It’s not a MOE poll. Labour are down three. IIRC that is outside MOE?
[Rolls up sleeves]
There was an argument between the pollsters and the academics for years. Polls these days are self-selecting panels with digfferential non-response which has to be weighted. Because of this they do not meet the requirements for a calculation of the MOE from theory. Note that the YouGov article is from 2011 (https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/2497-understanding-margin-error) predating the argument.
"All polls are subject to a wide range of potential sources of error. On the basis of the historical record of the polls at recent general elections, there is a 9 in 10 chance that the true value of a party’s support lies within 4 points of the estimates provided by this poll, and a 2 in 3 chance that they lie within 2 points".
And that's the MOE you use.
[You're welcome]
Ouch that's even worse than I said.
Plus or minus three percent at a 95% chance means a swing of upto 6 points can be within MoE.
Plus or minus four percent at a 90% chance means a swing upto 8 points can be within MoE and that's with a doubled chance of having an error too.
I see Andrew Sullivan is now joining the cult of Trump (and US isolationism).
Is he? That's not my reading of the interview at all. He is not voting for him and sees him as a massive threat to rule of law.
It's when you get right to the end, after explaining how bad Trump is:
FS: And would you be one of that large number of Americans? [ie those who would happily see Ukraine partitioned, and China occupy Taiwan].
AS: I’d be pretty close to them, yes. I don’t think there is a desire in the United States, nor has there really been for the last 20 years, for long engagement in conflicts far away. The people whose kids go to fight those wars don’t want their kids to go fight those wars. And a lot of people just simply look at the state of the US-Mexico border and say: why are we spending billions of dollars on the border between the Russian-dominated provinces in Ukraine and the rest of it? Why, when we can’t do it for our own border? That’s an incredibly potent argument.
FS: The world order is certainly going through a seismic shift, one that may involve war or will conflict being evaded and a deal being struck. The argument of those who support Trump would be that he’s not so deeply ideological, he likes a deal and, as you say, he’s not seriously attached to a particular set of principles. And they say: that’s the kind of leader we need right now to smooth things over.
AS: Yes. There are plenty of reasons, policy-wise, why I’d be happier with a Trump administration than a Biden one. There’s immigration, which I think the Democrats have completely screwed up. The numbers of people coming over are extraordinary at this point. And I think if he got a majority in the House and the Senate, he could easily pass immigration reform, and this time, unlike in 2016, he won’t be bamboozled by people like Paul Ryan into thinking that the most important thing is a tax cut for the super-wealthy.
I also think that regarding the wokeness stuff, even though I really find Trump horrid on so many levels, if he’s the only thing that can stop this stuff from being imposed across the country and across the United States Government, then you can see why I might prefer him over Biden, who is giving in to woke at every level. The federal government is involved in systematic DEI: in all of its capacities it now has putting equity at the heart of everything as a policy. He would remove that and there would be support for ending DEI in corporate America and in universities. He’s clearly taken out a position — even if he’s not interested in that stuff, he’ll find someone who is. And that’s a huge thing for the base. It would happen, I think.
I suspect if I were in America (and knowing they can be a deeply conservative people and at times rather qualified in their humour, expecting a bit of deference and not much bawdiness) I would draw a very large and carefully detailed phallus on the ballot paper.
For climate reasons alone, you should vote for the Democrat. Trump has declared that he would actively attempt to sabotage the move to renewables.
There's no way I'd vote for the Democrats with their policies on EDI, open borders, rampant Wokery, post Brexit hostility to the UK and really dumb foreign policy fubars over the past years.
I also wouldn't vote for Trump for his demagogury, lack of respect for the law, reckless attitude to NATO, dismissal of climate change and rampant unpredictability.
I am not obliged to pick one and would vote for neither.
You make far points
Perhaps if given the choice - Biden/Trump - I would abstain
If I am American, I can't vote for the lunatic and dangerous Trump, but I cannot vote for the dangerous Wokery of the Dems, let alone in the guise of this senile twat Biden
Strange comment as I just came across this poll and posted it
It is only one poll and maybe you seem a wee bit too sensitive
Rest assured Starmer is heading into no 10 but his majority does depend on how many RefUK return to the conservative column
I would say at the moment anything that helps Sunak, helps Starmer longer term. Starmer is a weak political operative, and the Conservatives have some real street fighters who would easily do him over politically were they to replace Rishi. Braverman, Jenrick and Badenoch for starters. And I wouldn't want any of them near the levers of power.
Seems an over sensitive comment which I have replied to and it is hardly a good poll for the conservatives
My pacemaker is amazing but still in pain and taking it easy though I started driving again today following the OK from my consultant so at least that is an important step forward
I see Andrew Sullivan is now joining the cult of Trump (and US isolationism).
Is he? That's not my reading of the interview at all. He is not voting for him and sees him as a massive threat to rule of law.
It's when you get right to the end, after explaining how bad Trump is:
FS: And would you be one of that large number of Americans? [ie those who would happily see Ukraine partitioned, and China occupy Taiwan].
AS: I’d be pretty close to them, yes. I don’t think there is a desire in the United States, nor has there really been for the last 20 years, for long engagement in conflicts far away. The people whose kids go to fight those wars don’t want their kids to go fight those wars. And a lot of people just simply look at the state of the US-Mexico border and say: why are we spending billions of dollars on the border between the Russian-dominated provinces in Ukraine and the rest of it? Why, when we can’t do it for our own border? That’s an incredibly potent argument.
FS: The world order is certainly going through a seismic shift, one that may involve war or will conflict being evaded and a deal being struck. The argument of those who support Trump would be that he’s not so deeply ideological, he likes a deal and, as you say, he’s not seriously attached to a particular set of principles. And they say: that’s the kind of leader we need right now to smooth things over.
AS: Yes. There are plenty of reasons, policy-wise, why I’d be happier with a Trump administration than a Biden one. There’s immigration, which I think the Democrats have completely screwed up. The numbers of people coming over are extraordinary at this point. And I think if he got a majority in the House and the Senate, he could easily pass immigration reform, and this time, unlike in 2016, he won’t be bamboozled by people like Paul Ryan into thinking that the most important thing is a tax cut for the super-wealthy.
I also think that regarding the wokeness stuff, even though I really find Trump horrid on so many levels, if he’s the only thing that can stop this stuff from being imposed across the country and across the United States Government, then you can see why I might prefer him over Biden, who is giving in to woke at every level. The federal government is involved in systematic DEI: in all of its capacities it now has putting equity at the heart of everything as a policy. He would remove that and there would be support for ending DEI in corporate America and in universities. He’s clearly taken out a position — even if he’s not interested in that stuff, he’ll find someone who is. And that’s a huge thing for the base. It would happen, I think.
I suspect if I were in America (and knowing they can be a deeply conservative people and at times rather qualified in their humour, expecting a bit of deference and not much bawdiness) I would draw a very large and carefully detailed phallus on the ballot paper.
For climate reasons alone, you should vote for the Democrat. Trump has declared that he would actively attempt to sabotage the move to renewables.
There's no way I'd vote for the Democrats with their policies on EDI, open borders, rampant Wokery, post Brexit hostility to the UK and really dumb foreign policy fubars over the past years.
I also wouldn't vote for Trump for his demagogury, lack of respect for the law, reckless attitude to NATO, dismissal of climate change and rampant unpredictability.
I am not obliged to pick one and would vote for neither.
You make far points
Perhaps if given the choice - Biden/Trump - I would abstain
If I am American, I can't vote for the lunatic and dangerous Trump, but I cannot vote for the dangerous Wokery of the Dems, let alone in the guise of this snile twat Biden
Why do you think the border is such an issue for Biden when net migration is lower into America today than it was under any of Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush or George W Bush?
I see Andrew Sullivan is now joining the cult of Trump (and US isolationism).
Is he? That's not my reading of the interview at all. He is not voting for him and sees him as a massive threat to rule of law.
It's when you get right to the end, after explaining how bad Trump is:
FS: And would you be one of that large number of Americans? [ie those who would happily see Ukraine partitioned, and China occupy Taiwan].
AS: I’d be pretty close to them, yes. I don’t think there is a desire in the United States, nor has there really been for the last 20 years, for long engagement in conflicts far away. The people whose kids go to fight those wars don’t want their kids to go fight those wars. And a lot of people just simply look at the state of the US-Mexico border and say: why are we spending billions of dollars on the border between the Russian-dominated provinces in Ukraine and the rest of it? Why, when we can’t do it for our own border? That’s an incredibly potent argument.
FS: The world order is certainly going through a seismic shift, one that may involve war or will conflict being evaded and a deal being struck. The argument of those who support Trump would be that he’s not so deeply ideological, he likes a deal and, as you say, he’s not seriously attached to a particular set of principles. And they say: that’s the kind of leader we need right now to smooth things over.
AS: Yes. There are plenty of reasons, policy-wise, why I’d be happier with a Trump administration than a Biden one. There’s immigration, which I think the Democrats have completely screwed up. The numbers of people coming over are extraordinary at this point. And I think if he got a majority in the House and the Senate, he could easily pass immigration reform, and this time, unlike in 2016, he won’t be bamboozled by people like Paul Ryan into thinking that the most important thing is a tax cut for the super-wealthy.
