It was a tragic waste of life for Ukraine to attack a larger army that had defense in depth, minefields and stronger artillery when Ukraine lacked armor or air superiority! Any fool could have predicted that.
My recommendation a year ago was for Ukraine to entrench and apply all resources to defense. Even then, it is tough to hold land that doesn’t have strong natural barriers.
There is no chance of Russia taking all of Ukraine, as the local resistance would be extreme in the west, but Russia will certainly gain more land than they have today.
The longer the war goes on, the more territory Russia will gain until they hit the Dnepr, which is tough to overcome. However, if the war lasts long enough, Odessa will fall too.
Whether Ukraine loses all access to the Black Sea or not is, in my view, the real remaining question. I recommend a negotiated settlement before that happens. 6:35 PM · Mar 30, 2024 · 115.2K View https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1774143429720596865?s=20
Elon’s been pushing Putin propaganda (whether out of ignorance of malice) for a while now. About the only thing you and he have in common.
Maybe hes more rational than you, not difficult by the way.
@Trent on the last thread you made an outrageous post which I responded to, but the thread ended so I repeat it here because I was gobsmacked by it:
You said 'The last years of peoples lives especially in dementia care homes can be utterly miserable. And we have to ask can we afford it.'
You said that without any solution. I asked if we decide we can't afford it what do you propose? We can't just exterminate people because of cost. That is an appalling suggestion.
People sign a document which states if they get dementia and it progresses past a certain point its fine for their life to be voluntarily brought to an end.
What is that point - who decides - frankly you are very unpleasant and clearly verging on supporting euthanasia for dementia
Dementia destroys lives not only of those with dementia but also the people around them however is something to bear in mind. My father has dementia, he is driving his girlfriend to an early grave she has now been described anti depressants. I have had official warnings from work because he does stupid shit and I need to take immediate time off by telling my boss sorry I need to go because he did something stupid.
How many people can he take down with him before those around him say enough? Or should we just drop contact and refuse responsibility when he is already an unrecogisable shell of himself?
My father in law died with dementia here in our home after months of distress for my wife and children and he passed way with his family around him as we held his hand
Additionally both my son in laws parents suffered dementia in homes for 4 years before both passing last year
There is no easy answer but euthanasia is not one of them
Sorry but it absolutely bloody is one of them if that's what the patient wants. If and only if that.
Would you support banning putting down dogs who are terminally sick? Why do we treat those who are sick and able to express their own interests with less sympathy and humanity than we do our pets?
I absolutely support euthanasia for people who are able to make an informed decision, but absolutely against in for dementia. I've had to deal with dementia on both sides of my family and the person afflicted with dementia doesn't think they are ill (and even if they have a brief insight it's soon forgotten). They don't want to die because they think they are healthy and it's the rest of us that have all gone mad. I don't want us to be a society that kills you off as soon as you fail a cognitive test.
I agree that those not of sound mind can't consent so can't be euthanised.
But someone who is of sound mind in the early stages of dementia ought to be able, in sound mind, to make a choice if they so deem.
Their body, their life, their choice.
But that might be five years or ten years in the past and the person wouldn't consent now. In medicine even if someone's consenting to an operation they can always change their mind and that's a line that I think we can't cross.
I think you're not quite understanding me. If someone in the early stages decides they want to end things now, and they're of sound mind, that should be their choice.
I agree that of course you can't euthanise someone who is not of sound mind who hasn't opted to do so as they can't opt to do so.
Though as far as changing their mind is concerned, medicine already deals with that as it is. If someone says they're a Jehovah (or similar) and refuse blood transfusions as a result, then they're in an accident, then between their declaration and the accident they might have had a change of heart and might want to live and might want the blood, but unless a change of heart is clearly evident their choice stands even if it was years in the past.
Similar for DNR too. Someone who is DNR might have changed their mind, might want to live, might want extraordinary measures, but unless they've recorded it their last choice stands.
No, that is not the way it works.
Consent can be withdrawn at any point and is not bound by a previous decision.
If a person lacks capacity to decide on a procedure then a "best interests meeting" is held to decide if the action is in the patients best interest, and this includes anyone with Medical Lasting Power of Attorney (hence essential to do this legally when still competent) or in the absence of this then the patients family members and unpaid carers, as well as the clinical staff involved. Sometimes these go to court, for example withdrawal of care for an unconscious person over their families wishes. I don't think anyone with a financial interest in a death (such as a beneficiary in a will) could be part of such a decision.
I understand the desire to end suffering, but there have been cases already in Canada etc that are rather concerning.
Thanks, Dr Foxy! If somebody with medical lasting power of attorney cannot be physically part of the meeting… For example are out of the country … would they be allowed to contribute virtually? By zoom, for example? I have had a case of assisted dying in my own family and it’s dreadfully difficult for all concerned.
SNP winning 41 seats is at odds with both Scottish polling and Scottish by-election results.
Once again, why is Reform’s big opinion polling vote share not showing up anywhere in real elections?
TBF, Labour were collapsing in an ignominious heap in Scottish locals and by-elections from 2008-2010 and they held every seat in Scotland at the General even as they lost nearly a hundred seats in England.
But I agree, this poll doesn't pass the sniff test.
I've been trying to work out what a really good night for Labour would look like. I would say anything over 310 seats is a very fine performance. Indeed, I'd expect more like 300.
Similarly, if the Tories go below about 230 it will have been an exceptionally bad night for them.
These other numbers - I just don't buy them. Starmer isn't evil incarnate the way Owls portrays him, but he's more John Major or Edward Heath than Blair or even Wilson. His party isn't offering anything other than tinkering at the edges and there's no bold vision to galvanise support. You can manage to win big without one or the other - Blair had no vision other than a series of silly clichés and Thatcher wasn't widely trusted or liked - but it would be a surprise to pull off a landslide with neither.
Similarly, it's easy to imagine a lot of voters with assets or aspirations will hesitate about kicking the Tories too hard when they think what a large Labour majority *could* mean (it's less than five years since Corbyn was leader and Burgon, Pidcock and McDonnell were in the shadow cabinet).
Could be wrong of course (I frequently am) but that seems to me the likeliest outcome right now.
UK government lawyers say Israel is breaking international law, claims top Tory in leaked recording
Ex-Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official Alicia Kearns said at a Tory fundraiser that legal advice would mean the UK has to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay
The British government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public, according to a leaked recording obtained by the Observer.
The comments, made by the Conservative chair of the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, Alicia Kearns, at a Tory fundraising event on 13 March are at odds with repeated ministerial denials and evasion on the issue.
On Saturday night, Kearns, a former Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official, who has repeatedly pressed ministers, including foreign secretary David Cameron, on the legal advice they have received, stood by her comments and called for the government to come clean.
“I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make,” she said. “Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order.”
The revelation will place Lord Cameron and prime minister Rishi Sunak under intense pressure because any such legal advice would mean the UK had to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay.
Legal experts said that not to do so would risk putting the UK in breach of international law itself, as it would be seen as aiding and abetting war crimes by a country it was exporting arms to.
It's nonsense like this which is why Israel is being so restrained and fighting this war with kid gloves and one hand tied behind its back.
They should be far more aggressive than they are. They should have gone into Rafah ages ago.
But I respect the way they're trying to minimise civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas who aim to maximise them. And Egypt and the rest of the world kettling Palestinians into the war zone with no escape or safe haven for refugees outside it, as would be granted in any other conflict.
Where do you swallow this propaganda, Bart? How is mass starvation minimising civilian casualties?
I don't endorse mass starvation and I don't believe Israel is responsible for it.
Hamas are the ones attacking aid convoys, not Israel.
Of course my preference would be for innocent Palestinians not be kettled into a war zone in part as getting aid into a war zone is very difficult.
Unfortunately while civilians in almost every other war are able to flee to safe ground outside the war zone, that right is being denied to Palestinians. For shame.
But it's not Israel denying them that right either.
Can inhabitants of Gaza flee into Israel (the country with which Gaza has its longest border)? No. That is because Israel is stopping them. One could also criticise Egypt, but that would be whataboutery.
I agree with quite a few bits of that article actually.
COGAT, the military body that oversees Palestinian civilian affairs, says there are no restrictions on importing humanitarian aid. It also denies that right-wing Israeli protests at the crossings in recent weeks have succeeded in blocking aid.
Instead, the main obstacles now appear to be on the other side of the fence.
As I said, Hamas and others are attacking aid convoys.
Such happens during war. Israel doesn't have control over the area, if it did, there wouldn't be a war going on.
If Hamas and others attack aid convoys, there isn't much Israel could do about that.
Another bloody good reason that third party nations should offer refuge to Palestinians.
But Egypt etc don't want to and are kettling them instead, leaving them to their fate. That's their choice and their responsibility.
Israel's responsibility is to continue proportionately fighting the war until they win the war and Hamas are completely destroyed or surrender unconditionally.
I hope Israel continue to do what they can to minimise civilian casualties, as they have, without prejudicing their legitimate military objectives. But we should be under no pretence that the longer it takes for Hamas to surrender unconditionally, or be destroyed, then more innocents will die. Such is the nature of war, especially when people are kettled into the war zone.
It would be great if Hamas surrendered. If there was anyone on PB defending Hamas, I'd be arguing with them too.
The only way to get them to surrender is to defeat them.
Evil needs to be destroyed sometimes. Nazis, Imperial Japan, Russia, Hamas.
The war needs to continue until they are destroyed or unconditionally surrender. Israel ceasing fire won't lead to either.
I haven’t mentioned a ceasefire in this thread. I’ve talked about whether Israel is doing enough to avoid civilian casualties and noted the mass starvation that is happening in Gaza.
When the western Allies entered Nazi Germany, they did so having already made detailed plans for how to look after the population, as in JCS 1067.
Your daily reminder that MRP only becomes accurate in the last few days before a GE, when real voting intention starts to shape up.
Nevertheless this is horrific. I doubt Sunak has it in him to do what's necessary to rally his base.
What base out of the multiple different groups that Bozo attracted is he supposed to rally.
The sane centralist part are put off by the incompetent management and culture war The reform part are put off by the lack of success on immigration, the incompetent management
The big question for me is, why are the LibDems doing so badly? I want to see the Tories lose, but I would rather see the Libdems become the official opposition than see Labour with a 300 seat majority. Or even a 200 seat majority! I mean, most of the electorate now know in their gut that to vote Tory is to vote for a greater chance of dying of untreated cancer, but the Lib dems are still losing to them. If they aren't going to overtake them now, they will never do it - they might as well shut up shop.
Because the lib dems are neither liberal nor democratic and compulsive liars. No one wants to vote for a party like that. I would vote count binface rather than vote lib dem as would most
I know this is unfair of me because I backed off a long discussion on this before because of time but:
There are numerous LD posters here including myself and I know you don't think I am not liberal nor undemocratic nor a compulsive liar from our past discussions and I'm sure you don't think that of the other LD posters here who all come over as extremely reasonable (he says being unbiased )
So do you think we are all deluded to be taken in by illiberal, undemocratic liars?
I lived in slough for a long while, used to get ld leaflets through the door for elections, also had good friends in maidenhead they used to get ld leaflets too.....reading both sets you wouldn't believe they were from the same party because they were so often contradictory.
I believe most ld supporters here are sincere....I just don't think the party you support is sincere. I suspect 2/3 of ld votes in any election are mere protests and if you just had believers voting for you then you would come behind the greens.
We are the party. I am not just a supporter. In my time I have been an agent, a constituency chair and served on a regional executive. I think others here will have served similar roles, certainly there are some who have been councillors. I have met hundreds of members and MPs. They are not dishonest. They hold sincere convictions. Nobody joins the LDs for other motives. You don't join for power nor the money as we have neither.
So explain in a general election why a leaflet in one area is promising one thing and a leaflet in a contiguous constituency is promising the opposite? Hardly seems a party with strong convictions the only thing that ld's seem to be united on is pr and the eu....the rest seems to be what will get me most votes in this constituency
OK so we are now getting into that discussion I said I didn't have time for currently (although I haven't stopped tonight with // arguments, which I shouldn't be doing). I would need some examples and I have no doubt it they will exist but often it is down to different priorities in different areas. For example unlike Tories and Labour the LDs have done well in different types of seats and which have different priorities. Eg Bermondsey and Richmond. With the Tories winning the Red Wall seats you see that issue happening with them now also.
You focus on what matters where you are. You mentioned this before and I think the seats were Slough and Maidenhead. That is chalk and cheese. What might be right in one might be wrong in the other. They are very different places. One shouldn't be dogmatic, but the basic principles apply and decisions on policy are made democratically.
However I am sure you will also find some hypocrisy. This is politics after all and people have different opinions even if they broadly agree in the same party.
I think the following on the membership card is rather profound as far as I am concerned:
'The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity'
And that balance is key because some of these things are in conflict with one another.
Ok so you say your party wants a fair free open society then explain this
UK government lawyers say Israel is breaking international law, claims top Tory in leaked recording
Ex-Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official Alicia Kearns said at a Tory fundraiser that legal advice would mean the UK has to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay
The British government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public, according to a leaked recording obtained by the Observer.
The comments, made by the Conservative chair of the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, Alicia Kearns, at a Tory fundraising event on 13 March are at odds with repeated ministerial denials and evasion on the issue.
On Saturday night, Kearns, a former Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official, who has repeatedly pressed ministers, including foreign secretary David Cameron, on the legal advice they have received, stood by her comments and called for the government to come clean.
“I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make,” she said. “Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order.”
