he's a relatively photogenic incumbent governor of California and not obviously deranged.

    Can someone explain to me please?

    Latest in a list of candidates including Brian Rose, Bloomberg amongst others where the most plausible explanation to an outsider is that the campaign or a donor are supporting their Betfair price to keep them relevant.

    If Biden does withdraw how much is worth to Newsom to be the new favourite in the betting markets. How much does it cost to keep his price artificially low on Betfair, given a lot of the volumes are traders going in and out anyway? Do the maths and the incentives are clear.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,629
    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.

    Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.

    But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
    Interesting that the Great War did not always make the front page by May 1917.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,993

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    For balance, a modestly interesting FT article on how Ukraine can still win. As long as the west keeps the faith

    To my mind it singularly fails to say exactly how victory happens, or what it looks like. But it may improve the morale of less pessimistic PBers

    https://www.ft.com/content/822e4e21-a631-496e-accd-1c9d6288573c

    A very long, slow grind seems most likely to me now.

    History never repeats exactly but look at the Soviets in Afghanistan 1979-1989 (which brought the Soviet empire down of course) or the US in Vietnam for pointers.

    On balance, I'd say the Ukrainians are less likely to give up on Ukraine than the Russians in the long term.
    I can’t see either side giving up

    Russia will certainly never cede Crimea (nor, likely, the Donbas - dunno about the other oblasts)

    Ukraine will always want revenge on Russia - and the return of Crimea and the Donbas

    For Russia to win the Ukrainians have to completely give up and maybe the whole country has to collapse. Really really unlikely. For Ukraine to win the Putin regime has to fall AND a more peaceable replacement has to take over. Also highly unlikely

    I don’t know how this square is circled. It’s probably impossible. My desire therefore is for large scale fighting to cease for now so at least thousands stop dying every week… then both sides will rearm and await round 2 but in that time Putin could die and then there might be a chance at a better peace for Kyiv

    Yes I know I’ll go and stand in the Fucking Appeaser Corner
    List of hostile invasions in past 1,000 years successfully held in the long-term by the invader:

    1. The Norman conquest.
    2. ...er?

    That’s entirely untrue. The French have held on to a few hefty chunks of empire. Britain has a sprinkling of islands. America owns half of Samoa, Puerto Rico, Marianas, Hawaii, Guam, Virgin Islands

    Also: Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA
  • Options
    Icarus said:

    TimS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Weirdly the Henley Conservative PPC selection (his old constituency) is still unresolved after endless allegations of mispractice.

    But I haven’t seen any great appetite locally for recalling Boris. It’s an outside chance of a LibDem gain - the District Council is LD-dominated - though that would probably require a Daveygasm.

    This is the election where us LDs come out of nowhere and surprise a few people. Maybe...
    The last time the LibDems "blew the bloody doors off" was 1997, when they dropped three quarters of a million votes, and yet increased their number of seats by 150%.

    Could that happen again?

    Well, I'm always amused by the way that LD seat and vote share seem uncorrelated, but I suspect that 2024 will see the LDs increase their vote share modestly, and get their seat numbers back in the 20s (and possibly even the high 20s). But I don't see them achieving anything like their 1997 result.
    Looking back over history Lib Dem seat count seems best negatively correlated with Tory vote share. I’ll do the maths later.
    The Lib Dems are doing very well as far as the ground war is concerned, but in the General Election the air war will become more important. Sir Ed Davey isn't setting the heather alight but neither are Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir Starmer. If Farage campaigns strongly for Reform then they could easily get a 5% share of the vote which would deliver quite a few Blue Wall seats to the Liberal Democrats.
    Any feedback on how Nigel Farage's stint in the jungle aka IACGMOOH is being received by the voter on the Clapham omnibus?
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,121
    edited November 2023


    Surely not.

    Liar, liar, pants on fire.

    I've just this morning finished Tim Milne's book on Kim Philby, one of Cambridge University's most decorated alumni, and Nadine's The Plot is next off the pile.
    Did you notice Johnson's combustible trousers?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,189
    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    TimS said:

    Nothing more certain to boost morale than an article behind a paywall.

    Just google the headline Ukraine's long war and how to win it.