I also think that regarding the wokeness stuff, even though I really find Trump horrid on so many levels, if he’s the only thing that can stop this stuff from being imposed across the country and across the United States Government, then you can see why I might prefer him over Biden, who is giving in to woke at every level. The federal government is involved in systematic DEI: in all of its capacities it now has putting equity at the heart of everything as a policy. He would remove that and there would be support for ending DEI in corporate America and in universities. He’s clearly taken out a position — even if he’s not interested in that stuff, he’ll find someone who is. And that’s a huge thing for the base. It would happen, I think.
I suspect if I were in America (and knowing they can be a deeply conservative people and at times rather qualified in their humour, expecting a bit of deference and not much bawdiness) I would draw a very large and carefully detailed phallus on the ballot paper.
For climate reasons alone, you should vote for the Democrat. Trump has declared that he would actively attempt to sabotage the move to renewables.
There's no way I'd vote for the Democrats with their policies on EDI, open borders, rampant Wokery, post Brexit hostility to the UK and really dumb foreign policy fubars over the past years.
I also wouldn't vote for Trump for his demagogury, lack of respect for the law, reckless attitude to NATO, dismissal of climate change and rampant unpredictability.
I am not obliged to pick one and would vote for neither.
You make far points
Perhaps if given the choice - Biden/Trump - I would abstain
If I am American, I can't vote for the lunatic and dangerous Trump, but I cannot vote for the dangerous Wokery of the Dems, let alone in the guise of this senile twat Biden
It's a dreadful choice but I suppose on balance you'd have to vote for the one you are sure you could vote out again in four years time.
Has their ever been an unofficial survey of wealth / class / age / voting intention on this platform of its users? Because some of the stuff people are saying here about how the Tories are so lefty and how right wing stuff has never been tried seems... wildly out of joint with the material reality of lots of people on the ground, in a way I just find extremely difficult to comprehend. Like let alone the same country - I'm starting to worry I don't live on the same planet as many of you.
Collectively we are richer than the UK norm, with some over the £1million mark, around three around the £10million mark, and I think one around the £50million mark. We are predominantly male, with a few women. I think we may be gayer than average, but that's tentative. I couldn't guess at the ethnic/racial mix: I'd hazard mostly agnostic, with some Christians, Muslims and Hindus. There are some around the median wealth or lower, but the presence and volubility of the rich makes it seem a bit less lopsided. In terms of age we do have a larger number of old and retired people, some of which are probably in their last decade or less. I think we're slightly older than the UK population, but given how that skews we may be simply representative. We have many professionals and skilled trades (lawyers, doctors, a couple of warfighters, and at least two statisticians ) and others in the managerial class. We do skew towards the educated and I think the number of postgrads is higher than normal.
Given our profile and engagement I assume we're an advertiser's dream...
I tend to agree with that, but I think we are a bit more extreme on both the wealth and age. I think the average is quite a bit older than the population as a whole and on that basis and with the huge education bias of the average poster here I think the average poster is a lot more wealthy than the average person in the population. I would guess that there are rather a lot over the £1 million mark, particularly those from London and the South East, and more than a few at the £3 - £5 million plus.
You seem to have been able to identify 3 at £10 million and one at £50 million. Not disputing it but how did you deduce that @viewcode? And can I have an introduction?
I can't prove it: it's basically from memory and remarks over the years. Bear in mind that all I know about people is what they tell me. Some give away a lot, some nothing. But people talk to each other and about each other and eventually a picture builds up. Happy to be totally contradicted if wrong, but unless we all start filling out forms I think this is the best we can get.
Did you not fill out the application form before joining PB @viewcode?
I think for a special few memberships are just given regardless.
Strange comment as I just came across this poll and posted it
It is only one poll and maybe you seem a wee bit too sensitive
Rest assured Starmer is heading into no 10 but his majority does depend on how many RefUK return to the conservative column
I would say at the moment anything that helps Sunak, helps Starmer longer term. Starmer is a weak political operative, and the Conservatives have some real street fighters who would easily do him over politically were they to replace Rishi. Braverman, Jenrick and Badenoch for starters. And I wouldn't want any of them near the levers of power.
And down three is well, well within that MoE. Down 4 is also within a 3% margin of error too since the MoE spreads in both directions. If eg the true figure is say 42% then 42% plus or minus 3% could be 45% one poll and 39% the next, or anywhere in-between without ever leaving the bounds of the margin of error.
Yeah but then you’re the fucking idiot that told me last summer (right after my visit to Ukraine) that my personal subjective eyewitness sense that Ukraine was in danger of running out of soldiers was ‘total bollocks’
Because Putin is also struggling to find new men too.
I said to you on the day that to post one thing without the countervailing balance is meaningless. I was right then, I'm still right now. Putin hasn't got an inexhaustible supply of people to send to the meat grinder, Russia isn't that much bigger than Ukraine.
The Russian population is 4.6x times that of Ukraine
31m v 144m, at best estimates we have now
Yes, Russia has problems, but if Russia is determined to prosecute this war, to the bitter end, than Ukraine will run out of men long before Russia. Indeed Ukraine is very close to the edge now. They have one cohort left: men aged 18-27 (many of these have volunteered, already, and died, or been injured - or they have fled the country or dodged the draft), but lots remain
Does Ukraine throw the last of its men, the flower of youth, into the meatgrinder? Is that wise? Is the war winnable? Is a ceasefire - if it can be achieved - perhaps preferable?
I know you want them to march on Moscow, this is not going to happen, nor are they going to retake Crimea, etc. Even you must now admit this
“We originally intended to withdraw support immediately, but unfortunately slipped and fell onto a smartphone, accidentally sending a press release defending Mr Ali and whatsapping several shadow cabinet members to go out in support of him”
There's something very distracting in the way Starmer bobs his head when trying to do emphasis/sincerity. Like he's got a fly on his head but doesn't want to use his hands to shift it.
I don't know whether I can handle a full term of Starmer's bobbing head. But I do know I can't handle another full term of the party formerly known as the Conservative party, so I guess the choice is clear...
Had a brief but intense thunderstorm today. 500,000 without power. An entire transport network collapsed.
Chastening. It's not the gradual rise in temperatures, or the slow change in local climates. These extreme weather events might be the story of the next 50 years, and I don't think people back home in the UK appreciate how disruptive they are.
Your australian friends certainly need to reduce their carbon footprint at a whopping 15 tons per person per year.
We do. We've just hit 1.5C for 2023 - a few years ahead of schedule - and the scientists were right.
We really do need to accelerate the electrification of everything and shift it onto renewables asap. This isn't a left-wing or a right-wing thing; it's an engineering challenge to decarbonise our energy generation and consumption in a way that doesn't treat the atmosphere like a sewer. And, on top, we'll need to do direct air capture and storage of what we've already chucked up their on top too.
It would really help if the ecomarxist activists could STFU about all their grand schemes to remake society of the back of it because that just makes it 10 x harder to achieve a consensus.
Tbf, we will remake society to some extent on the back of it - as capitalist America is doing.
But you're absolutely right: irrespective of political views, anyone who is not a fool should support the project.
I see them as disconnected.
We have essentially halved our carbon emissions since 1990 whilst doubling our nominal GDP. As new technology comes online it offers more options and decarbonising will actually save people money.
Decarbonising our energy supply is a pure engineering challenge and doesn't intrinsically hold any political baggage, unless we want it to of course.
I wasn't really talking about political baggage. But in practical terms it will likely refashion society - just as did, for example, the switch from coal to oil at the beginnng of the last century.
It doesn't especially need to. You could have pretty much everything we have now, but a decarbonised version.
Seems an over sensitive comment which I have replied to and it is hardly a good poll for the conservatives
My pacemaker is amazing but still in pain and taking it easy though I started driving again today following the OK from my consultant so at least that is an important step forward
Congrats on the driving from a somewhat jealous OKC!
Poland is at the top, at 3.9%, the US is second at 3.49%, the UK is at 2.07%, and Luxembourg, as usual, is last, at .72%.
To be fair to Luxembourg, there's little point; even if they spent 5% it'd still be 5% of sod all.
If anything serious kicked off they'd be doormatted inside a single morning, so they have to put their faith in the big players.
Each individual grain of sand on a beach is small, but you'd still suffer if the whole lot was dumped on your head at once.
Luxembourg should, of course, fulfill the commitment they've made to spend 2%, even if that only amounts to a fraction of one deployable brigade, in partnership with one of their neighbours, or some engineering and logistics assets.
The difference between what they're spending, and what they said they would spend, is about US$1bn. It's not nothing.
And if we want to do Europe-Alone, the numbers are interesting.
Think of the political fun of more than doubling the UK defence budget - you'd need to go to something like 5% for a while to build up capability to get to the equivalent of 3.5%
And down three is well, well within that MoE. Down 4 is also within a 3% margin of error too since the MoE spreads in both directions. If eg the true figure is say 42% then 42% plus or minus 3% could be 45% one poll and 39% the next, or anywhere in-between without ever leaving the bounds of the margin of error.
Yeah but then you’re the fucking idiot that told me last summer (right after my visit to Ukraine) that my personal subjective eyewitness sense that Ukraine was in danger of running out of soldiers was ‘total bollocks’
Because Putin is also struggling to find new men too.