The revelation will place Lord Cameron and prime minister Rishi Sunak under intense pressure because any such legal advice would mean the UK had to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay.
Legal experts said that not to do so would risk putting the UK in breach of international law itself, as it would be seen as aiding and abetting war crimes by a country it was exporting arms to.
It's nonsense like this which is why Israel is being so restrained and fighting this war with kid gloves and one hand tied behind its back.
They should be far more aggressive than they are. They should have gone into Rafah ages ago.
But I respect the way they're trying to minimise civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas who aim to maximise them. And Egypt and the rest of the world kettling Palestinians into the war zone with no escape or safe haven for refugees outside it, as would be granted in any other conflict.
Where do you swallow this propaganda, Bart? How is mass starvation minimising civilian casualties?
I don't endorse mass starvation and I don't believe Israel is responsible for it.
Hamas are the ones attacking aid convoys, not Israel.
Of course my preference would be for innocent Palestinians not be kettled into a war zone in part as getting aid into a war zone is very difficult.
Unfortunately while civilians in almost every other war are able to flee to safe ground outside the war zone, that right is being denied to Palestinians. For shame.
But it's not Israel denying them that right either.
Can inhabitants of Gaza flee into Israel (the country with which Gaza has its longest border)? No. That is because Israel is stopping them. One could also criticise Egypt, but that would be whataboutery.
I agree with quite a few bits of that article actually.
COGAT, the military body that oversees Palestinian civilian affairs, says there are no restrictions on importing humanitarian aid. It also denies that right-wing Israeli protests at the crossings in recent weeks have succeeded in blocking aid.
Instead, the main obstacles now appear to be on the other side of the fence.
As I said, Hamas and others are attacking aid convoys.
Such happens during war. Israel doesn't have control over the area, if it did, there wouldn't be a war going on.
If Hamas and others attack aid convoys, there isn't much Israel could do about that.
Another bloody good reason that third party nations should offer refuge to Palestinians.
But Egypt etc don't want to and are kettling them instead, leaving them to their fate. That's their choice and their responsibility.
Israel's responsibility is to continue proportionately fighting the war until they win the war and Hamas are completely destroyed or surrender unconditionally.
I hope Israel continue to do what they can to minimise civilian casualties, as they have, without prejudicing their legitimate military objectives. But we should be under no pretence that the longer it takes for Hamas to surrender unconditionally, or be destroyed, then more innocents will die. Such is the nature of war, especially when people are kettled into the war zone.
It would be great if Hamas surrendered. If there was anyone on PB defending Hamas, I'd be arguing with them too.
The only way to get them to surrender is to defeat them.
Evil needs to be destroyed sometimes. Nazis, Imperial Japan, Russia, Hamas.
The war needs to continue until they are destroyed or unconditionally surrender. Israel ceasing fire won't lead to either.
I haven’t mentioned a ceasefire in this thread. I’ve talked about whether Israel is doing enough to avoid civilian casualties and noted the mass starvation that is happening in Gaza.
When the western Allies entered Nazi Germany, they did so having already made detailed plans for how to look after the population, as in JCS 1067.
Hamas is finished, pretty much.
Making Gaza completely uninhabitable, to get its last members at large, is not proportionate.
The war is being prolonged to save Netanyahu’s career.
UK government lawyers say Israel is breaking international law, claims top Tory in leaked recording
Ex-Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official Alicia Kearns said at a Tory fundraiser that legal advice would mean the UK has to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay
The British government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public, according to a leaked recording obtained by the Observer.
The comments, made by the Conservative chair of the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, Alicia Kearns, at a Tory fundraising event on 13 March are at odds with repeated ministerial denials and evasion on the issue.
On Saturday night, Kearns, a former Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official, who has repeatedly pressed ministers, including foreign secretary David Cameron, on the legal advice they have received, stood by her comments and called for the government to come clean.
“I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make,” she said. “Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order.”
The revelation will place Lord Cameron and prime minister Rishi Sunak under intense pressure because any such legal advice would mean the UK had to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay.
Legal experts said that not to do so would risk putting the UK in breach of international law itself, as it would be seen as aiding and abetting war crimes by a country it was exporting arms to.
It's nonsense like this which is why Israel is being so restrained and fighting this war with kid gloves and one hand tied behind its back.
They should be far more aggressive than they are. They should have gone into Rafah ages ago.
But I respect the way they're trying to minimise civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas who aim to maximise them. And Egypt and the rest of the world kettling Palestinians into the war zone with no escape or safe haven for refugees outside it, as would be granted in any other conflict.
Where do you swallow this propaganda, Bart? How is mass starvation minimising civilian casualties?
I don't endorse mass starvation and I don't believe Israel is responsible for it.
Hamas are the ones attacking aid convoys, not Israel.
Of course my preference would be for innocent Palestinians not be kettled into a war zone in part as getting aid into a war zone is very difficult.
Unfortunately while civilians in almost every other war are able to flee to safe ground outside the war zone, that right is being denied to Palestinians. For shame.
But it's not Israel denying them that right either.
Can inhabitants of Gaza flee into Israel (the country with which Gaza has its longest border)? No. That is because Israel is stopping them. One could also criticise Egypt, but that would be whataboutery.
I’m not advocating that, as you well know. I was just pointing out that refugees may flee in every direction they can.
Then your point is crass. Many of those Ukrainians were not 'fleeing' the war; they were abducted by the Russians. Including tens of thousands of kids. In Russia, they are routinely being maltreated. It is part of Putin's process to make Ukraine part of Russia by mixing up the populations - something Stalin tried as well (see the Crimean Tartars).
Saying they were 'fleeing' is just feeding the Kremlin's message - that they are 'protecting' the people they abduct. It's a line used by pro-Kremlin shills to excuse evil.
UK government lawyers say Israel is breaking international law, claims top Tory in leaked recording
Ex-Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official Alicia Kearns said at a Tory fundraiser that legal advice would mean the UK has to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay
The British government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public, according to a leaked recording obtained by the Observer.
The comments, made by the Conservative chair of the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, Alicia Kearns, at a Tory fundraising event on 13 March are at odds with repeated ministerial denials and evasion on the issue.
On Saturday night, Kearns, a former Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official, who has repeatedly pressed ministers, including foreign secretary David Cameron, on the legal advice they have received, stood by her comments and called for the government to come clean.
“I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make,” she said. “Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order.”
The revelation will place Lord Cameron and prime minister Rishi Sunak under intense pressure because any such legal advice would mean the UK had to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay.
Legal experts said that not to do so would risk putting the UK in breach of international law itself, as it would be seen as aiding and abetting war crimes by a country it was exporting arms to.
It's nonsense like this which is why Israel is being so restrained and fighting this war with kid gloves and one hand tied behind its back.
They should be far more aggressive than they are. They should have gone into Rafah ages ago.
But I respect the way they're trying to minimise civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas who aim to maximise them. And Egypt and the rest of the world kettling Palestinians into the war zone with no escape or safe haven for refugees outside it, as would be granted in any other conflict.
Where do you swallow this propaganda, Bart? How is mass starvation minimising civilian casualties?
I don't endorse mass starvation and I don't believe Israel is responsible for it.
Hamas are the ones attacking aid convoys, not Israel.
Of course my preference would be for innocent Palestinians not be kettled into a war zone in part as getting aid into a war zone is very difficult.
Unfortunately while civilians in almost every other war are able to flee to safe ground outside the war zone, that right is being denied to Palestinians. For shame.
But it's not Israel denying them that right either.
Can inhabitants of Gaza flee into Israel (the country with which Gaza has its longest border)? No. That is because Israel is stopping them. One could also criticise Egypt, but that would be whataboutery.
I’m not advocating that, as you well know. I was just pointing out that refugees may flee in every direction they can.
Then your point is crass. Many of those Ukrainians were not 'fleeing' the war; they were abducted by the Russians. Including tens of thousands of kids. In Russia, they are routinely being maltreated. It is part of Putin's process to make Ukraine part of Russia by mixing up the populations - something Stalin tried as well (see the Crimean Tartars).
Saying they were 'fleeing' is just feeding the Kremlin's message - that they are 'protecting' the people they abduct. It's a line used by pro-Kremlin shills to excuse evil.
As you say, many of those Ukrainians were not ‘fleeing’ the war, but some were.
UK government lawyers say Israel is breaking international law, claims top Tory in leaked recording
Ex-Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official Alicia Kearns said at a Tory fundraiser that legal advice would mean the UK has to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay
The British government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public, according to a leaked recording obtained by the Observer.
The comments, made by the Conservative chair of the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, Alicia Kearns, at a Tory fundraising event on 13 March are at odds with repeated ministerial denials and evasion on the issue.
On Saturday night, Kearns, a former Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official, who has repeatedly pressed ministers, including foreign secretary David Cameron, on the legal advice they have received, stood by her comments and called for the government to come clean.
“I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make,” she said. “Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order.”
The revelation will place Lord Cameron and prime minister Rishi Sunak under intense pressure because any such legal advice would mean the UK had to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay.
Legal experts said that not to do so would risk putting the UK in breach of international law itself, as it would be seen as aiding and abetting war crimes by a country it was exporting arms to.
It's nonsense like this which is why Israel is being so restrained and fighting this war with kid gloves and one hand tied behind its back.
They should be far more aggressive than they are. They should have gone into Rafah ages ago.
But I respect the way they're trying to minimise civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas who aim to maximise them. And Egypt and the rest of the world kettling Palestinians into the war zone with no escape or safe haven for refugees outside it, as would be granted in any other conflict.
Where do you swallow this propaganda, Bart? How is mass starvation minimising civilian casualties?
I don't endorse mass starvation and I don't believe Israel is responsible for it.
Hamas are the ones attacking aid convoys, not Israel.
Of course my preference would be for innocent Palestinians not be kettled into a war zone in part as getting aid into a war zone is very difficult.
Unfortunately while civilians in almost every other war are able to flee to safe ground outside the war zone, that right is being denied to Palestinians. For shame.
But it's not Israel denying them that right either.
Can inhabitants of Gaza flee into Israel (the country with which Gaza has its longest border)? No. That is because Israel is stopping them. One could also criticise Egypt, but that would be whataboutery.
I’m not advocating that, as you well know. I was just pointing out that refugees may flee in every direction they can.
Then your point is crass. Many of those Ukrainians were not 'fleeing' the war; they were abducted by the Russians. Including tens of thousands of kids. In Russia, they are routinely being maltreated. It is part of Putin's process to make Ukraine part of Russia by mixing up the populations - something Stalin tried as well (see the Crimean Tartars).
Saying they were 'fleeing' is just feeding the Kremlin's message - that they are 'protecting' the people they abduct. It's a line used by pro-Kremlin shills to excuse evil.
As you say, many of those Ukrainians were not ‘fleeing’ the war, but some were.
Virtually nobody would have been 'fleeing' the war 'into' Russia. Leaving aside the fact that they weren't too fond of Russians, the frontier was heavily defended and a war zone. You run away from the fighting, not towards it. As, indeed, we are seeing in Gaza. (And before that, as can be seen from the direction of travel in the Arab-Israeli war.)
Those 1.2 million have been deliberately and forcibly removed to Russia in an act of ethnic cleaning. They are not refugees.
Your original point wasn't in and of itself a bad one but that was a very bad example you chose to support it.
It was a tragic waste of life for Ukraine to attack a larger army that had defense in depth, minefields and stronger artillery when Ukraine lacked armor or air superiority! Any fool could have predicted that.
My recommendation a year ago was for Ukraine to entrench and apply all resources to defense. Even then, it is tough to hold land that doesn’t have strong natural barriers.
There is no chance of Russia taking all of Ukraine, as the local resistance would be extreme in the west, but Russia will certainly gain more land than they have today.
The longer the war goes on, the more territory Russia will gain until they hit the Dnepr, which is tough to overcome. However, if the war lasts long enough, Odessa will fall too.
Whether Ukraine loses all access to the Black Sea or not is, in my view, the real remaining question. I recommend a negotiated settlement before that happens. 6:35 PM · Mar 30, 2024 · 115.2K View https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1774143429720596865?s=20
Elon’s been pushing Putin propaganda (whether out of ignorance of malice) for a while now. About the only thing you and he have in common.
Maybe hes more rational than you, not difficult by the way.
@Trent on the last thread you made an outrageous post which I responded to, but the thread ended so I repeat it here because I was gobsmacked by it:
You said 'The last years of peoples lives especially in dementia care homes can be utterly miserable. And we have to ask can we afford it.'
You said that without any solution. I asked if we decide we can't afford it what do you propose? We can't just exterminate people because of cost. That is an appalling suggestion.
People sign a document which states if they get dementia and it progresses past a certain point its fine for their life to be voluntarily brought to an end.
What is that point - who decides - frankly you are very unpleasant and clearly verging on supporting euthanasia for dementia
Dementia destroys lives not only of those with dementia but also the people around them however is something to bear in mind. My father has dementia, he is driving his girlfriend to an early grave she has now been described anti depressants. I have had official warnings from work because he does stupid shit and I need to take immediate time off by telling my boss sorry I need to go because he did something stupid.
How many people can he take down with him before those around him say enough? Or should we just drop contact and refuse responsibility when he is already an unrecogisable shell of himself?
My father in law died with dementia here in our home after months of distress for my wife and children and he passed way with his family around him as we held his hand
Additionally both my son in laws parents suffered dementia in homes for 4 years before both passing last year
There is no easy answer but euthanasia is not one of them
Sorry but it absolutely bloody is one of them if that's what the patient wants. If and only if that.