    But, to be honest, I am not really sure it is worth the bother. Essentially it says that Ukraine is not giving up. And that is about it.
    I did say it was “modest”

    It feels more like boosterism than serious military analysis. Probably because serious military analysis would be more depressing for the pro-Ukrainian side
    I don't think it is even that to be honest. It simply says that Ukraine is not overly concerned that attention is now on Gaza and are building a war economy to meet their own needs because they are ready for the long term.

    Which is palpable rubbish on both parts. Firstly, they will be very concerned that some of the US ammunition got diverted to Israel. The horrific massacres at Avdiikva have mainly been caused by US supplied cluster munitions that we would not even be allowed to legally use and they have been using them up fast.

    Secondly, that war economy is dependent upon others picking up the bills for funding the state (since the tax base has cratered). The current mess in Germany must be a risk to that.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,465
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    For balance, a modestly interesting FT article on how Ukraine can still win. As long as the west keeps the faith

    To my mind it singularly fails to say exactly how victory happens, or what it looks like. But it may improve the morale of less pessimistic PBers

    https://www.ft.com/content/822e4e21-a631-496e-accd-1c9d6288573c

    A very long, slow grind seems most likely to me now.

    History never repeats exactly but look at the Soviets in Afghanistan 1979-1989 (which brought the Soviet empire down of course) or the US in Vietnam for pointers.

    On balance, I'd say the Ukrainians are less likely to give up on Ukraine than the Russians in the long term.
    I can’t see either side giving up

    Russia will certainly never cede Crimea (nor, likely, the Donbas - dunno about the other oblasts)

    Ukraine will always want revenge on Russia - and the return of Crimea and the Donbas

    For Russia to win the Ukrainians have to completely give up and maybe the whole country has to collapse. Really really unlikely. For Ukraine to win the Putin regime has to fall AND a more peaceable replacement has to take over. Also highly unlikely

    I don’t know how this square is circled. It’s probably impossible. My desire therefore is for large scale fighting to cease for now so at least thousands stop dying every week… then both sides will rearm and await round 2 but in that time Putin could die and then there might be a chance at a better peace for Kyiv

    Yes I know I’ll go and stand in the Fucking Appeaser Corner
    List of hostile invasions in past 1,000 years successfully held in the long-term by the invader:

    1. The Norman conquest.
    2. ...er?

    There are plenty of examples. The entirety of Russia for a start.

    And the whole United States
    The whole of North America, really.
    Though Alaska is a more recent acquisition.

    How would you categorise S America ?
    While the population is majority European origin, the indigenous population wasn't almost completely wiped out as was the case in the north.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,993
    TRAVEL TIP

    Phnom Penh might just be the most enticing city in the world right now. Full of life and fun yet not ruined with traffic and industry like so many Asian capitals. Brilliant nightlife and vibrant people, lovely bars and shady parks, and the food is superb - I am eating a magnificent lobster bisque this moment




    Price? - $6
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,983
    MattW said:

    Ward Carroll

    Ex F-14 so what does he know?

    What's been largely overlooked here is that we already have half of a ceasefire because there are not even any attempts at large scale maneuvers. Both sides are just doing squad sized inventory actions where they blunder around stepping on landmines in turnip patches and half-hearted tube or rocket artillery exchanges.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,980
    Boris should have stayed in Uxbridge which the Tories held in the by election. As it is, CCHQ are unlikely to even put him on the approved Conservative parliamentary candidates list again let alone he win a seat.

    If he did and won the leadership again however, Leader of the Opposition is much less pressure and responsibility than PM. He just has to attack the record of the government
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,806
    I've been thinking that a lot of previous post-truth politicians have had great bounce-back-ability - whether Berlusconi or Bibi, so why not Boris? (Doesn't auger well for Trump either)

    It needs time though - I don't think he is going to sit on the back benches for years awaiting rehabilitation. It will be a by-election when he fancies it, if the Tories still look adrift in the 2028-32 parliament, popping in around 2030 just in time for the comeback, his sins forgotten or forgiven, would suit him just fine.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,842
    Leon said:

    For balance, a modestly interesting FT article on how Ukraine can still win. As long as the west keeps the faith

    To my mind it singularly fails to say exactly how victory happens, or what it looks like. But it may improve the morale of less pessimistic PBers

    https://www.ft.com/content/822e4e21-a631-496e-accd-1c9d6288573c

    From their current bridgehead to Crimea is 60KM , with correct weapons and some decent air support that should be far from impossible. Once supply lines are cut it is curtains for Russians in Crimea.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,465

    Re the previous comment that "verbal contracts are not worth the paper they are written on". AFAIK whilst all formal contracts are verbal, i.e. in words, they may be oral, i.e. spoken, or written.
    Also a contract may be formed by performance where all parties having acted as though there was a contract in place without there being either an oral or written contract.