I said to you on the day that to post one thing without the countervailing balance is meaningless. I was right then, I'm still right now. Putin hasn't got an inexhaustible supply of people to send to the meat grinder, Russia isn't that much bigger than Ukraine.
The Russian population is 4.6x times that of Ukraine
31m v 144m, at best estimates we have now
Yes, Russia has problems, but if Russia is determined to prosecute this war, to the bitter end, than Ukraine will run out of men long before Russia. Indeed Ukraine is very close to the edge now. They have one cohort left: men aged 18-27 (many of these have volunteered, already, and died, or been injured - or they have fled the country or dodged the draft), but lots remain
Does Ukraine throw the last of its men, the flower of youth, into the meatgrinder? Is that wise? Is the war winnable? Is a ceasefire - if it can be achieved - perhaps preferable?
I know you want them to march on Moscow, this is not going to happen, nor are they going to retake Crimea, etc. Even you must now admit this
You're wrong, because Ukraine has home soil advantage. Attacking and occupying hostile territory is more demanding than defending or liberating your own territory.
Ukraine can afford to have its population within Ukraine, Russia can't empty itself into Ukraine.
The liberation of every square centimetre of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, remains an achievable objective and we should wholeheartedly give Ukraine every bit of munitions they want or need to achieve that objective for as long as they seek it.
There's something very distracting in the way Starmer bobs his head when trying to do emphasis/sincerity. Like he's got a fly on his head but doesn't want to use his hands to shift it.
I don't know whether I can handle a full term of Starmer's bobbing head.
And down three is well, well within that MoE. Down 4 is also within a 3% margin of error too since the MoE spreads in both directions. If eg the true figure is say 42% then 42% plus or minus 3% could be 45% one poll and 39% the next, or anywhere in-between without ever leaving the bounds of the margin of error.
Yeah but then you’re the fucking idiot that told me last summer (right after my visit to Ukraine) that my personal subjective eyewitness sense that Ukraine was in danger of running out of soldiers was ‘total bollocks’
Because Putin is also struggling to find new men too.
I said to you on the day that to post one thing without the countervailing balance is meaningless. I was right then, I'm still right now. Putin hasn't got an inexhaustible supply of people to send to the meat grinder, Russia isn't that much bigger than Ukraine.
The Russian population is 4.6x times that of Ukraine
31m v 144m, at best estimates we have now
Yes, Russia has problems, but if Russia is determined to prosecute this war, to the bitter end, than Ukraine will run out of men long before Russia. Indeed Ukraine is very close to the edge now. They have one cohort left: men aged 18-27 (many of these have volunteered, already, and died, or been injured - or they have fled the country or dodged the draft), but lots remain
Does Ukraine throw the last of its men, the flower of youth, into the meatgrinder? Is that wise? Is the war winnable? Is a ceasefire - if it can be achieved - perhaps preferable?
I know you want them to march on Moscow, this is not going to happen, nor are they going to retake Crimea, etc. Even you must now admit this
They are not going to retake Crimea "imminently" or "without other things happening first".
To be fair, all those arguments could have been made in June 1942 as Tobruk fell and the way to Egypt and the oil fields looked all but open. This is no less existential for Ukraine than that was for Britain.
Has their ever been an unofficial survey of wealth / class / age / voting intention on this platform of its users? Because some of the stuff people are saying here about how the Tories are so lefty and how right wing stuff has never been tried seems... wildly out of joint with the material reality of lots of people on the ground, in a way I just find extremely difficult to comprehend. Like let alone the same country - I'm starting to worry I don't live on the same planet as many of you.
You often refer to controlling borders as "border fascism", so I guess you see favouring low immigration as a right-wing position. What has the level of immigration been like under the current government?
I mean, I consider the method we currently use to manage the border as border fascism. The numbers that pass the border have little to do with how I judge the regime that the state implements at the border. This government would be happy if every small boat sank into the Channel with everyone on board as long as the papers didn't care about it. The idea of immigrants or refugees as this big social drain, of an existential threat, is common in government discussions on the topic. The bureaucracy of immiseration - moving people from place to place, putting them in small rooms or boats, giving them a weekly allowance of under £10, all in the attempt to make things so awful that people stop coming here - to stop a process that is as natural as humans drinking water - over an imagined border. It is border fascism even if everyone was granted asylum who asked for it - not because of the outcome but because of the process of purposeful dehumanisation and hatred the government aims to enforce.
So people moving from place to place is as natural as drinking water, but people seeking to protect their property is an unnatural product of capitalism?
I don't know about natural vs unnatural but human migration is certainly older and more intrinsic to the species than private property is. I should add, I am not against private property.
Is that really true? Even many non-human species understand the concept of possession and territory.
Private property and personal property are, again, not the same thing. Animals obviously have dominance hierarchies, and many of those involve some form of giving resources to the most dominant within the species - but I don't quite know if I'd go full Jordan Peterson and think that would therefore provide any evidence for the natural order of rent payments.
It's a distinction without a difference. Is your laptop private property or personal property?
In Marxist theory, private property typically refers to capital or the means of production, while personal property refers to consumer and non-capital goods and services.
I would say if the primary way you interact with and conceive of the item is to use it, it is personal property. If the primary way you interact with or conceive of the item is as an asset it is private property.
So it's private property? You use it as a means of intellectual production.
Lol - no; that’s not what means of production means and if you’re going to continue to cultivate such ignorance I have no desire to continue talking on the issue.
Why does it not count as production? Does a writer not produce anything?
Are there only certains goods that you classify as production?
If I write a book the means of production is the physical publication of the books - you as the writer are another worker; writing is labour. You aren’t always a wage worker, your conditions may be better than the worker who chops down the tree or makes the paper or prints the book. But you don’t own the means of production. Now - the intellectual property that comes out of that; yes that is an asset and private property (which is why I and many others on the left don’t really believe in copyright and such).
But seriously; instead of taking a small bit of what I say, taking it in the least charitable way possible and framing questions in the most polemic way you know how - just read some theory. Like - private versus personal property is explained by a lot of leftist theorists. It is easy to find information about this.
It's like telling someone who asks questions about transubstantiation to just read some scripture.
I see Andrew Sullivan is now joining the cult of Trump (and US isolationism).
Is he? That's not my reading of the interview at all. He is not voting for him and sees him as a massive threat to rule of law.
It's when you get right to the end, after explaining how bad Trump is:
FS: And would you be one of that large number of Americans? [ie those who would happily see Ukraine partitioned, and China occupy Taiwan].
AS: I’d be pretty close to them, yes. I don’t think there is a desire in the United States, nor has there really been for the last 20 years, for long engagement in conflicts far away. The people whose kids go to fight those wars don’t want their kids to go fight those wars. And a lot of people just simply look at the state of the US-Mexico border and say: why are we spending billions of dollars on the border between the Russian-dominated provinces in Ukraine and the rest of it? Why, when we can’t do it for our own border? That’s an incredibly potent argument.
FS: The world order is certainly going through a seismic shift, one that may involve war or will conflict being evaded and a deal being struck. The argument of those who support Trump would be that he’s not so deeply ideological, he likes a deal and, as you say, he’s not seriously attached to a particular set of principles. And they say: that’s the kind of leader we need right now to smooth things over.
AS: Yes. There are plenty of reasons, policy-wise, why I’d be happier with a Trump administration than a Biden one. There’s immigration, which I think the Democrats have completely screwed up. The numbers of people coming over are extraordinary at this point. And I think if he got a majority in the House and the Senate, he could easily pass immigration reform, and this time, unlike in 2016, he won’t be bamboozled by people like Paul Ryan into thinking that the most important thing is a tax cut for the super-wealthy.
I also think that regarding the wokeness stuff, even though I really find Trump horrid on so many levels, if he’s the only thing that can stop this stuff from being imposed across the country and across the United States Government, then you can see why I might prefer him over Biden, who is giving in to woke at every level. The federal government is involved in systematic DEI: in all of its capacities it now has putting equity at the heart of everything as a policy. He would remove that and there would be support for ending DEI in corporate America and in universities. He’s clearly taken out a position — even if he’s not interested in that stuff, he’ll find someone who is. And that’s a huge thing for the base. It would happen, I think.
I suspect if I were in America (and knowing they can be a deeply conservative people and at times rather qualified in their humour, expecting a bit of deference and not much bawdiness) I would draw a very large and carefully detailed phallus on the ballot paper.
For climate reasons alone, you should vote for the Democrat. Trump has declared that he would actively attempt to sabotage the move to renewables.
There's no way I'd vote for the Democrats with their policies on EDI, open borders, rampant Wokery, post Brexit hostility to the UK and really dumb foreign policy fubars over the past years.
I also wouldn't vote for Trump for his demagogury, lack of respect for the law, reckless attitude to NATO, dismissal of climate change and rampant unpredictability.
I am not obliged to pick one and would vote for neither.
You make far points
Perhaps if given the choice - Biden/Trump - I would abstain
If I am American, I can't vote for the lunatic and dangerous Trump, but I cannot vote for the dangerous Wokery of the Dems, let alone in the guise of this snile twat Biden
Why do you think the border is such an issue for Biden when net migration is lower into America today than it was under any of Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush or George W Bush?