Would you support banning putting down dogs who are terminally sick? Why do we treat those who are sick and able to express their own interests with less sympathy and humanity than we do our pets?
I absolutely support euthanasia for people who are able to make an informed decision, but absolutely against in for dementia. I've had to deal with dementia on both sides of my family and the person afflicted with dementia doesn't think they are ill (and even if they have a brief insight it's soon forgotten). They don't want to die because they think they are healthy and it's the rest of us that have all gone mad. I don't want us to be a society that kills you off as soon as you fail a cognitive test.
I agree that those not of sound mind can't consent so can't be euthanised.
But someone who is of sound mind in the early stages of dementia ought to be able, in sound mind, to make a choice if they so deem.
Their body, their life, their choice.
But that might be five years or ten years in the past and the person wouldn't consent now. In medicine even if someone's consenting to an operation they can always change their mind and that's a line that I think we can't cross.
I think you're not quite understanding me. If someone in the early stages decides they want to end things now, and they're of sound mind, that should be their choice.
I agree that of course you can't euthanise someone who is not of sound mind who hasn't opted to do so as they can't opt to do so.
Though as far as changing their mind is concerned, medicine already deals with that as it is. If someone says they're a Jehovah (or similar) and refuse blood transfusions as a result, then they're in an accident, then between their declaration and the accident they might have had a change of heart and might want to live and might want the blood, but unless a change of heart is clearly evident their choice stands even if it was years in the past.
Similar for DNR too. Someone who is DNR might have changed their mind, might want to live, might want extraordinary measures, but unless they've recorded it their last choice stands.
No, that is not the way it works.
Consent can be withdrawn at any point and is not bound by a previous decision.
If a person lacks capacity to decide on a procedure then a "best interests meeting" is held to decide if the action is in the patients best interest, and this includes anyone with Medical Lasting Power of Attorney (hence essential to do this legally when still competent) or in the absence of this then the patients family members and unpaid carers, as well as the clinical staff involved. Sometimes these go to court, for example withdrawal of care for an unconscious person over their families wishes. I don't think anyone with a financial interest in a death (such as a beneficiary in a will) could be part of such a decision.
I understand the desire to end suffering, but there have been cases already in Canada etc that are rather concerning.
Thanks, Dr Foxy! If somebody with medical lasting power of attorney cannot be physically part of the meeting… For example are out of the country … would they be allowed to contribute virtually? By zoom, for example? I have had a case of assisted dying in my own family and it’s dreadfully difficult for all concerned.
I have held similar meetings by phone when appropriate, for example during covid lockdowns, but in general those participating in such a meeting need to be in regular contact and to know the current state of the patient. Someone with MLPOA who lived abroad and hadn't recently visited would be difficult. They would have to be included but I would escalate such decision making up the Trust hierarchy,
In general such meetings run smoothly, with clinical staff and relatives in agreement as to when to cease active treatment. The ones that hit the news and courts tend to be the ones where clinicians want to cease treatments, but relatives want to continue. Very often this is down to unrealistic ideas of recovery. Hollywood recoveries, with someone in a coma for months springing back to their old self are almost always fiction.
I am very wary of "assisted dying". Ceasing active intervention and allowing nature to take its course is a different matter, and routine medical practice. Actively killing patients is anathema to me. No doubt Dr Shipman would have loved working in Canada.
UK government lawyers say Israel is breaking international law, claims top Tory in leaked recording
Ex-Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official Alicia Kearns said at a Tory fundraiser that legal advice would mean the UK has to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay
The British government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public, according to a leaked recording obtained by the Observer.
The comments, made by the Conservative chair of the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, Alicia Kearns, at a Tory fundraising event on 13 March are at odds with repeated ministerial denials and evasion on the issue.
On Saturday night, Kearns, a former Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official, who has repeatedly pressed ministers, including foreign secretary David Cameron, on the legal advice they have received, stood by her comments and called for the government to come clean.
“I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make,” she said. “Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order.”
The revelation will place Lord Cameron and prime minister Rishi Sunak under intense pressure because any such legal advice would mean the UK had to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay.
Legal experts said that not to do so would risk putting the UK in breach of international law itself, as it would be seen as aiding and abetting war crimes by a country it was exporting arms to.
It's nonsense like this which is why Israel is being so restrained and fighting this war with kid gloves and one hand tied behind its back.
They should be far more aggressive than they are. They should have gone into Rafah ages ago.
But I respect the way they're trying to minimise civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas who aim to maximise them. And Egypt and the rest of the world kettling Palestinians into the war zone with no escape or safe haven for refugees outside it, as would be granted in any other conflict.
Where do you swallow this propaganda, Bart? How is mass starvation minimising civilian casualties?
I don't endorse mass starvation and I don't believe Israel is responsible for it.
Hamas are the ones attacking aid convoys, not Israel.
Of course my preference would be for innocent Palestinians not be kettled into a war zone in part as getting aid into a war zone is very difficult.
Unfortunately while civilians in almost every other war are able to flee to safe ground outside the war zone, that right is being denied to Palestinians. For shame.
But it's not Israel denying them that right either.
Can inhabitants of Gaza flee into Israel (the country with which Gaza has its longest border)? No. That is because Israel is stopping them. One could also criticise Egypt, but that would be whataboutery.
I’m not advocating that, as you well know. I was just pointing out that refugees may flee in every direction they can.
Then your point is crass. Many of those Ukrainians were not 'fleeing' the war; they were abducted by the Russians. Including tens of thousands of kids. In Russia, they are routinely being maltreated. It is part of Putin's process to make Ukraine part of Russia by mixing up the populations - something Stalin tried as well (see the Crimean Tartars).
Saying they were 'fleeing' is just feeding the Kremlin's message - that they are 'protecting' the people they abduct. It's a line used by pro-Kremlin shills to excuse evil.
As you say, many of those Ukrainians were not ‘fleeing’ the war, but some were.
Virtually nobody would have been 'fleeing' the war 'into' Russia. Leaving aside the fact that they weren't too fond of Russians, the frontier was heavily defended and a war zone. You run away from the fighting, not towards it. As, indeed, we are seeing in Gaza. (And before that, as can be seen from the direction of travel in the Arab-Israeli war.)
Those 1.2 million have been deliberately and forcibly removed to Russia in an act of ethnic cleaning. They are not refugees.
Your original point wasn't in and of itself a bad one but that was a very bad example you chose to support it.
I think that a fair number of Pro-Russian Ukranians have gone over the border, and collaborators too left Kherson and the other temporarily occupied areas with retreating Russian troops. It wouldn't surprise me if it were over a million.
One NHS chief said: “We have been asked to ‘think the unthinkable’ in order to break even. That will be impossible without closing beds and significantly reducing staffing numbers. It feels as if the national and regional leadership teams are spinning out of control."
SNP winning 41 seats is at odds with both Scottish polling and Scottish by-election results.
Once again, why is Reform’s big opinion polling vote share not showing up anywhere in real elections?
TBF, Labour were collapsing in an ignominious heap in Scottish locals and by-elections from 2008-2010 and they held every seat in Scotland at the General even as they lost nearly a hundred seats in England.
But I agree, this poll doesn't pass the sniff test.
I've been trying to work out what a really good night for Labour would look like. I would say anything over 310 seats is a very fine performance. Indeed, I'd expect more like 300.
Similarly, if the Tories go below about 230 it will have been an exceptionally bad night for them.
These other numbers - I just don't buy them. Starmer isn't evil incarnate the way Owls portrays him, but he's more John Major or Edward Heath than Blair or even Wilson. His party isn't offering anything other than tinkering at the edges and there's no bold vision to galvanise support. You can manage to win big without one or the other - Blair had no vision other than a series of silly clichés and Thatcher wasn't widely trusted or liked - but it would be a surprise to pull off a landslide with neither.
Similarly, it's easy to imagine a lot of voters with assets or aspirations will hesitate about kicking the Tories too hard when they think what a large Labour majority *could* mean (it's less than five years since Corbyn was leader and Burgon, Pidcock and McDonnell were in the shadow cabinet).
Could be wrong of course (I frequently am) but that seems to me the likeliest outcome right now.
I thought I was the last one left around here who thought there was a hung Parliament coming, although being in my company in this regard isn't a hopeful indicator. I've got all the predictive ability of a tarot deck.
I just feel that Labour isn't offering much apart from not being the Tories. The Tories are so rubbish that this might be enough, but you just wonder what will happen to those polls when a complete lack of enthusiasm meets the Conservatives' elderly base having to decide whether or not they really want to put Labour back into bat.
FPT Some rearkable findings there. Guildford (kjh's base) is Con 27 Lab 28 LD 29. Godalming (Hunt's seat, where I was based) Con 33 LD 32 LD 25. My bet with Andy Cooke on Didcot and Wantage looking good: Con 33 Lab 38 LD 17. Basically reinforces the case for the LibDems to concentrate on the top targets.
@NickPalmer re Godalming you have LD twice and no Lab. Which one is lab and which is LD please?
Whereas I am with you (because of high Labour polling and low LD polling) that Labour will come through strongly in seats where the LD are second and take some of them from the Tories or come 2nd and push the LDs back to 3rd but I do think the figures quoted above are not realistic where the LDs are the clear challengers. I find it mindboggling that Lab can be on 28 in Guildford where they have little presence. I clearly have less knowledge than you re Godalming and it is unclear which figure is Lab and which is LD because of the typo, but it seems unlikely that Lab are that high. What is your view?
Sorry, Godalming is Con 33 LD 32 Lab 25. I expect a serious squeeze effort by Paul Follows (for the LibDems), though Hunt has a considerable personal following - could be as close as this suggests. I defer to you on Guildford, don't know its politics well at all despite the proximity.
I agree that where voters are clear that one party is the main challenger there will be lots of tactical voting. The difficulty for tactical voters is partly the level of swing and partly boundary changes. For example, in Farnham and Borden, neither Labour nor Libdems have much in the way of recent results, because both have been largely deferring to the allied Farnham Residents, and the seat is drastically different to the old SW Surrey seat which including Godalming. The poll suggests Labour is second to the Tories but with LibDems not far behind. What is a tactical voter to do? (In that particular case there is an April 18 council by-election which may cast some light.)
Another factor is whether the prospect of a big Tory defeat affects tactical voting. If the Tories are being ejected anyway, do people want to be sure their local Tory gets ousted more or less than if it was a close race? Less, maybe?
Much as I would like it to be true, I have grave doubts about some of these predictions. As I live in the Didcot and Wantage constituency, I definitely feel Andy Cooke is on the right track predicting a LibDem win.
Meanwhile, the idea of Labour winning Wokingham, a seat where I have first hand experience, is frankly laughable.
Yeah, this MRP is so extreme that it breaks past my plausibility filter. And I'm usually set up to accept extreme outcomes.
We know that "All models are wrong, but some are useful," of course, and MRP is an often useful model. But any model, when given extreme inputs, will break. UNS, for example, gets silly on big swings (and done seat-by-seat, gets absurdities like sub-zero votes in some places).
We don't know how many dimensions they're using, which dimensions they're using, there are no Lib Dem adjustments (and Lib Dem seats are notoriously hard to model - in 2017, we won 12 of the 4 projected seats that Electoral Calculus would have given us, despite losing one of those four, for example), Scotland looks totally out of kilter, and I can't see that any dimension used could have included, for example, local government strength (something all of us do use to assess plausibility of targets).
I mean, if this was right, the injunction to focus on our best targets is meaningless - we don't have any real targets in England, apparently.
Carshalton & Wallington - our obvious top target, lost by a few hundred votes last time. Score in 2019 (in an unchanged constituency): Con 42.4, LD 41.1, Lab 12.4. Sutton Borough has 33 Lib Dem councillors, 18 Tories, 3 Indies, no Labour.
This gives a 55% chance of a retake by the Lib Dems with only a 1% chance of the Tories holding. And a 44% chance of Labour coming from third to pick it up? Predicted scores of LD 32, Lab 31, Con 23? Does anyone really see that?
We apparently have a better shot in Wimbledon - where I'd have suspected Labour might see themselves as having a better chance (last time Con 40, LD 39, Lab 21; this time apparently LD 38, Lab 31, Con 23 and a 69% chance of us taking it).
Again and again there are eyebrow-raising seats. And yes, Didcot and Wantage (22nd closest Tory/LD fight in England on notionals last time) going from Con 49 LD 31 Lab 16 (with overwhelming LD strength versus Lab on Councils and significant swing to us plus a huge amount of work on an obvious major target seat) to Con 33 LD 17 Lab 38 and a 71% chance of a Labour victory versus a zero chance of a LD one?
Your daily reminder that MRP only becomes accurate in the last few days before a GE, when real voting intention starts to shape up.
Nevertheless this is horrific. I doubt Sunak has it in him to do what's necessary to rally his base.
Maybe so. Repeated polling does show Tory losses on such a scale. Those saying it won't happen may just be fooling themselves. Things may change in a campaign, but can you really see the sort of massive change needed happening with Sunaks team in charge?
Polls are sometimes poor predictors, but more often good ones.
SNP winning 41 seats is at odds with both Scottish polling and Scottish by-election results.
Once again, why is Reform’s big opinion polling vote share not showing up anywhere in real elections?
TBF, Labour were collapsing in an ignominious heap in Scottish locals and by-elections from 2008-2010 and they held every seat in Scotland at the General even as they lost nearly a hundred seats in England.
But I agree, this poll doesn't pass the sniff test.
I've been trying to work out what a really good night for Labour would look like. I would say anything over 310 seats is a very fine performance. Indeed, I'd expect more like 300.