    There is nothing about Suella's imaginary deal which satisfies that condition.

    Goldwyn's comment was an aphorism, not legal advice - but she seems determined to prove it.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,447
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    For balance, a modestly interesting FT article on how Ukraine can still win. As long as the west keeps the faith

    To my mind it singularly fails to say exactly how victory happens, or what it looks like. But it may improve the morale of less pessimistic PBers

    https://www.ft.com/content/822e4e21-a631-496e-accd-1c9d6288573c

    A very long, slow grind seems most likely to me now.

    History never repeats exactly but look at the Soviets in Afghanistan 1979-1989 (which brought the Soviet empire down of course) or the US in Vietnam for pointers.

    On balance, I'd say the Ukrainians are less likely to give up on Ukraine than the Russians in the long term.
    I can’t see either side giving up

    Russia will certainly never cede Crimea (nor, likely, the Donbas - dunno about the other oblasts)

    Ukraine will always want revenge on Russia - and the return of Crimea and the Donbas

    For Russia to win the Ukrainians have to completely give up and maybe the whole country has to collapse. Really really unlikely. For Ukraine to win the Putin regime has to fall AND a more peaceable replacement has to take over. Also highly unlikely

    I don’t know how this square is circled. It’s probably impossible. My desire therefore is for large scale fighting to cease for now so at least thousands stop dying every week… then both sides will rearm and await round 2 but in that time Putin could die and then there might be a chance at a better peace for Kyiv

    Yes I know I’ll go and stand in the Fucking Appeaser Corner
    Ukraine can't, and won't, back off. Their country has been invaded, and they have memories of being part of Russia when ~3 million people were killed by starvation by Stalin. Putin models himself on Stalin, as we know.

    As I see it, the condition for Ukraine to "win" ie Russia to stop their war and go back home, is that Putin needs to believe that it is more advantageous / less disadvantageous for him / Russia (take your pick) to stop his war than continue it.

    The way for that to happen is for Putin to believe Ukraine's allies to be committed to the defeat of Russia. At present he does not believe that.

    The way for him to be convinces is for Ukraine's allies to commit to the long-term support of Ukraine, and put in place the measures to make necessary support for Ukraine happen.

    At present Russia has reordered its economy on a war footing, Brussels is still shuffling paper around, and the UK Government cut our defence expenditure. And the USA is in a measure of limbo until its next Election.

    All a 'ceasefire' will do is give Russia a pause to sort out its army, and come back with properly organised formations, rather than shovelling new recruits straight into the theatre.

    All that can be remedied, but will it be?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,980

    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    If he returns to Parliament won't he still have to serve his suspension? Or does a GE cancel that, a bit like these police officers signing up for a different force?

    Cancels it.

    However there's nothing stopping the new Parliament from reimposing the suspension.
    Reimposing the suspension would be wrong IMO, if he is re-elected.
    On grounds of precedent, perhaps. But the man drove a coach and horses through Parliamentary etiquette and the Ministerial Code. He brought Parliament into disrepute.
    I don't think that is acceptable. Of course the suspension should be re-imposed, and that should be the usual rule.

    The former corrupt MP for Ashfield & then Beaconsfield, Tim Smith, took £25k in cash from Mohammed Al-Fayed, and was not held to account for his criminality because he stepped down at an election.

    Is that what we want in our legislature?

    Do we tolerate abuse, corruption and criminality for the sake of ... what?

    Where do we draw the line?

    We all know that an entire phalanx of MPs got away with expenses fraud back before the expenses scandal, and very few were held to serious account.
    We let the ruling class resign and move to a different job for more money when they are guilty of white collar crime in banking, the post office, the police, councils and most of the public and private sector. Why should it be any different for MPs?
    Quite a few MPs were jailed over the expenses scandal. In other areas senior figures found wrong often lose their jobs but are rarely jailed. White collar criminals are more likely to face a jail sentence in the US though it has to be proved to be a criminal not just civil wrong
This discussion has been closed.