Because of this you numbskull. Illegal immigration
This is illegal immigration under Biden. The latest figures are even worse than this. 2023 saw 3m+ cross the border. Unprecedented
There's something very distracting in the way Starmer bobs his head when trying to do emphasis/sincerity. Like he's got a fly on his head but doesn't want to use his hands to shift it.
I don't know whether I can handle a full term of Starmer's bobbing head.
You never saw Sturgeon speak?
She's not in the same league. And also moves other parts of her body, which makes it look less weird.
I see Andrew Sullivan is now joining the cult of Trump (and US isolationism).
Is he? That's not my reading of the interview at all. He is not voting for him and sees him as a massive threat to rule of law.
It's when you get right to the end, after explaining how bad Trump is:
FS: And would you be one of that large number of Americans? [ie those who would happily see Ukraine partitioned, and China occupy Taiwan].
AS: I’d be pretty close to them, yes. I don’t think there is a desire in the United States, nor has there really been for the last 20 years, for long engagement in conflicts far away. The people whose kids go to fight those wars don’t want their kids to go fight those wars. And a lot of people just simply look at the state of the US-Mexico border and say: why are we spending billions of dollars on the border between the Russian-dominated provinces in Ukraine and the rest of it? Why, when we can’t do it for our own border? That’s an incredibly potent argument.
FS: The world order is certainly going through a seismic shift, one that may involve war or will conflict being evaded and a deal being struck. The argument of those who support Trump would be that he’s not so deeply ideological, he likes a deal and, as you say, he’s not seriously attached to a particular set of principles. And they say: that’s the kind of leader we need right now to smooth things over.
AS: Yes. There are plenty of reasons, policy-wise, why I’d be happier with a Trump administration than a Biden one. There’s immigration, which I think the Democrats have completely screwed up. The numbers of people coming over are extraordinary at this point. And I think if he got a majority in the House and the Senate, he could easily pass immigration reform, and this time, unlike in 2016, he won’t be bamboozled by people like Paul Ryan into thinking that the most important thing is a tax cut for the super-wealthy.
I also think that regarding the wokeness stuff, even though I really find Trump horrid on so many levels, if he’s the only thing that can stop this stuff from being imposed across the country and across the United States Government, then you can see why I might prefer him over Biden, who is giving in to woke at every level. The federal government is involved in systematic DEI: in all of its capacities it now has putting equity at the heart of everything as a policy. He would remove that and there would be support for ending DEI in corporate America and in universities. He’s clearly taken out a position — even if he’s not interested in that stuff, he’ll find someone who is. And that’s a huge thing for the base. It would happen, I think.
I suspect if I were in America (and knowing they can be a deeply conservative people and at times rather qualified in their humour, expecting a bit of deference and not much bawdiness) I would draw a very large and carefully detailed phallus on the ballot paper.
For climate reasons alone, you should vote for the Democrat. Trump has declared that he would actively attempt to sabotage the move to renewables.
There's no way I'd vote for the Democrats with their policies on EDI, open borders, rampant Wokery, post Brexit hostility to the UK and really dumb foreign policy fubars over the past years.
I also wouldn't vote for Trump for his demagogury, lack of respect for the law, reckless attitude to NATO, dismissal of climate change and rampant unpredictability.
I am not obliged to pick one and would vote for neither.
You make far points
Perhaps if given the choice - Biden/Trump - I would abstain
If I am American, I can't vote for the lunatic and dangerous Trump, but I cannot vote for the dangerous Wokery of the Dems, let alone in the guise of this snile twat Biden
Why do you think the border is such an issue for Biden when net migration is lower into America today than it was under any of Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush or George W Bush?
Because of this you numbskull. Illegal immigration
This is illegal immigration under Biden. The latest figures are even worse than this. 2023 saw 3m+ cross the border. Unprecedented
That's not many people.
The US is a country of 331 million so that's less than 1%.
Poland is at the top, at 3.9%, the US is second at 3.49%, the UK is at 2.07%, and Luxembourg, as usual, is last, at .72%.
To be fair to Luxembourg, there's little point; even if they spent 5% it'd still be 5% of sod all.
If anything serious kicked off they'd be doormatted inside a single morning, so they have to put their faith in the big players.
Each individual grain of sand on a beach is small, but you'd still suffer if the whole lot was dumped on your head at once.
Luxembourg should, of course, fulfill the commitment they've made to spend 2%, even if that only amounts to a fraction of one deployable brigade, in partnership with one of their neighbours, or some engineering and logistics assets.
The difference between what they're spending, and what they said they would spend, is about US$1bn. It's not nothing.
And if we want to do Europe-Alone, the numbers are interesting.
Think of the political fun of more than doubling the UK defence budget - you'd need to go to something like 5% for a while to build up capability to get to the equivalent of 3.5%
Well, politically, public support is malleable, reacts to events, and can be shaped by good political arguments.
If we imagine a worst-case scenario where Trump is elected, NATO collapses, the Russians take Kyiv, and China invades Taiwan, I think that a half-decent Prime Minister could build a broad political consensus in favour of much higher defence spending.
Unfortunately, 5% of GDP won't amount to that much by that point.
There's something very distracting in the way Starmer bobs his head when trying to do emphasis/sincerity. Like he's got a fly on his head but doesn't want to use his hands to shift it.
I don't know whether I can handle a full term of Starmer's bobbing head.
You never saw Sturgeon speak?
She's not in the same league. And also moves other parts of her body, which makes it look less weird.
It's something you can't unsee once you notice it. When he wants to emphasise a word he does a little pause and then jerks his head forwards as if he needs to physically spit it out.
I see Andrew Sullivan is now joining the cult of Trump (and US isolationism).
Is he? That's not my reading of the interview at all. He is not voting for him and sees him as a massive threat to rule of law.
It's when you get right to the end, after explaining how bad Trump is:
FS: And would you be one of that large number of Americans? [ie those who would happily see Ukraine partitioned, and China occupy Taiwan].
AS: I’d be pretty close to them, yes. I don’t think there is a desire in the United States, nor has there really been for the last 20 years, for long engagement in conflicts far away. The people whose kids go to fight those wars don’t want their kids to go fight those wars. And a lot of people just simply look at the state of the US-Mexico border and say: why are we spending billions of dollars on the border between the Russian-dominated provinces in Ukraine and the rest of it? Why, when we can’t do it for our own border? That’s an incredibly potent argument.
FS: The world order is certainly going through a seismic shift, one that may involve war or will conflict being evaded and a deal being struck. The argument of those who support Trump would be that he’s not so deeply ideological, he likes a deal and, as you say, he’s not seriously attached to a particular set of principles. And they say: that’s the kind of leader we need right now to smooth things over.
AS: Yes. There are plenty of reasons, policy-wise, why I’d be happier with a Trump administration than a Biden one. There’s immigration, which I think the Democrats have completely screwed up. The numbers of people coming over are extraordinary at this point. And I think if he got a majority in the House and the Senate, he could easily pass immigration reform, and this time, unlike in 2016, he won’t be bamboozled by people like Paul Ryan into thinking that the most important thing is a tax cut for the super-wealthy.
I also think that regarding the wokeness stuff, even though I really find Trump horrid on so many levels, if he’s the only thing that can stop this stuff from being imposed across the country and across the United States Government, then you can see why I might prefer him over Biden, who is giving in to woke at every level. The federal government is involved in systematic DEI: in all of its capacities it now has putting equity at the heart of everything as a policy. He would remove that and there would be support for ending DEI in corporate America and in universities. He’s clearly taken out a position — even if he’s not interested in that stuff, he’ll find someone who is. And that’s a huge thing for the base. It would happen, I think.
I suspect if I were in America (and knowing they can be a deeply conservative people and at times rather qualified in their humour, expecting a bit of deference and not much bawdiness) I would draw a very large and carefully detailed phallus on the ballot paper.
For climate reasons alone, you should vote for the Democrat. Trump has declared that he would actively attempt to sabotage the move to renewables.
There's no way I'd vote for the Democrats with their policies on EDI, open borders, rampant Wokery, post Brexit hostility to the UK and really dumb foreign policy fubars over the past years.
I also wouldn't vote for Trump for his demagogury, lack of respect for the law, reckless attitude to NATO, dismissal of climate change and rampant unpredictability.
I am not obliged to pick one and would vote for neither.
You make far points
Perhaps if given the choice - Biden/Trump - I would abstain
If I am American, I can't vote for the lunatic and dangerous Trump, but I cannot vote for the dangerous Wokery of the Dems, let alone in the guise of this senile twat Biden
It's a dreadful choice but I suppose on balance you'd have to vote for the one you are sure you could vote out again in four years time.
Perhaps. Unless you see Wokeness as an even greater threat to US democracy
For me it is a close call. I accept most of PB disagrees with me
“We originally intended to withdraw support immediately, but unfortunately slipped and fell onto a smartphone, accidentally sending a press release defending Mr Ali and whatsapping several shadow cabinet members to go out in support of him”
Quicker than the sackings of Williamson, Zahawi, Raab...
Starmer doesn't have to be that good to be better than the alternative.
There’s a strong argument Labour should even have toughed this one out, what has Ali said that’s anti semitic?
He’s deffo a passionate hater of the Netanyahu government and questioning of their politics and motives, and that’s certainly not anti semitism by itself, in fact with 30K Palestinians dead in one sided duck shoot, you don’t even need to be Muslim or left wing for this to be getting under your skin about now - just listen to David Cameron and the frustration in which he is saying no to Netanyahu.