Similarly, if the Tories go below about 230 it will have been an exceptionally bad night for them.
These other numbers - I just don't buy them. Starmer isn't evil incarnate the way Owls portrays him, but he's more John Major or Edward Heath than Blair or even Wilson. His party isn't offering anything other than tinkering at the edges and there's no bold vision to galvanise support. You can manage to win big without one or the other - Blair had no vision other than a series of silly clichés and Thatcher wasn't widely trusted or liked - but it would be a surprise to pull off a landslide with neither.
Similarly, it's easy to imagine a lot of voters with assets or aspirations will hesitate about kicking the Tories too hard when they think what a large Labour majority *could* mean (it's less than five years since Corbyn was leader and Burgon, Pidcock and McDonnell were in the shadow cabinet).
Could be wrong of course (I frequently am) but that seems to me the likeliest outcome right now.
I thought I was the last one left around here who thought there was a hung Parliament coming, although being in my company in this regard isn't a hopeful indicator. I've got all the predictive ability of a tarot deck.
I just feel that Labour isn't offering much apart from not being the Tories. The Tories are so rubbish that this might be enough, but you just wonder what will happen to those polls when a complete lack of enthusiasm meets the Conservatives' elderly base having to decide whether or not they really want to put Labour back into bat.
Remember Labour aren't revealing policies because anything half decent the Tory party will use immediately leaving only the awkward unpopular ones in the manifesto.
I suspect the actual manifesto will have some decent items in it - so I'm not actually that bothered that Labour looks light on ideas and plans.
Only if the Labour manifesto is a damp squid will I start thinking about anything less than a 100 seat Labour majority because at the moment Major's Cone Hotline is way better than anything this Government has implemented in the past year...
SNP winning 41 seats is at odds with both Scottish polling and Scottish by-election results.
Once again, why is Reform’s big opinion polling vote share not showing up anywhere in real elections?
TBF, Labour were collapsing in an ignominious heap in Scottish locals and by-elections from 2008-2010 and they held every seat in Scotland at the General even as they lost nearly a hundred seats in England.
But I agree, this poll doesn't pass the sniff test.
I've been trying to work out what a really good night for Labour would look like. I would say anything over 310 seats is a very fine performance. Indeed, I'd expect more like 300.
Similarly, if the Tories go below about 230 it will have been an exceptionally bad night for them.
These other numbers - I just don't buy them. Starmer isn't evil incarnate the way Owls portrays him, but he's more John Major or Edward Heath than Blair or even Wilson. His party isn't offering anything other than tinkering at the edges and there's no bold vision to galvanise support. You can manage to win big without one or the other - Blair had no vision other than a series of silly clichés and Thatcher wasn't widely trusted or liked - but it would be a surprise to pull off a landslide with neither.
Similarly, it's easy to imagine a lot of voters with assets or aspirations will hesitate about kicking the Tories too hard when they think what a large Labour majority *could* mean (it's less than five years since Corbyn was leader and Burgon, Pidcock and McDonnell were in the shadow cabinet).
Could be wrong of course (I frequently am) but that seems to me the likeliest outcome right now.
I thought I was the last one left around here who thought there was a hung Parliament coming, although being in my company in this regard isn't a hopeful indicator. I've got all the predictive ability of a tarot deck.
I just feel that Labour isn't offering much apart from not being the Tories. The Tories are so rubbish that this might be enough, but you just wonder what will happen to those polls when a complete lack of enthusiasm meets the Conservatives' elderly base having to decide whether or not they really want to put Labour back into bat.
"Not being the Conservatives" really shouldn't be enough. But against this iteration of the Conservatives, after the last five years, it probably will be. And it's not as if there's any vision on the right for the period 2025-30. Heck, there aren't enough ideas to pad out 2024.
If MPs needed enthusiasm from their constituents to get elected, there wouldn't be 650 MPs in the next Parliament. But there will be. That's what makes a HP unlikely now. Cap Labour at 325, 20 in Ulster, 40 each for the SNP and Lib Dems (both those look high to me), 5 odds and ends. That leaves 220. Are the Conservatives really going to get to 220, given that they're currently polling below Major in 1996 and Sunak is terrible at politics?
If 2019 taught us anything, it was that bad can win big, when it's up against worse.
Sunak should have gone for May 2nd. The Tories are going to lose, but since he's waiting until after the local elections people will have a better idea of which party is the main challenger to cast their tactical vote for.
SNP winning 41 seats is at odds with both Scottish polling and Scottish by-election results.
Once again, why is Reform’s big opinion polling vote share not showing up anywhere in real elections?
TBF, Labour were collapsing in an ignominious heap in Scottish locals and by-elections from 2008-2010 and they held every seat in Scotland at the General even as they lost nearly a hundred seats in England.
But I agree, this poll doesn't pass the sniff test.
I've been trying to work out what a really good night for Labour would look like. I would say anything over 310 seats is a very fine performance. Indeed, I'd expect more like 300.
Similarly, if the Tories go below about 230 it will have been an exceptionally bad night for them.
These other numbers - I just don't buy them. Starmer isn't evil incarnate the way Owls portrays him, but he's more John Major or Edward Heath than Blair or even Wilson. His party isn't offering anything other than tinkering at the edges and there's no bold vision to galvanise support. You can manage to win big without one or the other - Blair had no vision other than a series of silly clichés and Thatcher wasn't widely trusted or liked - but it would be a surprise to pull off a landslide with neither.
Similarly, it's easy to imagine a lot of voters with assets or aspirations will hesitate about kicking the Tories too hard when they think what a large Labour majority *could* mean (it's less than five years since Corbyn was leader and Burgon, Pidcock and McDonnell were in the shadow cabinet).
Could be wrong of course (I frequently am) but that seems to me the likeliest outcome right now.
I thought I was the last one left around here who thought there was a hung Parliament coming, although being in my company in this regard isn't a hopeful indicator. I've got all the predictive ability of a tarot deck.
I just feel that Labour isn't offering much apart from not being the Tories. The Tories are so rubbish that this might be enough, but you just wonder what will happen to those polls when a complete lack of enthusiasm meets the Conservatives' elderly base having to decide whether or not they really want to put Labour back into bat.
Remember Labour aren't revealing policies because anything half decent the Tory party will use immediately leaving only the awkward unpopular ones in the manifesto.
I suspect the actual manifesto will have some decent items in it - so I'm not actually that bothered that Labour looks light on ideas and plans.
Only if the Labour manifesto is a damp squid will I start thinking about anything less than a 100 seat Labour majority because at the moment Major's Cone Hotline is way better than anything this Government has implemented in the past year...
They've already ruled out so much in advance on the taxation front, made so many commitments to keep themselves in lockstep with existing policy, that there doesn't seem room for much beyond regulatory tinkering. But maybe there will be some big surprises? Who can say?
UK government lawyers say Israel is breaking international law, claims top Tory in leaked recording
Ex-Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official Alicia Kearns said at a Tory fundraiser that legal advice would mean the UK has to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay
The British government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public, according to a leaked recording obtained by the Observer.
The comments, made by the Conservative chair of the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, Alicia Kearns, at a Tory fundraising event on 13 March are at odds with repeated ministerial denials and evasion on the issue.
On Saturday night, Kearns, a former Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official, who has repeatedly pressed ministers, including foreign secretary David Cameron, on the legal advice they have received, stood by her comments and called for the government to come clean.
“I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make,” she said. “Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order.”
The revelation will place Lord Cameron and prime minister Rishi Sunak under intense pressure because any such legal advice would mean the UK had to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay.
Legal experts said that not to do so would risk putting the UK in breach of international law itself, as it would be seen as aiding and abetting war crimes by a country it was exporting arms to.
It's nonsense like this which is why Israel is being so restrained and fighting this war with kid gloves and one hand tied behind its back.
They should be far more aggressive than they are. They should have gone into Rafah ages ago.
But I respect the way they're trying to minimise civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas who aim to maximise them. And Egypt and the rest of the world kettling Palestinians into the war zone with no escape or safe haven for refugees outside it, as would be granted in any other conflict.
Where do you swallow this propaganda, Bart? How is mass starvation minimising civilian casualties?
I don't endorse mass starvation and I don't believe Israel is responsible for it.
Hamas are the ones attacking aid convoys, not Israel.
Of course my preference would be for innocent Palestinians not be kettled into a war zone in part as getting aid into a war zone is very difficult.
Unfortunately while civilians in almost every other war are able to flee to safe ground outside the war zone, that right is being denied to Palestinians. For shame.
But it's not Israel denying them that right either.
Can inhabitants of Gaza flee into Israel (the country with which Gaza has its longest border)? No. That is because Israel is stopping them. One could also criticise Egypt, but that would be whataboutery.
I’m not advocating that, as you well know. I was just pointing out that refugees may flee in every direction they can.
Then your point is crass. Many of those Ukrainians were not 'fleeing' the war; they were abducted by the Russians. Including tens of thousands of kids. In Russia, they are routinely being maltreated. It is part of Putin's process to make Ukraine part of Russia by mixing up the populations - something Stalin tried as well (see the Crimean Tartars).
Saying they were 'fleeing' is just feeding the Kremlin's message - that they are 'protecting' the people they abduct. It's a line used by pro-Kremlin shills to excuse evil.
As you say, many of those Ukrainians were not ‘fleeing’ the war, but some were.
Virtually nobody would have been 'fleeing' the war 'into' Russia. Leaving aside the fact that they weren't too fond of Russians, the frontier was heavily defended and a war zone. You run away from the fighting, not towards it. As, indeed, we are seeing in Gaza. (And before that, as can be seen from the direction of travel in the Arab-Israeli war.)
Those 1.2 million have been deliberately and forcibly removed to Russia in an act of ethnic cleaning. They are not refugees.
Your original point wasn't in and of itself a bad one but that was a very bad example you chose to support it.
Russia is doing all sorts of terrible things, but some Ukrainian refugees have fled into Russia. They have many different stories, they have sometimes been mistreated.
In the absence of AI chat, turning now to Covid origins. Here's a very thorough and balanced review of a rootclaim disputation that took place for a $100K wager: zoonosis versus lab leak.
I broadly agree with the conclusions of the disputation and also with the review author's qualms about the proponent for zoonosis in the disputation. My main issue is the assumption that the lab leak and zoonosis hypotheses start out equal, which I suppose has to be the basis of any debate. When every single epidemic in history has been caused by species jump, I reckon the burden of proof is higher for lab leak.
Any how, well worth a read if you're interested in this kind of analysis.
SNP winning 41 seats is at odds with both Scottish polling and Scottish by-election results.
Once again, why is Reform’s big opinion polling vote share not showing up anywhere in real elections?
TBF, Labour were collapsing in an ignominious heap in Scottish locals and by-elections from 2008-2010 and they held every seat in Scotland at the General even as they lost nearly a hundred seats in England.
But I agree, this poll doesn't pass the sniff test.
I've been trying to work out what a really good night for Labour would look like. I would say anything over 310 seats is a very fine performance. Indeed, I'd expect more like 300.
Similarly, if the Tories go below about 230 it will have been an exceptionally bad night for them.
These other numbers - I just don't buy them. Starmer isn't evil incarnate the way Owls portrays him, but he's more John Major or Edward Heath than Blair or even Wilson. His party isn't offering anything other than tinkering at the edges and there's no bold vision to galvanise support. You can manage to win big without one or the other - Blair had no vision other than a series of silly clichés and Thatcher wasn't widely trusted or liked - but it would be a surprise to pull off a landslide with neither.
Similarly, it's easy to imagine a lot of voters with assets or aspirations will hesitate about kicking the Tories too hard when they think what a large Labour majority *could* mean (it's less than five years since Corbyn was leader and Burgon, Pidcock and McDonnell were in the shadow cabinet).
Could be wrong of course (I frequently am) but that seems to me the likeliest outcome right now.
I think that a fair analysis and I still believe Rishi could sneak a majority against the odds. The disdain for the Conservatives is temporary, the underlying hatred of Labour by just about anyone one speaks to from the left or the right seems embedded. BJO does make a compelling argument that Starmer is a vile and disreputable character. Whether it's truth or lies is debatable. If Rishi does fall, against someone very impressive like Penny I can see Starmer and Labour struggling with the cohort that vote. Those who vote are driving around in prestige German cars, for the voter life is good. For the non-voter it's pretty dire.
Remember, unlike 1997 the media despise Starmer-Labour and lies are accepted as fact. Jimmy Savile, terrorists, being responsible for asylum seekers, not supporting Rwanda, talking down the nation, being a Remainer traitor.
I hope I am wrong, but I just see the Conservatives as dug-in. Five more years and they can complete the reversal of the post-war welfare concensus. The "we've spent more than any Government on the NHS and social welfare may be true, but it doesn't seem to be working".
I await the abuse from @Anabobazina. On election night I hope he can cheer to the rafters. Although I think he might be disappointed.
FPT Some rearkable findings there. Guildford (kjh's base) is Con 27 Lab 28 LD 29. Godalming (Hunt's seat, where I was based) Con 33 LD 32 LD 25. My bet with Andy Cooke on Didcot and Wantage looking good: Con 33 Lab 38 LD 17. Basically reinforces the case for the LibDems to concentrate on the top targets.
@NickPalmer re Godalming you have LD twice and no Lab. Which one is lab and which is LD please?
Whereas I am with you (because of high Labour polling and low LD polling) that Labour will come through strongly in seats where the LD are second and take some of them from the Tories or come 2nd and push the LDs back to 3rd but I do think the figures quoted above are not realistic where the LDs are the clear challengers. I find it mindboggling that Lab can be on 28 in Guildford where they have little presence. I clearly have less knowledge than you re Godalming and it is unclear which figure is Lab and which is LD because of the typo, but it seems unlikely that Lab are that high. What is your view?
Sorry, Godalming is Con 33 LD 32 Lab 25. I expect a serious squeeze effort by Paul Follows (for the LibDems), though Hunt has a considerable personal following - could be as close as this suggests. I defer to you on Guildford, don't know its politics well at all despite the proximity.
I agree that where voters are clear that one party is the main challenger there will be lots of tactical voting. The difficulty for tactical voters is partly the level of swing and partly boundary changes. For example, in Farnham and Borden, neither Labour nor Libdems have much in the way of recent results, because both have been largely deferring to the allied Farnham Residents, and the seat is drastically different to the old SW Surrey seat which including Godalming. The poll suggests Labour is second to the Tories but with LibDems not far behind. What is a tactical voter to do? (In that particular case there is an April 18 council by-election which may cast some light.)
Another factor is whether the prospect of a big Tory defeat affects tactical voting. If the Tories are being ejected anyway, do people want to be sure their local Tory gets ousted more or less than if it was a close race? Less, maybe?
Much as I would like it to be true, I have grave doubts about some of these predictions. As I live in the Didcot and Wantage constituency, I definitely feel Andy Cooke is on the right track predicting a LibDem win.
Meanwhile, the idea of Labour winning Wokingham, a seat where I have first hand experience, is frankly laughable.
Yeah, this MRP is so extreme that it breaks past my plausibility filter. And I'm usually set up to accept extreme outcomes.
We know that "All models are wrong, but some are useful," of course, and MRP is an often useful model. But any model, when given extreme inputs, will break. UNS, for example, gets silly on big swings (and done seat-by-seat, gets absurdities like sub-zero votes in some places).
We don't know how many dimensions they're using, which dimensions they're using, there are no Lib Dem adjustments (and Lib Dem seats are notoriously hard to model - in 2017, we won 12 of the 4 projected seats that Electoral Calculus would have given us, despite losing one of those four, for example), Scotland looks totally out of kilter, and I can't see that any dimension used could have included, for example, local government strength (something all of us do use to assess plausibility of targets).
I mean, if this was right, the injunction to focus on our best targets is meaningless - we don't have any real targets in England, apparently.
Carshalton & Wallington - our obvious top target, lost by a few hundred votes last time. Score in 2019 (in an unchanged constituency): Con 42.4, LD 41.1, Lab 12.4. Sutton Borough has 33 Lib Dem councillors, 18 Tories, 3 Indies, no Labour.
This gives a 55% chance of a retake by the Lib Dems with only a 1% chance of the Tories holding. And a 44% chance of Labour coming from third to pick it up? Predicted scores of LD 32, Lab 31, Con 23? Does anyone really see that?
We apparently have a better shot in Wimbledon - where I'd have suspected Labour might see themselves as having a better chance (last time Con 40, LD 39, Lab 21; this time apparently LD 38, Lab 31, Con 23 and a 69% chance of us taking it).
Again and again there are eyebrow-raising seats. And yes, Didcot and Wantage (22nd closest Tory/LD fight in England on notionals last time) going from Con 49 LD 31 Lab 16 (with overwhelming LD strength versus Lab on Councils and significant swing to us plus a huge amount of work on an obvious major target seat) to Con 33 LD 17 Lab 38 and a 71% chance of a Labour victory versus a zero chance of a LD one?
You don't need to be here to question that!
I suspect part of the issue is that the MRP is using relatively small local sample sizes for each constituency, supplemented by demographic analysis projected more uniformly around the country. While such methodology will pick up seats that might change hands due to wider social trends, despite being surprising from the electoral history - Canterbury and Kensington as Labour gains and the Tory wins up north being recent examples - it won't do so well in picking up the hyper-local effects of candidate and campaigning track record, as the margin of error for the small constituency sample will be very high. This doesn't necessarily hurt the LibDems - statistically it is just as likely that their vote in the local sample is over-stated; but it will make the projections more random and less reliable, where the same type of demographic leans more LibDem in one seat and more Labour in another, for historical or campaigning reasons.
The other part will be that the LibDems will inevitably be relying on the greater air time and the effect of intensive local campaigns to fully land the tactical vote message in those seats where they most need it, and that message won't have landed in some of these places until voters start paying attention to anything other than fragments of national news.
SNP winning 41 seats is at odds with both Scottish polling and Scottish by-election results.
Once again, why is Reform’s big opinion polling vote share not showing up anywhere in real elections?
TBF, Labour were collapsing in an ignominious heap in Scottish locals and by-elections from 2008-2010 and they held every seat in Scotland at the General even as they lost nearly a hundred seats in England.
But I agree, this poll doesn't pass the sniff test.
I've been trying to work out what a really good night for Labour would look like. I would say anything over 310 seats is a very fine performance. Indeed, I'd expect more like 300.
Similarly, if the Tories go below about 230 it will have been an exceptionally bad night for them.
These other numbers - I just don't buy them. Starmer isn't evil incarnate the way Owls portrays him, but he's more John Major or Edward Heath than Blair or even Wilson. His party isn't offering anything other than tinkering at the edges and there's no bold vision to galvanise support. You can manage to win big without one or the other - Blair had no vision other than a series of silly clichés and Thatcher wasn't widely trusted or liked - but it would be a surprise to pull off a landslide with neither.
Similarly, it's easy to imagine a lot of voters with assets or aspirations will hesitate about kicking the Tories too hard when they think what a large Labour majority *could* mean (it's less than five years since Corbyn was leader and Burgon, Pidcock and McDonnell were in the shadow cabinet).
Could be wrong of course (I frequently am) but that seems to me the likeliest outcome right now.
I think that a fair analysis and I still believe Rishi could sneak a majority against the odds. The disdain for the Conservatives is temporary, the underlying hatred of Labour by just about anyone one speaks to from the left or the right seems embedded. BJO does make a compelling argument that Starmer is a vile and disreputable character. Whether it's truth or lies is debatable. If Rishi does fall, against someone very impressive like Penny I can see Starmer and Labour struggling with the cohort that vote. Those who vote are driving around in prestige German cars, for the voter life is good. For the non-voter it's pretty dire.
Remember, unlike 1997 the media despise Starmer-Labour and lies are accepted as fact. Jimmy Savile, terrorists, being responsible for asylum seekers, not supporting Rwanda, talking down the nation, being a Remainer traitor.
I hope I am wrong, but I just see the Conservatives as dug-in. Five more years and they can complete the reversal of the post-war welfare concensus. The "we've spent more than any Government on the NHS and social welfare may be true, but it doesn't seem to be working".
I await the abuse from @Anabobazina. On election night I hope he can cheer to the rafters. Although I think he might be disappointed.
LAB will win but they are not getting 468. 350 maybe. But that's enough for them.
One NHS chief said: “We have been asked to ‘think the unthinkable’ in order to break even. That will be impossible without closing beds and significantly reducing staffing numbers. It feels as if the national and regional leadership teams are spinning out of control."
The usual formula. Closing and merging services. Stopping training. Recruitment freezes, reduced use of agency* staff. All part of the reason that NHS productivity has declined, and will decline further. No vision or leadership, just balance the books in the short term.
*it's interesting how both government and opposition demand use of the private sector to reduce waiting lists, yet demand reductions in agency staff, despite these being the use of private staff to meet waiting list targets. Lack of joined up thinking or what?
SNP winning 41 seats is at odds with both Scottish polling and Scottish by-election results.
Once again, why is Reform’s big opinion polling vote share not showing up anywhere in real elections?
TBF, Labour were collapsing in an ignominious heap in Scottish locals and by-elections from 2008-2010 and they held every seat in Scotland at the General even as they lost nearly a hundred seats in England.
But I agree, this poll doesn't pass the sniff test.
I've been trying to work out what a really good night for Labour would look like. I would say anything over 310 seats is a very fine performance. Indeed, I'd expect more like 300.
Similarly, if the Tories go below about 230 it will have been an exceptionally bad night for them.
These other numbers - I just don't buy them. Starmer isn't evil incarnate the way Owls portrays him, but he's more John Major or Edward Heath than Blair or even Wilson. His party isn't offering anything other than tinkering at the edges and there's no bold vision to galvanise support. You can manage to win big without one or the other - Blair had no vision other than a series of silly clichés and Thatcher wasn't widely trusted or liked - but it would be a surprise to pull off a landslide with neither.
Similarly, it's easy to imagine a lot of voters with assets or aspirations will hesitate about kicking the Tories too hard when they think what a large Labour majority *could* mean (it's less than five years since Corbyn was leader and Burgon, Pidcock and McDonnell were in the shadow cabinet).
Could be wrong of course (I frequently am) but that seems to me the likeliest outcome right now.
I think that a fair analysis and I still believe Rishi could sneak a majority against the odds. The disdain for the Conservatives is temporary, the underlying hatred of Labour by just about anyone one speaks to from the left or the right seems embedded. BJO does make a compelling argument that Starmer is a vile and disreputable character. Whether it's truth or lies is debatable. If Rishi does fall, against someone very impressive like Penny I can see Starmer and Labour struggling with the cohort that vote. Those who vote are driving around in prestige German cars, for the voter life is good. For the non-voter it's pretty dire.
Remember, unlike 1997 the media despise Starmer-Labour and lies are accepted as fact. Jimmy Savile, terrorists, being responsible for asylum seekers, not supporting Rwanda, talking down the nation, being a Remainer traitor.
I hope I am wrong, but I just see the Conservatives as dug-in. Five more years and they can complete the reversal of the post-war welfare concensus. The "we've spent more than any Government on the NHS and social welfare may be true, but it doesn't seem to be working".
I await the abuse from @Anabobazina. On election night I hope he can cheer to the rafters. Although I think he might be disappointed.
LAB will win but they are not getting 468. 350 maybe. But that's enough for them.
I think 400 at present.
I wonder if @Benpointer would consider a 6 month review of his predictions contest, to allow updated predictions?
FPT Some rearkable findings there. Guildford (kjh's base) is Con 27 Lab 28 LD 29. Godalming (Hunt's seat, where I was based) Con 33 LD 32 LD 25. My bet with Andy Cooke on Didcot and Wantage looking good: Con 33 Lab 38 LD 17. Basically reinforces the case for the LibDems to concentrate on the top targets.
@NickPalmer re Godalming you have LD twice and no Lab. Which one is lab and which is LD please?
Whereas I am with you (because of high Labour polling and low LD polling) that Labour will come through strongly in seats where the LD are second and take some of them from the Tories or come 2nd and push the LDs back to 3rd but I do think the figures quoted above are not realistic where the LDs are the clear challengers. I find it mindboggling that Lab can be on 28 in Guildford where they have little presence. I clearly have less knowledge than you re Godalming and it is unclear which figure is Lab and which is LD because of the typo, but it seems unlikely that Lab are that high. What is your view?
Sorry, Godalming is Con 33 LD 32 Lab 25. I expect a serious squeeze effort by Paul Follows (for the LibDems), though Hunt has a considerable personal following - could be as close as this suggests. I defer to you on Guildford, don't know its politics well at all despite the proximity.
I agree that where voters are clear that one party is the main challenger there will be lots of tactical voting. The difficulty for tactical voters is partly the level of swing and partly boundary changes. For example, in Farnham and Borden, neither Labour nor Libdems have much in the way of recent results, because both have been largely deferring to the allied Farnham Residents, and the seat is drastically different to the old SW Surrey seat which including Godalming. The poll suggests Labour is second to the Tories but with LibDems not far behind. What is a tactical voter to do? (In that particular case there is an April 18 council by-election which may cast some light.)
Another factor is whether the prospect of a big Tory defeat affects tactical voting. If the Tories are being ejected anyway, do people want to be sure their local Tory gets ousted more or less than if it was a close race? Less, maybe?
Much as I would like it to be true, I have grave doubts about some of these predictions. As I live in the Didcot and Wantage constituency, I definitely feel Andy Cooke is on the right track predicting a LibDem win.
Meanwhile, the idea of Labour winning Wokingham, a seat where I have first hand experience, is frankly laughable.
Yeah, this MRP is so extreme that it breaks past my plausibility filter. And I'm usually set up to accept extreme outcomes.
We know that "All models are wrong, but some are useful," of course, and MRP is an often useful model. But any model, when given extreme inputs, will break. UNS, for example, gets silly on big swings (and done seat-by-seat, gets absurdities like sub-zero votes in some places).
We don't know how many dimensions they're using, which dimensions they're using, there are no Lib Dem adjustments (and Lib Dem seats are notoriously hard to model - in 2017, we won 12 of the 4 projected seats that Electoral Calculus would have given us, despite losing one of those four, for example), Scotland looks totally out of kilter, and I can't see that any dimension used could have included, for example, local government strength (something all of us do use to assess plausibility of targets).
I mean, if this was right, the injunction to focus on our best targets is meaningless - we don't have any real targets in England, apparently.
Carshalton & Wallington - our obvious top target, lost by a few hundred votes last time. Score in 2019 (in an unchanged constituency): Con 42.4, LD 41.1, Lab 12.4. Sutton Borough has 33 Lib Dem councillors, 18 Tories, 3 Indies, no Labour.
This gives a 55% chance of a retake by the Lib Dems with only a 1% chance of the Tories holding. And a 44% chance of Labour coming from third to pick it up? Predicted scores of LD 32, Lab 31, Con 23? Does anyone really see that?