In many ways Ali is a strong candidate, a Labour moderate, media savvy in how he walks the walk and talks the talk, his apology why he was wrong with repeating the conspiracy theory came across well. He’s definitely got to be favourite to win from here.
The “former” Labour strategist on R4 this morning put it down to the Mail being very clever in how they held on to what they had for just the right moment. Is it really the Mail’s own work how they got hold of the information in the first place, or even when they are allowed to publish it?
I see Andrew Sullivan is now joining the cult of Trump (and US isolationism).
Is he? That's not my reading of the interview at all. He is not voting for him and sees him as a massive threat to rule of law.
It's when you get right to the end, after explaining how bad Trump is:
FS: And would you be one of that large number of Americans? [ie those who would happily see Ukraine partitioned, and China occupy Taiwan].
AS: I’d be pretty close to them, yes. I don’t think there is a desire in the United States, nor has there really been for the last 20 years, for long engagement in conflicts far away. The people whose kids go to fight those wars don’t want their kids to go fight those wars. And a lot of people just simply look at the state of the US-Mexico border and say: why are we spending billions of dollars on the border between the Russian-dominated provinces in Ukraine and the rest of it? Why, when we can’t do it for our own border? That’s an incredibly potent argument.
FS: The world order is certainly going through a seismic shift, one that may involve war or will conflict being evaded and a deal being struck. The argument of those who support Trump would be that he’s not so deeply ideological, he likes a deal and, as you say, he’s not seriously attached to a particular set of principles. And they say: that’s the kind of leader we need right now to smooth things over.
AS: Yes. There are plenty of reasons, policy-wise, why I’d be happier with a Trump administration than a Biden one. There’s immigration, which I think the Democrats have completely screwed up. The numbers of people coming over are extraordinary at this point. And I think if he got a majority in the House and the Senate, he could easily pass immigration reform, and this time, unlike in 2016, he won’t be bamboozled by people like Paul Ryan into thinking that the most important thing is a tax cut for the super-wealthy.
I also think that regarding the wokeness stuff, even though I really find Trump horrid on so many levels, if he’s the only thing that can stop this stuff from being imposed across the country and across the United States Government, then you can see why I might prefer him over Biden, who is giving in to woke at every level. The federal government is involved in systematic DEI: in all of its capacities it now has putting equity at the heart of everything as a policy. He would remove that and there would be support for ending DEI in corporate America and in universities. He’s clearly taken out a position — even if he’s not interested in that stuff, he’ll find someone who is. And that’s a huge thing for the base. It would happen, I think.
I suspect if I were in America (and knowing they can be a deeply conservative people and at times rather qualified in their humour, expecting a bit of deference and not much bawdiness) I would draw a very large and carefully detailed phallus on the ballot paper.
For climate reasons alone, you should vote for the Democrat. Trump has declared that he would actively attempt to sabotage the move to renewables.
There's no way I'd vote for the Democrats with their policies on EDI, open borders, rampant Wokery, post Brexit hostility to the UK and really dumb foreign policy fubars over the past years.
I also wouldn't vote for Trump for his demagogury, lack of respect for the law, reckless attitude to NATO, dismissal of climate change and rampant unpredictability.
I am not obliged to pick one and would vote for neither.
You make far points
Perhaps if given the choice - Biden/Trump - I would abstain
If I am American, I can't vote for the lunatic and dangerous Trump, but I cannot vote for the dangerous Wokery of the Dems, let alone in the guise of this snile twat Biden
Why do you think the border is such an issue for Biden when net migration is lower into America today than it was under any of Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush or George W Bush?
Because of this you numbskull. Illegal immigration
This is illegal immigration under Biden. The latest figures are even worse than this. 2023 saw 3m+ cross the border. Unprecedented
That's not many people.
The US is a country of 331 million so that's less than 1%.
Net the migration rate is the lowest in decades.
How many are Trans Woke Gay Illegal Immigrant Alien AIs though? eh? eh?
Every single one planning on destroying Western Civilisation by contaminating our Precious Essence.
I see Andrew Sullivan is now joining the cult of Trump (and US isolationism).
Is he? That's not my reading of the interview at all. He is not voting for him and sees him as a massive threat to rule of law.
It's when you get right to the end, after explaining how bad Trump is:
FS: And would you be one of that large number of Americans? [ie those who would happily see Ukraine partitioned, and China occupy Taiwan].
AS: I’d be pretty close to them, yes. I don’t think there is a desire in the United States, nor has there really been for the last 20 years, for long engagement in conflicts far away. The people whose kids go to fight those wars don’t want their kids to go fight those wars. And a lot of people just simply look at the state of the US-Mexico border and say: why are we spending billions of dollars on the border between the Russian-dominated provinces in Ukraine and the rest of it? Why, when we can’t do it for our own border? That’s an incredibly potent argument.
FS: The world order is certainly going through a seismic shift, one that may involve war or will conflict being evaded and a deal being struck. The argument of those who support Trump would be that he’s not so deeply ideological, he likes a deal and, as you say, he’s not seriously attached to a particular set of principles. And they say: that’s the kind of leader we need right now to smooth things over.
AS: Yes. There are plenty of reasons, policy-wise, why I’d be happier with a Trump administration than a Biden one. There’s immigration, which I think the Democrats have completely screwed up. The numbers of people coming over are extraordinary at this point. And I think if he got a majority in the House and the Senate, he could easily pass immigration reform, and this time, unlike in 2016, he won’t be bamboozled by people like Paul Ryan into thinking that the most important thing is a tax cut for the super-wealthy.
I also think that regarding the wokeness stuff, even though I really find Trump horrid on so many levels, if he’s the only thing that can stop this stuff from being imposed across the country and across the United States Government, then you can see why I might prefer him over Biden, who is giving in to woke at every level. The federal government is involved in systematic DEI: in all of its capacities it now has putting equity at the heart of everything as a policy. He would remove that and there would be support for ending DEI in corporate America and in universities. He’s clearly taken out a position — even if he’s not interested in that stuff, he’ll find someone who is. And that’s a huge thing for the base. It would happen, I think.
I suspect if I were in America (and knowing they can be a deeply conservative people and at times rather qualified in their humour, expecting a bit of deference and not much bawdiness) I would draw a very large and carefully detailed phallus on the ballot paper.
For climate reasons alone, you should vote for the Democrat. Trump has declared that he would actively attempt to sabotage the move to renewables.
There's no way I'd vote for the Democrats with their policies on EDI, open borders, rampant Wokery, post Brexit hostility to the UK and really dumb foreign policy fubars over the past years.
I also wouldn't vote for Trump for his demagogury, lack of respect for the law, reckless attitude to NATO, dismissal of climate change and rampant unpredictability.
I am not obliged to pick one and would vote for neither.
You make far points
Perhaps if given the choice - Biden/Trump - I would abstain
If I am American, I can't vote for the lunatic and dangerous Trump, but I cannot vote for the dangerous Wokery of the Dems, let alone in the guise of this snile twat Biden
Why do you think the border is such an issue for Biden when net migration is lower into America today than it was under any of Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush or George W Bush?
And Biden is pushing for bipartisan legislation on the border which would significantly tighten current arrangements.
It's not "closing the border" (which is anyway absurd) - but neither is it Casino's "open border" policy.
The GOP last week voted it down, because Trump wants to run on the issue.
And down three is well, well within that MoE. Down 4 is also within a 3% margin of error too since the MoE spreads in both directions. If eg the true figure is say 42% then 42% plus or minus 3% could be 45% one poll and 39% the next, or anywhere in-between without ever leaving the bounds of the margin of error.
Yeah but then you’re the fucking idiot that told me last summer (right after my visit to Ukraine) that my personal subjective eyewitness sense that Ukraine was in danger of running out of soldiers was ‘total bollocks’
Because Putin is also struggling to find new men too.
I said to you on the day that to post one thing without the countervailing balance is meaningless. I was right then, I'm still right now. Putin hasn't got an inexhaustible supply of people to send to the meat grinder, Russia isn't that much bigger than Ukraine.
The Russian population is 4.6x times that of Ukraine
31m v 144m, at best estimates we have now
Yes, Russia has problems, but if Russia is determined to prosecute this war, to the bitter end, than Ukraine will run out of men long before Russia. Indeed Ukraine is very close to the edge now. They have one cohort left: men aged 18-27 (many of these have volunteered, already, and died, or been injured - or they have fled the country or dodged the draft), but lots remain
Does Ukraine throw the last of its men, the flower of youth, into the meatgrinder? Is that wise? Is the war winnable? Is a ceasefire - if it can be achieved - perhaps preferable?
I know you want them to march on Moscow, this is not going to happen, nor are they going to retake Crimea, etc. Even you must now admit this
A version of this post in 1940.
“The German population is almost twice Britain’s.
46m v 70m, at best estimates we have now
Yes, Germany has problems, but if Germany is determined to prosecute this war, to the bitter end, then Britain will run out of men long before Russia. Germany almost certainly has more aircraft as well.
Does Britain throw the last of its men, the flower of youth, into the meatgrinder? Is that wise? Is the war winnable? Is a ceasefire - if it can be achieved - perhaps preferable?”
***********
Thank Christ that isn’t what Roosevelt thought about us.