We apparently have a better shot in Wimbledon - where I'd have suspected Labour might see themselves as having a better chance (last time Con 40, LD 39, Lab 21; this time apparently LD 38, Lab 31, Con 23 and a 69% chance of us taking it).
Again and again there are eyebrow-raising seats. And yes, Didcot and Wantage (22nd closest Tory/LD fight in England on notionals last time) going from Con 49 LD 31 Lab 16 (with overwhelming LD strength versus Lab on Councils and significant swing to us plus a huge amount of work on an obvious major target seat) to Con 33 LD 17 Lab 38 and a 71% chance of a Labour victory versus a zero chance of a LD one?
You don't need to be here to question that!
I suspect part of the issue is that the MRP is using relatively small local sample sizes for each constituency, supplemented by demographic analysis projected more uniformly around the country. While such methodology will pick up seats that might change hands due to wider social trends, despite being surprising from the electoral history - Canterbury and Kensington as Labour gains and the Tory wins up north being recent examples - it won't do so well in picking up the hyper-local effects of candidate and campaigning track record, as the margin of error for the small constituency sample will be very high. This doesn't necessarily hurt the LibDems - statistically it is just as likely that their vote in the local sample is over-stated; but it will make the projections more random and less reliable, where the same type of demographic leans more LibDem in one seat and more Labour in another, for historical or campaigning reasons.
The other part will be that the LibDems will inevitably be relying on the greater air time and the effect of intensive local campaigns to fully land the tactical vote message in those seats where they most need it, and that message won't have landed in some of these places until voters start paying attention to anything other than fragments of national news.
The Yougov 2017 MRP made us sit up and take notice by accurately predicting a hung parliament in 2017, but I don't recall them being accurate in 2019.
SNP winning 41 seats is at odds with both Scottish polling and Scottish by-election results.
Once again, why is Reform’s big opinion polling vote share not showing up anywhere in real elections?
TBF, Labour were collapsing in an ignominious heap in Scottish locals and by-elections from 2008-2010 and they held every seat in Scotland at the General even as they lost nearly a hundred seats in England.
But I agree, this poll doesn't pass the sniff test.
I've been trying to work out what a really good night for Labour would look like. I would say anything over 310 seats is a very fine performance. Indeed, I'd expect more like 300.
Similarly, if the Tories go below about 230 it will have been an exceptionally bad night for them.
These other numbers - I just don't buy them. Starmer isn't evil incarnate the way Owls portrays him, but he's more John Major or Edward Heath than Blair or even Wilson. His party isn't offering anything other than tinkering at the edges and there's no bold vision to galvanise support. You can manage to win big without one or the other - Blair had no vision other than a series of silly clichés and Thatcher wasn't widely trusted or liked - but it would be a surprise to pull off a landslide with neither.
Similarly, it's easy to imagine a lot of voters with assets or aspirations will hesitate about kicking the Tories too hard when they think what a large Labour majority *could* mean (it's less than five years since Corbyn was leader and Burgon, Pidcock and McDonnell were in the shadow cabinet).
Could be wrong of course (I frequently am) but that seems to me the likeliest outcome right now.
I think that a fair analysis and I still believe Rishi could sneak a majority against the odds. The disdain for the Conservatives is temporary, the underlying hatred of Labour by just about anyone one speaks to from the left or the right seems embedded. BJO does make a compelling argument that Starmer is a vile and disreputable character. Whether it's truth or lies is debatable. If Rishi does fall, against someone very impressive like Penny I can see Starmer and Labour struggling with the cohort that vote. Those who vote are driving around in prestige German cars, for the voter life is good. For the non-voter it's pretty dire.
Remember, unlike 1997 the media despise Starmer-Labour and lies are accepted as fact. Jimmy Savile, terrorists, being responsible for asylum seekers, not supporting Rwanda, talking down the nation, being a Remainer traitor.
I hope I am wrong, but I just see the Conservatives as dug-in. Five more years and they can complete the reversal of the post-war welfare concensus. The "we've spent more than any Government on the NHS and social welfare may be true, but it doesn't seem to be working".
I await the abuse from @Anabobazina. On election night I hope he can cheer to the rafters. Although I think he might be disappointed.
LAB will win but they are not getting 468. 350 maybe. But that's enough for them.
I think 400 at present.
I wonder if @Benpointer would consider a 6 month review of his predictions contest, to allow updated predictions?
You are all deluded! As the polls tighten the historical precedent is 1992, even down to the Conservatives importation of ex-pat voters. They have some impressive tricks up their sleeves too.
SNP winning 41 seats is at odds with both Scottish polling and Scottish by-election results.
Once again, why is Reform’s big opinion polling vote share not showing up anywhere in real elections?
TBF, Labour were collapsing in an ignominious heap in Scottish locals and by-elections from 2008-2010 and they held every seat in Scotland at the General even as they lost nearly a hundred seats in England.
But I agree, this poll doesn't pass the sniff test.
I've been trying to work out what a really good night for Labour would look like. I would say anything over 310 seats is a very fine performance. Indeed, I'd expect more like 300.
Similarly, if the Tories go below about 230 it will have been an exceptionally bad night for them.
These other numbers - I just don't buy them. Starmer isn't evil incarnate the way Owls portrays him, but he's more John Major or Edward Heath than Blair or even Wilson. His party isn't offering anything other than tinkering at the edges and there's no bold vision to galvanise support. You can manage to win big without one or the other - Blair had no vision other than a series of silly clichés and Thatcher wasn't widely trusted or liked - but it would be a surprise to pull off a landslide with neither.
Similarly, it's easy to imagine a lot of voters with assets or aspirations will hesitate about kicking the Tories too hard when they think what a large Labour majority *could* mean (it's less than five years since Corbyn was leader and Burgon, Pidcock and McDonnell were in the shadow cabinet).
Could be wrong of course (I frequently am) but that seems to me the likeliest outcome right now.
I think that a fair analysis and I still believe Rishi could sneak a majority against the odds. The disdain for the Conservatives is temporary, the underlying hatred of Labour by just about anyone one speaks to from the left or the right seems embedded. BJO does make a compelling argument that Starmer is a vile and disreputable character. Whether it's truth or lies is debatable. If Rishi does fall, against someone very impressive like Penny I can see Starmer and Labour struggling with the cohort that vote. Those who vote are driving around in prestige German cars, for the voter life is good. For the non-voter it's pretty dire.
Remember, unlike 1997 the media despise Starmer-Labour and lies are accepted as fact. Jimmy Savile, terrorists, being responsible for asylum seekers, not supporting Rwanda, talking down the nation, being a Remainer traitor.
I hope I am wrong, but I just see the Conservatives as dug-in. Five more years and they can complete the reversal of the post-war welfare concensus. The "we've spent more than any Government on the NHS and social welfare may be true, but it doesn't seem to be working".
I await the abuse from @Anabobazina. On election night I hope he can cheer to the rafters. Although I think he might be disappointed.
LAB will win but they are not getting 468. 350 maybe. But that's enough for them.
I think 400 at present.
I wonder if @Benpointer would consider a 6 month review of his predictions contest, to allow updated predictions?
You are all deluded! As the polls tighten the historical precedent is 1992, even down to the Conservatives importation of ex-pat voters. They have some impressive tricks up their sleeves too.
The election is within 10 months. Is there a historical precedent for the polls to tighten enough in that time frame for a 1992 event, i.e. a Conservative win?
SNP winning 41 seats is at odds with both Scottish polling and Scottish by-election results.
Once again, why is Reform’s big opinion polling vote share not showing up anywhere in real elections?
TBF, Labour were collapsing in an ignominious heap in Scottish locals and by-elections from 2008-2010 and they held every seat in Scotland at the General even as they lost nearly a hundred seats in England.
But I agree, this poll doesn't pass the sniff test.
I've been trying to work out what a really good night for Labour would look like. I would say anything over 310 seats is a very fine performance. Indeed, I'd expect more like 300.
Similarly, if the Tories go below about 230 it will have been an exceptionally bad night for them.
These other numbers - I just don't buy them. Starmer isn't evil incarnate the way Owls portrays him, but he's more John Major or Edward Heath than Blair or even Wilson. His party isn't offering anything other than tinkering at the edges and there's no bold vision to galvanise support. You can manage to win big without one or the other - Blair had no vision other than a series of silly clichés and Thatcher wasn't widely trusted or liked - but it would be a surprise to pull off a landslide with neither.
Similarly, it's easy to imagine a lot of voters with assets or aspirations will hesitate about kicking the Tories too hard when they think what a large Labour majority *could* mean (it's less than five years since Corbyn was leader and Burgon, Pidcock and McDonnell were in the shadow cabinet).
Could be wrong of course (I frequently am) but that seems to me the likeliest outcome right now.
I think you have fallen for the 'electorate groupthink' fallacy. Each voter gets only one one vote and, except on the most minor of scales, voters do not coordinate their votes with others.
No one can vote slightly Labour or for a small Labour majority.
SNP winning 41 seats is at odds with both Scottish polling and Scottish by-election results.
Once again, why is Reform’s big opinion polling vote share not showing up anywhere in real elections?
TBF, Labour were collapsing in an ignominious heap in Scottish locals and by-elections from 2008-2010 and they held every seat in Scotland at the General even as they lost nearly a hundred seats in England.
But I agree, this poll doesn't pass the sniff test.
I've been trying to work out what a really good night for Labour would look like. I would say anything over 310 seats is a very fine performance. Indeed, I'd expect more like 300.
Similarly, if the Tories go below about 230 it will have been an exceptionally bad night for them.
These other numbers - I just don't buy them. Starmer isn't evil incarnate the way Owls portrays him, but he's more John Major or Edward Heath than Blair or even Wilson. His party isn't offering anything other than tinkering at the edges and there's no bold vision to galvanise support. You can manage to win big without one or the other - Blair had no vision other than a series of silly clichés and Thatcher wasn't widely trusted or liked - but it would be a surprise to pull off a landslide with neither.
Similarly, it's easy to imagine a lot of voters with assets or aspirations will hesitate about kicking the Tories too hard when they think what a large Labour majority *could* mean (it's less than five years since Corbyn was leader and Burgon, Pidcock and McDonnell were in the shadow cabinet).
Could be wrong of course (I frequently am) but that seems to me the likeliest outcome right now.
I thought I was the last one left around here who thought there was a hung Parliament coming, although being in my company in this regard isn't a hopeful indicator. I've got all the predictive ability of a tarot deck.
I just feel that Labour isn't offering much apart from not being the Tories. The Tories are so rubbish that this might be enough, but you just wonder what will happen to those polls when a complete lack of enthusiasm meets the Conservatives' elderly base having to decide whether or not they really want to put Labour back into bat.
Remember Labour aren't revealing policies because anything half decent the Tory party will use immediately leaving only the awkward unpopular ones in the manifesto.
I suspect the actual manifesto will have some decent items in it - so I'm not actually that bothered that Labour looks light on ideas and plans.
Only if the Labour manifesto is a damp squid will I start thinking about anything less than a 100 seat Labour majority because at the moment Major's Cone Hotline is way better than anything this Government has implemented in the past year...
If Reform come out with new policies, let’s say reintroduction of the death penalty, will the Tories also steal them before the election?
SNP winning 41 seats is at odds with both Scottish polling and Scottish by-election results.
Once again, why is Reform’s big opinion polling vote share not showing up anywhere in real elections?
TBF, Labour were collapsing in an ignominious heap in Scottish locals and by-elections from 2008-2010 and they held every seat in Scotland at the General even as they lost nearly a hundred seats in England.
But I agree, this poll doesn't pass the sniff test.
I've been trying to work out what a really good night for Labour would look like. I would say anything over 310 seats is a very fine performance. Indeed, I'd expect more like 300.
Similarly, if the Tories go below about 230 it will have been an exceptionally bad night for them.
These other numbers - I just don't buy them. Starmer isn't evil incarnate the way Owls portrays him, but he's more John Major or Edward Heath than Blair or even Wilson. His party isn't offering anything other than tinkering at the edges and there's no bold vision to galvanise support. You can manage to win big without one or the other - Blair had no vision other than a series of silly clichés and Thatcher wasn't widely trusted or liked - but it would be a surprise to pull off a landslide with neither.
Similarly, it's easy to imagine a lot of voters with assets or aspirations will hesitate about kicking the Tories too hard when they think what a large Labour majority *could* mean (it's less than five years since Corbyn was leader and Burgon, Pidcock and McDonnell were in the shadow cabinet).
Could be wrong of course (I frequently am) but that seems to me the likeliest outcome right now.
I think that a fair analysis and I still believe Rishi could sneak a majority against the odds. The disdain for the Conservatives is temporary, the underlying hatred of Labour by just about anyone one speaks to from the left or the right seems embedded. BJO does make a compelling argument that Starmer is a vile and disreputable character. Whether it's truth or lies is debatable. If Rishi does fall, against someone very impressive like Penny I can see Starmer and Labour struggling with the cohort that vote. Those who vote are driving around in prestige German cars, for the voter life is good. For the non-voter it's pretty dire.
Remember, unlike 1997 the media despise Starmer-Labour and lies are accepted as fact. Jimmy Savile, terrorists, being responsible for asylum seekers, not supporting Rwanda, talking down the nation, being a Remainer traitor.
I hope I am wrong, but I just see the Conservatives as dug-in. Five more years and they can complete the reversal of the post-war welfare concensus. The "we've spent more than any Government on the NHS and social welfare may be true, but it doesn't seem to be working".