Ukraine can hold on. Ukraine will not be subsumed. In the end, with support, Russia will have to withdraw. Quality of life there is dipping and, unlike the Ukrainians, they have no unifying cause to justify it and no rich western sugar daddies, waiting in the wings to rebuild their economy.
And down three is well, well within that MoE. Down 4 is also within a 3% margin of error too since the MoE spreads in both directions. If eg the true figure is say 42% then 42% plus or minus 3% could be 45% one poll and 39% the next, or anywhere in-between without ever leaving the bounds of the margin of error.
Yeah but then you’re the fucking idiot that told me last summer (right after my visit to Ukraine) that my personal subjective eyewitness sense that Ukraine was in danger of running out of soldiers was ‘total bollocks’
Because Putin is also struggling to find new men too.
I said to you on the day that to post one thing without the countervailing balance is meaningless. I was right then, I'm still right now. Putin hasn't got an inexhaustible supply of people to send to the meat grinder, Russia isn't that much bigger than Ukraine.
The Russian population is 4.6x times that of Ukraine
31m v 144m, at best estimates we have now
Yes, Russia has problems, but if Russia is determined to prosecute this war, to the bitter end, than Ukraine will run out of men long before Russia. Indeed Ukraine is very close to the edge now. They have one cohort left: men aged 18-27 (many of these have volunteered, already, and died, or been injured - or they have fled the country or dodged the draft), but lots remain
Does Ukraine throw the last of its men, the flower of youth, into the meatgrinder? Is that wise? Is the war winnable? Is a ceasefire - if it can be achieved - perhaps preferable?
I know you want them to march on Moscow, this is not going to happen, nor are they going to retake Crimea, etc. Even you must now admit this
A version of this post in 1940.
“The German population is almost twice Britain’s.
46m v 70m, at best estimates we have now
Yes, Germany has problems, but if Germany is determined to prosecute this war, to the bitter end, then Britain will run out of men long before Russia. Germany almost certainly has more aircraft as well.
Does Britain throw the last of its men, the flower of youth, into the meatgrinder? Is that wise? Is the war winnable? Is a ceasefire - if it can be achieved - perhaps preferable?
***********
Thank Christ that isn’t what Roosevelt thought about us.
Ukraine can hold on. Ukraine will not be subsumed. In the end, with support, Russia will have to withdraw. Quality of life there is dipping and, unlike the Ukrainians, they have no unifying cause to justify it and no rich western sugar daddies, waiting in the wings to rebuild their economy.
Britain ran a global empire in 1940 so it's a poor comparison.
Had a brief but intense thunderstorm today. 500,000 without power. An entire transport network collapsed.
Chastening. It's not the gradual rise in temperatures, or the slow change in local climates. These extreme weather events might be the story of the next 50 years, and I don't think people back home in the UK appreciate how disruptive they are.
Your australian friends certainly need to reduce their carbon footprint at a whopping 15 tons per person per year.
We do. We've just hit 1.5C for 2023 - a few years ahead of schedule - and the scientists were right.
We really do need to accelerate the electrification of everything and shift it onto renewables asap. This isn't a left-wing or a right-wing thing; it's an engineering challenge to decarbonise our energy generation and consumption in a way that doesn't treat the atmosphere like a sewer. And, on top, we'll need to do direct air capture and storage of what we've already chucked up their on top too.
It would really help if the ecomarxist activists could STFU about all their grand schemes to remake society of the back of it because that just makes it 10 x harder to achieve a consensus.
Tbf, we will remake society to some extent on the back of it - as capitalist America is doing.
But you're absolutely right: irrespective of political views, anyone who is not a fool should support the project.
I see them as disconnected.
We have essentially halved our carbon emissions since 1990 whilst doubling our nominal GDP. As new technology comes online it offers more options and decarbonising will actually save people money.
Decarbonising our energy supply is a pure engineering challenge and doesn't intrinsically hold any political baggage, unless we want it to of course.
I wasn't really talking about political baggage. But in practical terms it will likely refashion society - just as did, for example, the switch from coal to oil at the beginnng of the last century.
It doesn't especially need to. You could have pretty much everything we have now, but a decarbonised version.
It will though, just as did the transition to oil.
It fundamentally changes the economics of energy in several ways (for example the availability of supply at zero marginal cost; or from the POV of countries' balances of payments).
And down three is well, well within that MoE. Down 4 is also within a 3% margin of error too since the MoE spreads in both directions. If eg the true figure is say 42% then 42% plus or minus 3% could be 45% one poll and 39% the next, or anywhere in-between without ever leaving the bounds of the margin of error.
Yeah but then you’re the fucking idiot that told me last summer (right after my visit to Ukraine) that my personal subjective eyewitness sense that Ukraine was in danger of running out of soldiers was ‘total bollocks’
Because Putin is also struggling to find new men too.
I said to you on the day that to post one thing without the countervailing balance is meaningless. I was right then, I'm still right now. Putin hasn't got an inexhaustible supply of people to send to the meat grinder, Russia isn't that much bigger than Ukraine.
The Russian population is 4.6x times that of Ukraine
31m v 144m, at best estimates we have now
Yes, Russia has problems, but if Russia is determined to prosecute this war, to the bitter end, than Ukraine will run out of men long before Russia. Indeed Ukraine is very close to the edge now. They have one cohort left: men aged 18-27 (many of these have volunteered, already, and died, or been injured - or they have fled the country or dodged the draft), but lots remain
Does Ukraine throw the last of its men, the flower of youth, into the meatgrinder? Is that wise? Is the war winnable? Is a ceasefire - if it can be achieved - perhaps preferable?
I know you want them to march on Moscow, this is not going to happen, nor are they going to retake Crimea, etc. Even you must now admit this
A version of this post in 1940.
“The German population is almost twice Britain’s.
46m v 70m, at best estimates we have now
Yes, Germany has problems, but if Germany is determined to prosecute this war, to the bitter end, then Britain will run out of men long before Russia. Germany almost certainly has more aircraft as well.
Does Britain throw the last of its men, the flower of youth, into the meatgrinder? Is that wise? Is the war winnable? Is a ceasefire - if it can be achieved - perhaps preferable?
***********
Thank Christ that isn’t what Roosevelt thought about us.
Ukraine can hold on. Ukraine will not be subsumed. In the end, with support, Russia will have to withdraw. Quality of life there is dipping and, unlike the Ukrainians, they have no unifying cause to justify it and no rich western sugar daddies, waiting in the wings to rebuild their economy.
Britain ran a global empire in 1940 so it's a poor comparison.
No, not really. The Empire wasn’t in a position to prevent a competent Sea Lion*. We were on our own for the moment.
Had a brief but intense thunderstorm today. 500,000 without power. An entire transport network collapsed.
Chastening. It's not the gradual rise in temperatures, or the slow change in local climates. These extreme weather events might be the story of the next 50 years, and I don't think people back home in the UK appreciate how disruptive they are.
Your australian friends certainly need to reduce their carbon footprint at a whopping 15 tons per person per year.
We do. We've just hit 1.5C for 2023 - a few years ahead of schedule - and the scientists were right.
We really do need to accelerate the electrification of everything and shift it onto renewables asap. This isn't a left-wing or a right-wing thing; it's an engineering challenge to decarbonise our energy generation and consumption in a way that doesn't treat the atmosphere like a sewer. And, on top, we'll need to do direct air capture and storage of what we've already chucked up their on top too.
It would really help if the ecomarxist activists could STFU about all their grand schemes to remake society of the back of it because that just makes it 10 x harder to achieve a consensus.
Tbf, we will remake society to some extent on the back of it - as capitalist America is doing.
But you're absolutely right: irrespective of political views, anyone who is not a fool should support the project.
I see them as disconnected.
We have essentially halved our carbon emissions since 1990 whilst doubling our nominal GDP. As new technology comes online it offers more options and decarbonising will actually save people money.
Decarbonising our energy supply is a pure engineering challenge and doesn't intrinsically hold any political baggage, unless we want it to of course.
What do you make of Labour dropping their '£28b p/a Green Investment' pledge?
And down three is well, well within that MoE. Down 4 is also within a 3% margin of error too since the MoE spreads in both directions. If eg the true figure is say 42% then 42% plus or minus 3% could be 45% one poll and 39% the next, or anywhere in-between without ever leaving the bounds of the margin of error.
Yeah but then you’re the fucking idiot that told me last summer (right after my visit to Ukraine) that my personal subjective eyewitness sense that Ukraine was in danger of running out of soldiers was ‘total bollocks’
Because Putin is also struggling to find new men too.
I said to you on the day that to post one thing without the countervailing balance is meaningless. I was right then, I'm still right now. Putin hasn't got an inexhaustible supply of people to send to the meat grinder, Russia isn't that much bigger than Ukraine.
The Russian population is 4.6x times that of Ukraine
31m v 144m, at best estimates we have now
Yes, Russia has problems, but if Russia is determined to prosecute this war, to the bitter end, than Ukraine will run out of men long before Russia. Indeed Ukraine is very close to the edge now. They have one cohort left: men aged 18-27 (many of these have volunteered, already, and died, or been injured - or they have fled the country or dodged the draft), but lots remain
Does Ukraine throw the last of its men, the flower of youth, into the meatgrinder? Is that wise? Is the war winnable? Is a ceasefire - if it can be achieved - perhaps preferable?
I know you want them to march on Moscow, this is not going to happen, nor are they going to retake Crimea, etc. Even you must now admit this
The same way that in the Peninsular War, the French Empire had a population 4.2 times bigger than that of Spain. Or in the 1960's the USA had a population six times the size of Vietnam's.
Having a bigger population means little, when your opponent is defending its homeland and is determined not to be subjugated, and you are the attacker.
Good morning from Aberdeen airport. Could I please offer my congratulations to @NickPalmer ? His attempted smear of the Liberal Democrat’s over Cyril Smith in response to his own candidate being thrown out in disgrace was quality entertainment.
It’s pretty clear in this by election. We have a choice of disgraced former Labour candidates - Ali, Galloway, Danczuk. We have a disgraced party - the Tories. Or we have the LibDems.
We know that people want to Get The Tories Out. Happily in Rochdale they don’t have a chance. Plenty of people also seem to want to vote for foaming dog fever. If you want to stop both, vote LibDem.
On this topic; ages ago I argued that Labour were going to get such a stonking majority, that they would be inundated with new, untested MPs. And therefore there might be more examples of (ahem) 'poor' MPs, such as the ex-member for Sheffield Hallam (and I don't mean Clegg...).
It seems this is coming true much earlier than I expected. There's something rotten in the way Labour chooses candidates. The same might be true for the other parties, as well.
I’ve been a candidate. I’ve interviewed candidates. I’ve discussed candidates with regional office staff. I cannot understand how they managed to miss this.
Worst thing is that it would appear that at least some local party members had heard the comments - and voted for Ali anyway. Which means the CLP needs suspending. This wasn’t an HQ parachute candidate, the CLP actively chose him.
What have they actually missed though. The only thing the mail on Sunday came up with are remarks the Israeli government allowed the Hamas attack so they could have the war they wanted - not the most blisteringly anti semitic of statements, unless you disagree?
The latest remarks that have come to light are that he said Israel wanted to ethnically cleanse Gaza.
Obviously Labour thinks that even saying that is unacceptable!
I think we just have to accept that all criticism of Israel is a thought crime in Britain. If the Israelis want to kill another 12000 Gazan children who are we to question them?
While it would be untrue to say that "Israel wants" to ethnically cleanse Gaza, there is undeniably a movement for that, which has support in the more extreme elements of Netanyahu's coalition.
Netenyau himself is as much opportunist as ideologue, so it's hard to be sure exactly what is his position.
https://www.politico.eu/article/prominent-settler-pushes-pm-benjamin-netanyahu-rebuild-israeli-homes-gaza/ ...Still, Dagan is not a total outlier. Some in Israel’s defense establishment are also lobbying for a permanent change in Gaza. In mid-October, the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy, an Israeli think tank founded by former security officials, urged Netanyahu to seize the “unique and rare opportunity to evacuate the whole Gaza Strip”. That’s been echoed by the Israeli Intelligence Ministry, a think tank within the government, which has recommended Gazans be relocated to Egypt’s northern Sinai..
...Remarks from members of Netanyahu’s government – though not from any ministers in the emergency war cabinet – are only fueling fears. This week Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter, a former head of the Shin Bet intelligence service, said on television: “We are now rolling out the Gaza nakba.”
Despite some PBers posting earlier, this conflict has been going on for ages, it seems to me, the Israeli Palestinian conflict is very different these days, and not the same old same old of years gone by.
The position of the Arab States is different these days. Let’s look at Egypt, who at one point were the authority on the Gaza Strip. Egypt doesn’t want Palestinians entering Egypt. They see the Gaza Palestinians as radicalised. They see them as a political danger, a political enemy. .
On the other side of the coin, during this generational period of Gazan’s becoming radicalised, has Israeli governments also become less moderate, more extreme?
Unlike the Labour Candidate in Rochdale, I’m certain the Israeli government didn’t want this war, that’s obvious enough in their thrashing about struggling to achieve military goals, like free hostages and the vague smash Hamas once and for all - and shredding much of the sympathy the international community had for them a few months ago.
Egypt’s position on a radicalised Gazan population makes Israel’s war aim of “smash Hamas once and for all” seem utterly fanciful. So how exactly does the Israeli government extract itself from what it’s got into? Where does the next extended period of calm - built on reflection, reconciliation and good will gestures - come from?
Once you eliminate the impossible, that remains, no matter how unlikely, is the truth (or something like that, Dr Watson).
Hamas will never engage in reflection, reconciliation and goodwill gestures.
It follows that, while they are a force in Gaza, there can never be peace.
If no one else will take them then they must be eliminated irrespective of the cost.
And down three is well, well within that MoE. Down 4 is also within a 3% margin of error too since the MoE spreads in both directions. If eg the true figure is say 42% then 42% plus or minus 3% could be 45% one poll and 39% the next, or anywhere in-between without ever leaving the bounds of the margin of error.
Yeah but then you’re the fucking idiot that told me last summer (right after my visit to Ukraine) that my personal subjective eyewitness sense that Ukraine was in danger of running out of soldiers was ‘total bollocks’
Because Putin is also struggling to find new men too.
I said to you on the day that to post one thing without the countervailing balance is meaningless. I was right then, I'm still right now. Putin hasn't got an inexhaustible supply of people to send to the meat grinder, Russia isn't that much bigger than Ukraine.
The Russian population is 4.6x times that of Ukraine
31m v 144m, at best estimates we have now
Yes, Russia has problems, but if Russia is determined to prosecute this war, to the bitter end, than Ukraine will run out of men long before Russia. Indeed Ukraine is very close to the edge now. They have one cohort left: men aged 18-27 (many of these have volunteered, already, and died, or been injured - or they have fled the country or dodged the draft), but lots remain
Does Ukraine throw the last of its men, the flower of youth, into the meatgrinder? Is that wise? Is the war winnable? Is a ceasefire - if it can be achieved - perhaps preferable?
I know you want them to march on Moscow, this is not going to happen, nor are they going to retake Crimea, etc. Even you must now admit this
A version of this post in 1940.
“The German population is almost twice Britain’s.
46m v 70m, at best estimates we have now
Yes, Germany has problems, but if Germany is determined to prosecute this war, to the bitter end, then Britain will run out of men long before Russia. Germany almost certainly has more aircraft as well.
Does Britain throw the last of its men, the flower of youth, into the meatgrinder? Is that wise? Is the war winnable? Is a ceasefire - if it can be achieved - perhaps preferable?
***********
Thank Christ that isn’t what Roosevelt thought about us.
Ukraine can hold on. Ukraine will not be subsumed. In the end, with support, Russia will have to withdraw. Quality of life there is dipping and, unlike the Ukrainians, they have no unifying cause to justify it and no rich western sugar daddies, waiting in the wings to rebuild their economy.
Britain ran a global empire in 1940 so it's a poor comparison.
And Ukraine is being supplied by a global alliance, which makes it a much closer analogy than it seems.
Also very few elected politicos: I count El Capitano (LD), Andy Cooke (LD), Nick Palmer (Lab) and yours truly (Con) as Councillors, and no declared MPs.
It woud be quite "brave" for a declared MP to regularly post here.
I agree...but for a shortish period between 2005-10, we had both Nick Palmer and Stewart Jackson posting here; the latter flounced spectacularly and, to be honest, wasn't greatly missed (particularly by the then 'dominant' pbTories!).
2010-15 was peak PB, I think
Very varied contributors, much less polarised, a shared sense of humour, fewer lawyers and accountants (or they were more diluted), - nice balance of barbed insults and genuine wit, and a proper conviviality
When did it end? Like so much, perhaps around the time of the Scottish indyref
If I had to pinpoint THE time when the world went mad, a state from which it has never recovered, and it may in fact still be worsening, it is then. Indyref. The UK nearly broke up FFS
The planet has not been the same since
Your exertion to avoid identifying Brexit as the cause is hilarious.
Not at all. I would certainly include Brexit in my list of mad things that should not really have happened - along with Trump, global plague, massive European war, and much else
I’m just trying to pinpoint when this Era of Weirdness began, and sindyref is for me a good place to start. Something unthinkable -the UK splitting - came horribly close to happening - and also it was our first taste in the Uk of brutally polarised politics, especially online - the cybernats
So, no, I’m not ignoring Brexit. It simply wasn’t the start of the Madness
It was a black man getting elected US president. That's where the Tea Party started. It's probably what radicalised Trump.
I think April 30th, 2011 was when Trump changed from apolitical to the whole villain arc.
Had a brief but intense thunderstorm today. 500,000 without power. An entire transport network collapsed.
Chastening. It's not the gradual rise in temperatures, or the slow change in local climates. These extreme weather events might be the story of the next 50 years, and I don't think people back home in the UK appreciate how disruptive they are.
Your australian friends certainly need to reduce their carbon footprint at a whopping 15 tons per person per year.
We do. We've just hit 1.5C for 2023 - a few years ahead of schedule - and the scientists were right.
We really do need to accelerate the electrification of everything and shift it onto renewables asap. This isn't a left-wing or a right-wing thing; it's an engineering challenge to decarbonise our energy generation and consumption in a way that doesn't treat the atmosphere like a sewer. And, on top, we'll need to do direct air capture and storage of what we've already chucked up their on top too.