I await the abuse from @Anabobazina. On election night I hope he can cheer to the rafters. Although I think he might be disappointed.
LAB will win but they are not getting 468. 350 maybe. But that's enough for them.
I think 400 at present.
I wonder if @Benpointer would consider a 6 month review of his predictions contest, to allow updated predictions?
You are all deluded! As the polls tighten the historical precedent is 1992, even down to the Conservatives importation of ex-pat voters. They have some impressive tricks up their sleeves too.
The election is within 10 months. Is there a historical precedent for the polls to tighten enough in that time frame for a 1992 event, i.e. a Conservative win?
SNP winning 41 seats is at odds with both Scottish polling and Scottish by-election results.
Once again, why is Reform’s big opinion polling vote share not showing up anywhere in real elections?
TBF, Labour were collapsing in an ignominious heap in Scottish locals and by-elections from 2008-2010 and they held every seat in Scotland at the General even as they lost nearly a hundred seats in England.
But I agree, this poll doesn't pass the sniff test.
I've been trying to work out what a really good night for Labour would look like. I would say anything over 310 seats is a very fine performance. Indeed, I'd expect more like 300.
Similarly, if the Tories go below about 230 it will have been an exceptionally bad night for them.
These other numbers - I just don't buy them. Starmer isn't evil incarnate the way Owls portrays him, but he's more John Major or Edward Heath than Blair or even Wilson. His party isn't offering anything other than tinkering at the edges and there's no bold vision to galvanise support. You can manage to win big without one or the other - Blair had no vision other than a series of silly clichés and Thatcher wasn't widely trusted or liked - but it would be a surprise to pull off a landslide with neither.
Similarly, it's easy to imagine a lot of voters with assets or aspirations will hesitate about kicking the Tories too hard when they think what a large Labour majority *could* mean (it's less than five years since Corbyn was leader and Burgon, Pidcock and McDonnell were in the shadow cabinet).
Could be wrong of course (I frequently am) but that seems to me the likeliest outcome right now.
I think that a fair analysis and I still believe Rishi could sneak a majority against the odds. The disdain for the Conservatives is temporary, the underlying hatred of Labour by just about anyone one speaks to from the left or the right seems embedded. BJO does make a compelling argument that Starmer is a vile and disreputable character. Whether it's truth or lies is debatable. If Rishi does fall, against someone very impressive like Penny I can see Starmer and Labour struggling with the cohort that vote. Those who vote are driving around in prestige German cars, for the voter life is good. For the non-voter it's pretty dire.
Remember, unlike 1997 the media despise Starmer-Labour and lies are accepted as fact. Jimmy Savile, terrorists, being responsible for asylum seekers, not supporting Rwanda, talking down the nation, being a Remainer traitor.
I hope I am wrong, but I just see the Conservatives as dug-in. Five more years and they can complete the reversal of the post-war welfare concensus. The "we've spent more than any Government on the NHS and social welfare may be true, but it doesn't seem to be working".
I await the abuse from @Anabobazina. On election night I hope he can cheer to the rafters. Although I think he might be disappointed.
LAB will win but they are not getting 468. 350 maybe. But that's enough for them.
I think 400 at present.
I wonder if @Benpointer would consider a 6 month review of his predictions contest, to allow updated predictions?
Well I'd like to - I could revise mine for a start - but I think that would be completely at odds with the spirit of the competition.
SNP winning 41 seats is at odds with both Scottish polling and Scottish by-election results.
Once again, why is Reform’s big opinion polling vote share not showing up anywhere in real elections?
TBF, Labour were collapsing in an ignominious heap in Scottish locals and by-elections from 2008-2010 and they held every seat in Scotland at the General even as they lost nearly a hundred seats in England.
But I agree, this poll doesn't pass the sniff test.
I've been trying to work out what a really good night for Labour would look like. I would say anything over 310 seats is a very fine performance. Indeed, I'd expect more like 300.
Similarly, if the Tories go below about 230 it will have been an exceptionally bad night for them.
These other numbers - I just don't buy them. Starmer isn't evil incarnate the way Owls portrays him, but he's more John Major or Edward Heath than Blair or even Wilson. His party isn't offering anything other than tinkering at the edges and there's no bold vision to galvanise support. You can manage to win big without one or the other - Blair had no vision other than a series of silly clichés and Thatcher wasn't widely trusted or liked - but it would be a surprise to pull off a landslide with neither.
Similarly, it's easy to imagine a lot of voters with assets or aspirations will hesitate about kicking the Tories too hard when they think what a large Labour majority *could* mean (it's less than five years since Corbyn was leader and Burgon, Pidcock and McDonnell were in the shadow cabinet).
Could be wrong of course (I frequently am) but that seems to me the likeliest outcome right now.
I thought I was the last one left around here who thought there was a hung Parliament coming, although being in my company in this regard isn't a hopeful indicator. I've got all the predictive ability of a tarot deck.
I just feel that Labour isn't offering much apart from not being the Tories. The Tories are so rubbish that this might be enough, but you just wonder what will happen to those polls when a complete lack of enthusiasm meets the Conservatives' elderly base having to decide whether or not they really want to put Labour back into bat.
Remember Labour aren't revealing policies because anything half decent the Tory party will use immediately leaving only the awkward unpopular ones in the manifesto.
I suspect the actual manifesto will have some decent items in it - so I'm not actually that bothered that Labour looks light on ideas and plans.
Only if the Labour manifesto is a damp squid will I start thinking about anything less than a 100 seat Labour majority because at the moment Major's Cone Hotline is way better than anything this Government has implemented in the past year...
If Reform come out with new policies, let’s say reintroduction of the death penalty, will the Tories also steal them before the election?
Yes.
Those in charge of the Conservative Party will stop at nothing and those remaining one nation Tories will say nothing to save their seats.
The road down which we have been taken at our own behest to save the Conservative Party is remarkable.
SNP winning 41 seats is at odds with both Scottish polling and Scottish by-election results.
Once again, why is Reform’s big opinion polling vote share not showing up anywhere in real elections?
TBF, Labour were collapsing in an ignominious heap in Scottish locals and by-elections from 2008-2010 and they held every seat in Scotland at the General even as they lost nearly a hundred seats in England.
But I agree, this poll doesn't pass the sniff test.
I've been trying to work out what a really good night for Labour would look like. I would say anything over 310 seats is a very fine performance. Indeed, I'd expect more like 300.
Similarly, if the Tories go below about 230 it will have been an exceptionally bad night for them.
These other numbers - I just don't buy them. Starmer isn't evil incarnate the way Owls portrays him, but he's more John Major or Edward Heath than Blair or even Wilson. His party isn't offering anything other than tinkering at the edges and there's no bold vision to galvanise support. You can manage to win big without one or the other - Blair had no vision other than a series of silly clichés and Thatcher wasn't widely trusted or liked - but it would be a surprise to pull off a landslide with neither.
Similarly, it's easy to imagine a lot of voters with assets or aspirations will hesitate about kicking the Tories too hard when they think what a large Labour majority *could* mean (it's less than five years since Corbyn was leader and Burgon, Pidcock and McDonnell were in the shadow cabinet).
Could be wrong of course (I frequently am) but that seems to me the likeliest outcome right now.
I thought I was the last one left around here who thought there was a hung Parliament coming, although being in my company in this regard isn't a hopeful indicator. I've got all the predictive ability of a tarot deck.
I just feel that Labour isn't offering much apart from not being the Tories. The Tories are so rubbish that this might be enough, but you just wonder what will happen to those polls when a complete lack of enthusiasm meets the Conservatives' elderly base having to decide whether or not they really want to put Labour back into bat.
Remember Labour aren't revealing policies because anything half decent the Tory party will use immediately leaving only the awkward unpopular ones in the manifesto.
I suspect the actual manifesto will have some decent items in it - so I'm not actually that bothered that Labour looks light on ideas and plans.
Only if the Labour manifesto is a damp squid will I start thinking about anything less than a 100 seat Labour majority because at the moment Major's Cone Hotline is way better than anything this Government has implemented in the past year...
If Reform come out with new policies, let’s say reintroduction of the death penalty, will the Tories also steal them before the election?
I suspect if Reform came up with sane policies that were practical the Tories will.
Sadly a quick glance at Reform's policies shows that they are utterly insane - they have tax cuts in various places attached to random bits of extra public sector spending were it looks "good" to their voter base. Liz Truss had a more plausible plan...
SNP winning 41 seats is at odds with both Scottish polling and Scottish by-election results.
Once again, why is Reform’s big opinion polling vote share not showing up anywhere in real elections?
TBF, Labour were collapsing in an ignominious heap in Scottish locals and by-elections from 2008-2010 and they held every seat in Scotland at the General even as they lost nearly a hundred seats in England.
But I agree, this poll doesn't pass the sniff test.
I've been trying to work out what a really good night for Labour would look like. I would say anything over 310 seats is a very fine performance. Indeed, I'd expect more like 300.
Similarly, if the Tories go below about 230 it will have been an exceptionally bad night for them.
These other numbers - I just don't buy them. Starmer isn't evil incarnate the way Owls portrays him, but he's more John Major or Edward Heath than Blair or even Wilson. His party isn't offering anything other than tinkering at the edges and there's no bold vision to galvanise support. You can manage to win big without one or the other - Blair had no vision other than a series of silly clichés and Thatcher wasn't widely trusted or liked - but it would be a surprise to pull off a landslide with neither.
Similarly, it's easy to imagine a lot of voters with assets or aspirations will hesitate about kicking the Tories too hard when they think what a large Labour majority *could* mean (it's less than five years since Corbyn was leader and Burgon, Pidcock and McDonnell were in the shadow cabinet).
Could be wrong of course (I frequently am) but that seems to me the likeliest outcome right now.
I think that a fair analysis and I still believe Rishi could sneak a majority against the odds. The disdain for the Conservatives is temporary, the underlying hatred of Labour by just about anyone one speaks to from the left or the right seems embedded. BJO does make a compelling argument that Starmer is a vile and disreputable character. Whether it's truth or lies is debatable. If Rishi does fall, against someone very impressive like Penny I can see Starmer and Labour struggling with the cohort that vote. Those who vote are driving around in prestige German cars, for the voter life is good. For the non-voter it's pretty dire.
Remember, unlike 1997 the media despise Starmer-Labour and lies are accepted as fact. Jimmy Savile, terrorists, being responsible for asylum seekers, not supporting Rwanda, talking down the nation, being a Remainer traitor.
I hope I am wrong, but I just see the Conservatives as dug-in. Five more years and they can complete the reversal of the post-war welfare concensus. The "we've spent more than any Government on the NHS and social welfare may be true, but it doesn't seem to be working".
I await the abuse from @Anabobazina. On election night I hope he can cheer to the rafters. Although I think he might be disappointed.
LAB will win but they are not getting 468. 350 maybe. But that's enough for them.
I think 400 at present.
I wonder if @Benpointer would consider a 6 month review of his predictions contest, to allow updated predictions?
You are all deluded! As the polls tighten the historical precedent is 1992, even down to the Conservatives importation of ex-pat voters. They have some impressive tricks up their sleeves too.
The election is within 10 months. Is there a historical precedent for the polls to tighten enough in that time frame for a 1992 event, i.e. a Conservative win?
The nearest is 1970, and that's not enough.
A final year swing of at least 10 points has been achieved once (1970), with swings of greater than 5 points only achieved three times in 20 elections.
Conversely, the government's polling position has worsened in the last year before an election five times.
Chickens and hatching and all that, but for Labour not to win at least fairly big requires the Conservatives to have the sort of recovery from death that would impress Jesus himself.
SNP winning 41 seats is at odds with both Scottish polling and Scottish by-election results.
Once again, why is Reform’s big opinion polling vote share not showing up anywhere in real elections?
TBF, Labour were collapsing in an ignominious heap in Scottish locals and by-elections from 2008-2010 and they held every seat in Scotland at the General even as they lost nearly a hundred seats in England.
But I agree, this poll doesn't pass the sniff test.
I've been trying to work out what a really good night for Labour would look like. I would say anything over 310 seats is a very fine performance. Indeed, I'd expect more like 300.
Similarly, if the Tories go below about 230 it will have been an exceptionally bad night for them.
These other numbers - I just don't buy them. Starmer isn't evil incarnate the way Owls portrays him, but he's more John Major or Edward Heath than Blair or even Wilson. His party isn't offering anything other than tinkering at the edges and there's no bold vision to galvanise support. You can manage to win big without one or the other - Blair had no vision other than a series of silly clichés and Thatcher wasn't widely trusted or liked - but it would be a surprise to pull off a landslide with neither.
Similarly, it's easy to imagine a lot of voters with assets or aspirations will hesitate about kicking the Tories too hard when they think what a large Labour majority *could* mean (it's less than five years since Corbyn was leader and Burgon, Pidcock and McDonnell were in the shadow cabinet).
Could be wrong of course (I frequently am) but that seems to me the likeliest outcome right now.
I think that a fair analysis and I still believe Rishi could sneak a majority against the odds. The disdain for the Conservatives is temporary, the underlying hatred of Labour by just about anyone one speaks to from the left or the right seems embedded. BJO does make a compelling argument that Starmer is a vile and disreputable character. Whether it's truth or lies is debatable. If Rishi does fall, against someone very impressive like Penny I can see Starmer and Labour struggling with the cohort that vote. Those who vote are driving around in prestige German cars, for the voter life is good. For the non-voter it's pretty dire.