It would really help if the ecomarxist activists could STFU about all their grand schemes to remake society of the back of it because that just makes it 10 x harder to achieve a consensus.
Tbf, we will remake society to some extent on the back of it - as capitalist America is doing.
But you're absolutely right: irrespective of political views, anyone who is not a fool should support the project.
I think his point is different: tying it to one side of a political dispute isn’t helpful
Also very few elected politicos: I count El Capitano (LD), Andy Cooke (LD), Nick Palmer (Lab) and yours truly (Con) as Councillors, and no declared MPs.
It woud be quite "brave" for a declared MP to regularly post here.
Aaron Bell posted under his own name for years, then changed it to Tissue Price when he switched to a political career. This was understandable, but probably unnecessary. His postings here have not, I believe, ever landed him in any difficulty.
He has posted occasionally since becoming an MP, and would probably do so more if he were not so busy.
If he were my MP I would vote for him in a trice, but I'm afraid my endorsement is unlikely to save him from the coming cull.
It's not a secret and I doubt he denies it, but please don't doxx people. It's bad enough when people volunteer their real names unprompted without other people doing it. Yes, we know who many people are - Charles posted his father's obituary which had me screaming at the screen - but there's no need to advertise it.
Except for Sunil, who's real identity as The God Of Trains is known to his many acolytes at their secret altars.
Surely if someone chooses to post their real name that’s up to them?
CNN is reporting that Russia hit Kyiv with a hypersonic missile, which is a missile so fast it cannot be shot down
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
Ah, like the V2 huh?
How much impact did that have on the war again?
I think Ukraine have been shooting down quite a large proportion of these so-called unstoppable hypersonic missiles (using Patriot, mostly).
Unlike 'what air defence doing?' Russia vs our slow subsonic 'Storm Shadows'.
No, this one is a new one, which may be genuinely a lot faster and harder to shoot down.
Ah, I've actually RTA now. It wasn't just another Khinzal (which they did tout as unstoppable in the past).
So they've used one of their super duper anti-ship missiles against a ground target? Seems a bit wasteful, depending on how many they have.
I imagine these missiles have to slow down to manoeuvre to the target so they many not be totally invulnerable, but yes, they could in theory be a problem. Russian equipment never seems to live up to theory though.
Using them to blow up flats won't change the course of the war.
And down three is well, well within that MoE. Down 4 is also within a 3% margin of error too since the MoE spreads in both directions. If eg the true figure is say 42% then 42% plus or minus 3% could be 45% one poll and 39% the next, or anywhere in-between without ever leaving the bounds of the margin of error.
Yeah but then you’re the fucking idiot that told me last summer (right after my visit to Ukraine) that my personal subjective eyewitness sense that Ukraine was in danger of running out of soldiers was ‘total bollocks’
Given that Ukraine's minimum conscription age is currently 27, I'd say that "running out of men" is a little nonsensical as a claim. They are talking about reducing that to 25 - which is still high.
I think an issue coming down the track is perhaps that they have a less nuanced man running the military now, who is perhaps more willing to lay down the lives of his army than was Zaluzhnyi, which may cause problems in future.
Patriotic catering update. I switched plans so that toad would be a starter. So the oven is now on for TITH made on little Yorkshire pudding tins, each with an embedded bug of sausage. Then it’s shepherds pie (hachis Parmentier). Then crumble de pommes.
SP ready to go in.
Already most of a bottle of Chateau London down (it’s a “climat” in Macon Ige). They’ve not yet turned up.
Comments
Plus or minus three percent at a 95% chance means a swing of upto 6 points can be within MoE.
Plus or minus four percent at a 90% chance means a swing upto 8 points can be within MoE and that's with a doubled chance of having an error too.
That's as good as I can think of, but isn't bad as far as tendentious by-election claims go.
Perhaps if given the choice - Biden/Trump - I would abstain
If I am American, I can't vote for the lunatic and dangerous Trump, but I cannot vote for the dangerous Wokery of the Dems, let alone in the guise of this senile twat Biden
My pacemaker is amazing but still in pain and taking it easy though I started driving again today following the OK from my consultant so at least that is an important step forward
I think for a special few memberships are just given regardless.
It’s tight we need your vote31m v 144m, at best estimates we have now
Yes, Russia has problems, but if Russia is determined to prosecute this war, to the bitter end, than Ukraine will run out of men long before Russia. Indeed Ukraine is very close to the edge now. They have one cohort left: men aged 18-27 (many of these have volunteered, already, and died, or been injured - or they have fled the country or dodged the draft), but lots remain
Does Ukraine throw the last of its men, the flower of youth, into the meatgrinder? Is that wise? Is the war winnable? Is a ceasefire - if it can be achieved - perhaps preferable?
I know you want them to march on Moscow, this is not going to happen, nor are they going to retake Crimea, etc. Even you must now admit this
I don't know whether I can handle a full term of Starmer's bobbing head. But I do know I can't handle another full term of the party formerly known as the Conservative party, so I guess the choice is clear...
Think of the political fun of more than doubling the UK defence budget - you'd need to go to something like 5% for a while to build up capability to get to the equivalent of 3.5%
Ukraine can afford to have its population within Ukraine, Russia can't empty itself into Ukraine.
The liberation of every square centimetre of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, remains an achievable objective and we should wholeheartedly give Ukraine every bit of munitions they want or need to achieve that objective for as long as they seek it.
To be fair, all those arguments could have been made in June 1942 as Tobruk fell and the way to Egypt and the oil fields looked all but open. This is no less existential for Ukraine than that was for Britain.
This is illegal immigration under Biden. The latest
figures are even worse than this. 2023 saw 3m+ cross the border. Unprecedented
The US is a country of 331 million so that's less than 1%.
Net the migration rate is the lowest in decades.
If we imagine a worst-case scenario where Trump is elected, NATO collapses, the Russians take Kyiv, and China invades Taiwan, I think that a half-decent Prime Minister could build a broad political consensus in favour of much higher defence spending.
Unfortunately, 5% of GDP won't amount to that much by that point.
NEW THREAD
For me it is a close call. I accept most of PB disagrees with me
He’s deffo a passionate hater of the Netanyahu government and questioning of their politics and motives, and that’s certainly not anti semitism by itself, in fact with 30K Palestinians dead in one sided duck shoot, you don’t even need to be Muslim or left wing for this to be getting under your skin about now - just listen to David Cameron and the frustration in which he is saying no to Netanyahu.
In many ways Ali is a strong candidate, a Labour moderate, media savvy in how he walks the walk and talks the talk, his apology why he was wrong with repeating the conspiracy theory came across well. He’s definitely got to be favourite to win from here.
The “former” Labour strategist on R4 this morning put it down to the Mail being very clever in how they held on to what they had for just the right moment. Is it really the Mail’s own work how they got hold of the information in the first place, or even when they are allowed to publish it?
Every single one planning on destroying Western Civilisation by contaminating our Precious Essence.
It's not "closing the border" (which is anyway absurd) - but neither is it Casino's "open border" policy.
The GOP last week voted it down, because Trump wants to run on the issue.
I have no idea if this is true. CNN is pretty pro-Ukraine, so I am not sure why they would boost Putin's military propaganda
If it IS true, isn't that the end of navies as we know them? A single unstoppable missile can take out a carrier. That's it
“The German population is almost twice Britain’s.
46m v 70m, at best estimates we have now
Yes, Germany has problems, but if Germany is determined to prosecute this war, to the bitter end, then Britain will run out of men long before Russia. Germany almost certainly has more aircraft as well.
Does Britain throw the last of its men, the flower of youth, into the meatgrinder? Is that wise? Is the war winnable? Is a ceasefire - if it can be achieved - perhaps preferable?”
***********
Thank Christ that isn’t what Roosevelt thought about us.
Ukraine can hold on. Ukraine will not be subsumed. In the end, with support, Russia will have to withdraw. Quality of life there is dipping and, unlike the Ukrainians, they have no unifying cause to justify it and no rich western sugar daddies, waiting in the wings to rebuild their economy.
It fundamentally changes the economics of energy in several ways (for example the availability of supply at zero marginal cost; or from the POV of countries' balances of payments).
*As it happens the Royal Navy would have.
Having a bigger population means little, when your opponent is defending its homeland and is determined not to be subjugated, and you are the attacker.
How much impact did that have on the war again?
Hamas will never engage in reflection, reconciliation and goodwill gestures.
It follows that, while they are a force in Gaza, there can never be peace.
If no one else will take them then they must be eliminated irrespective of the cost.
Give peace a chance!
Unlike 'what air defence doing?' Russia vs our slow subsonic 'Storm Shadows'.
So they've used one of their super duper anti-ship missiles against a ground target? Seems a bit wasteful, depending on how many they have.
I imagine these missiles have to slow down to manoeuvre to the target so they many not be totally invulnerable, but yes, they could in theory be a problem. Russian equipment never seems to live up to theory though.
Using them to blow up flats won't change the course of the war.
I think an issue coming down the track is perhaps that they have a less nuanced man running the military now, who is perhaps more willing to lay down the lives of his army than was Zaluzhnyi, which may cause problems in future.
SP ready to go in.
Already most of a bottle of Chateau London down (it’s a “climat” in Macon Ige). They’ve not yet turned up.