Remember, unlike 1997 the media despise Starmer-Labour and lies are accepted as fact. Jimmy Savile, terrorists, being responsible for asylum seekers, not supporting Rwanda, talking down the nation, being a Remainer traitor.
I hope I am wrong, but I just see the Conservatives as dug-in. Five more years and they can complete the reversal of the post-war welfare concensus. The "we've spent more than any Government on the NHS and social welfare may be true, but it doesn't seem to be working".
I await the abuse from @Anabobazina. On election night I hope he can cheer to the rafters. Although I think he might be disappointed.
LAB will win but they are not getting 468. 350 maybe. But that's enough for them.
I think 400 at present.
I wonder if @Benpointer would consider a 6 month review of his predictions contest, to allow updated predictions?
Today's the day for the "smallest Labour lead in the first three months" question, or am I imagining that?
I think the Tories are going to do far better than current polling suggests .
I expect a lot of Reform voters and DKs to head back to them .
My forecast is
Lab 39 Con 33 Lib 12 Ref 8 Green 4 Others 4
That would still be a stunning result for Labour - majority of 54 according to Electoral Calculus.
At this point I’d accept anything that stops the Tories from forming the next government! My expectations are low . In recent years it’s been just one long list of depressing election nights .
Not only tourism, but more damagingly the impact on foreign investment. I’ve seen it multiple times before with clients considering HQ locations when a newsworthy event comes along: foot and mouth (Britain an island of burning cow-pyres under lowering skies), terrorism in various places, the 2011 London riots, French strikes, manifestations and riots. But it’s not usually the government’s own propaganda doing the damage.
SNP winning 41 seats is at odds with both Scottish polling and Scottish by-election results.
Once again, why is Reform’s big opinion polling vote share not showing up anywhere in real elections?
TBF, Labour were collapsing in an ignominious heap in Scottish locals and by-elections from 2008-2010 and they held every seat in Scotland at the General even as they lost nearly a hundred seats in England.
But I agree, this poll doesn't pass the sniff test.
I've been trying to work out what a really good night for Labour would look like. I would say anything over 310 seats is a very fine performance. Indeed, I'd expect more like 300.
Similarly, if the Tories go below about 230 it will have been an exceptionally bad night for them.
These other numbers - I just don't buy them. Starmer isn't evil incarnate the way Owls portrays him, but he's more John Major or Edward Heath than Blair or even Wilson. His party isn't offering anything other than tinkering at the edges and there's no bold vision to galvanise support. You can manage to win big without one or the other - Blair had no vision other than a series of silly clichés and Thatcher wasn't widely trusted or liked - but it would be a surprise to pull off a landslide with neither.
Similarly, it's easy to imagine a lot of voters with assets or aspirations will hesitate about kicking the Tories too hard when they think what a large Labour majority *could* mean (it's less than five years since Corbyn was leader and Burgon, Pidcock and McDonnell were in the shadow cabinet).
Could be wrong of course (I frequently am) but that seems to me the likeliest outcome right now.
I thought I was the last one left around here who thought there was a hung Parliament coming, although being in my company in this regard isn't a hopeful indicator. I've got all the predictive ability of a tarot deck.
I just feel that Labour isn't offering much apart from not being the Tories. The Tories are so rubbish that this might be enough, but you just wonder what will happen to those polls when a complete lack of enthusiasm meets the Conservatives' elderly base having to decide whether or not they really want to put Labour back into bat.
Remember Labour aren't revealing policies because anything half decent the Tory party will use immediately leaving only the awkward unpopular ones in the manifesto.
I suspect the actual manifesto will have some decent items in it - so I'm not actually that bothered that Labour looks light on ideas and plans.
Only if the Labour manifesto is a damp squid will I start thinking about anything less than a 100 seat Labour majority because at the moment Major's Cone Hotline is way better than anything this Government has implemented in the past year...
If Reform come out with new policies, let’s say reintroduction of the death penalty, will the Tories also steal them before the election?
Yes.
Those in charge of the Conservative Party will stop at nothing and those remaining one nation Tories will say nothing to save their seats.
The road down which we have been taken at our own behest to save the Conservative Party is remarkable.
How many centrist Tories will be alienated for every voter right-wing policies tempt back from Reform?
I think the Tories are going to do far better than current polling suggests .
I expect a lot of Reform voters and DKs to head back to them .
My forecast is
Lab 39 Con 33 Lib 12 Ref 8 Green 4 Others 4
That would still be a stunning result for Labour - majority of 54 according to Electoral Calculus.
That’s LLG:REFCON of 55:41, which implies a tightening between blocs not just a minor party squeeze. Also suggests LLG losing less than REFCON gains, which implies them squeezing “other”.
I’d expect the blocs to end up around 56:39, similar but with less recovery in the broader right wing vote.
I am down in East Wight for the holiday, so looking at the MRP gives me pause for thought. This seat has never been Labour, not in 1997 or 1945, but has been LD in recent times, and had a strong Green vote at last GE. The Isle of Wight has a low income economy, but surely one of the oldest demographics in the country. Can it really be a Lab gain as this MRP suggests?
The Greens have hit their ceiling it seems, and LDs haven't done well in recent GE, with Lab in second place in the last 2 GE (all Island wide of course). The obvious tactical vote here is for Lab, but Lab aren't going to sweep up it all. The Green vote here is more green than Corbynite, so squeezable, but a good well known candidate, with flyers out in a hipster pub that I went to last night, but limited ground game.
So I really don't know. I wonder what @IanB2 thinks?
Comments
If somebody with medical lasting power of attorney cannot be physically part of the meeting… For example are out of the country … would they be allowed to contribute virtually? By zoom, for example?
I have had a case of assisted dying in my own family and it’s dreadfully difficult for all concerned.
But I agree, this poll doesn't pass the sniff test.
I've been trying to work out what a really good night for Labour would look like. I would say anything over 310 seats is a very fine performance. Indeed, I'd expect more like 300.
Similarly, if the Tories go below about 230 it will have been an exceptionally bad night for them.
These other numbers - I just don't buy them. Starmer isn't evil incarnate the way Owls portrays him, but he's more John Major or Edward Heath than Blair or even Wilson. His party isn't offering anything other than tinkering at the edges and there's no bold vision to galvanise support. You can manage to win big without one or the other - Blair had no vision other than a series of silly clichés and Thatcher wasn't widely trusted or liked - but it would be a surprise to pull off a landslide with neither.
Similarly, it's easy to imagine a lot of voters with assets or aspirations will hesitate about kicking the Tories too hard when they think what a large Labour majority *could* mean (it's less than five years since Corbyn was leader and Burgon, Pidcock and McDonnell were in the shadow cabinet).
Could be wrong of course (I frequently am) but that seems to me the likeliest outcome right now.
When the western Allies entered Nazi Germany, they did so having already made detailed plans for how to look after the population, as in JCS 1067.
The sane centralist part are put off by the incompetent management and culture war
The reform part are put off by the lack of success on immigration, the incompetent management
Making Gaza completely uninhabitable, to get its last members at large, is not proportionate.
The war is being prolonged to save Netanyahu’s career.
Saying they were 'fleeing' is just feeding the Kremlin's message - that they are 'protecting' the people they abduct. It's a line used by pro-Kremlin shills to excuse evil.
Let's Do Rock Steady by The Bodysnatchers.
https://twitter.com/brguest20/status/1774207503267738043
Those 1.2 million have been deliberately and forcibly removed to Russia in an act of ethnic cleaning. They are not refugees.
Your original point wasn't in and of itself a bad one but that was a very bad example you chose to support it.
In general such meetings run smoothly, with clinical staff and relatives in agreement as to when to cease active treatment. The ones that hit the news and courts tend to be the ones where clinicians want to cease treatments, but relatives want to continue. Very often this is down to unrealistic ideas of recovery. Hollywood recoveries, with someone in a coma for months springing back to their old self are almost always fiction.
I am very wary of "assisted dying". Ceasing active intervention and allowing nature to take its course is a different matter, and routine medical practice. Actively killing patients is anathema to me. No doubt Dr Shipman would have loved working in Canada.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/421a041e-8ce7-40c8-b3bb-abcd61c6537f?shareToken=57186f4cb66382217d27914a087f364e
Quote
One NHS chief said: “We have been asked to ‘think the unthinkable’ in order to break even. That will be impossible without closing beds and significantly reducing staffing numbers. It feels as if the national and regional leadership teams are spinning out of control."
I just feel that Labour isn't offering much apart from not being the Tories. The Tories are so rubbish that this might be enough, but you just wonder what will happen to those polls when a complete lack of enthusiasm meets the Conservatives' elderly base having to decide whether or not they really want to put Labour back into bat.
We know that "All models are wrong, but some are useful," of course, and MRP is an often useful model. But any model, when given extreme inputs, will break. UNS, for example, gets silly on big swings (and done seat-by-seat, gets absurdities like sub-zero votes in some places).
We don't know how many dimensions they're using, which dimensions they're using, there are no Lib Dem adjustments (and Lib Dem seats are notoriously hard to model - in 2017, we won 12 of the 4 projected seats that Electoral Calculus would have given us, despite losing one of those four, for example), Scotland looks totally out of kilter, and I can't see that any dimension used could have included, for example, local government strength (something all of us do use to assess plausibility of targets).
I mean, if this was right, the injunction to focus on our best targets is meaningless - we don't have any real targets in England, apparently.
Carshalton & Wallington - our obvious top target, lost by a few hundred votes last time. Score in 2019 (in an unchanged constituency): Con 42.4, LD 41.1, Lab 12.4.
Sutton Borough has 33 Lib Dem councillors, 18 Tories, 3 Indies, no Labour.
This gives a 55% chance of a retake by the Lib Dems with only a 1% chance of the Tories holding. And a 44% chance of Labour coming from third to pick it up?
Predicted scores of LD 32, Lab 31, Con 23? Does anyone really see that?
We apparently have a better shot in Wimbledon - where I'd have suspected Labour might see themselves as having a better chance (last time Con 40, LD 39, Lab 21; this time apparently LD 38, Lab 31, Con 23 and a 69% chance of us taking it).
Again and again there are eyebrow-raising seats. And yes, Didcot and Wantage (22nd closest Tory/LD fight in England on notionals last time) going from Con 49 LD 31 Lab 16 (with overwhelming LD strength versus Lab on Councils and significant swing to us plus a huge amount of work on an obvious major target seat) to Con 33 LD 17 Lab 38 and a 71% chance of a Labour victory versus a zero chance of a LD one?
You don't need to be here to question that!
Polls are sometimes poor predictors, but more often good ones.
I suspect the actual manifesto will have some decent items in it - so I'm not actually that bothered that Labour looks light on ideas and plans.
Only if the Labour manifesto is a damp squid will I start thinking about anything less than a 100 seat Labour majority because at the moment Major's Cone Hotline is way better than anything this Government has implemented in the past year...
If MPs needed enthusiasm from their constituents to get elected, there wouldn't be 650 MPs in the next Parliament. But there will be. That's what makes a HP unlikely now. Cap Labour at 325, 20 in Ulster, 40 each for the SNP and Lib Dems (both those look high to me), 5 odds and ends. That leaves 220. Are the Conservatives really going to get to 220, given that they're currently polling below Major in 1996 and Sunak is terrible at politics?
If 2019 taught us anything, it was that bad can win big, when it's up against worse.
The Tories are going to lose, but since he's waiting until after the local elections people will have a better idea of which party is the main challenger to cast their tactical vote for.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/08/21/the-ukrainians-forced-to-flee-to-russia
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/17/europe/ukrainians-russia-far-east-intl-cmd/index.html
Russia is doing all sorts of terrible things, but some Ukrainian refugees have fled into Russia. They have many different stories, they have sometimes been mistreated.
Remember, unlike 1997 the media despise Starmer-Labour and lies are accepted as fact. Jimmy Savile, terrorists, being responsible for asylum seekers, not supporting Rwanda, talking down the nation, being a Remainer traitor.
I hope I am wrong, but I just see the Conservatives as dug-in. Five more years and they can complete the reversal of the post-war welfare concensus. The "we've spent more than any Government on the NHS and social
welfare may be true, but it doesn't seem to be working".
I await the abuse from @Anabobazina. On election night I hope he can cheer to the rafters. Although I think he might be disappointed.
The other part will be that the LibDems will inevitably be relying on the greater air time and the effect of intensive local campaigns to fully land the tactical vote message in those seats where they most need it, and that message won't have landed in some of these places until voters start paying attention to anything other than fragments of national news.
*it's interesting how both government and opposition demand use of the private sector to reduce waiting lists, yet demand reductions in agency staff, despite these being the use of private staff to meet waiting list targets. Lack of joined up thinking or what?
I wonder if @Benpointer would consider a 6 month review of his predictions contest, to allow updated predictions?
No one can vote slightly Labour or for a small Labour majority.
(Though there's always a first time of course.)
I expect a lot of Reform voters and DKs to head back to them .
My forecast is
Lab 39
Con 33
Lib 12
Ref 8
Green 4
Others 4
"Boat Race: Oxford rowers criticise sewage levels in River Thames"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68701486
Those in charge of the Conservative Party will stop at nothing and those remaining one nation Tories will say nothing to save their seats.
The road down which we have been taken at our own behest to save the Conservative Party is remarkable.
Or rather- lots of it ...
Sadly a quick glance at Reform's policies shows that they are utterly insane - they have tax cuts in various places attached to random bits of extra public sector spending were it looks "good" to their voter base. Liz Truss had a more plausible plan...
A final year swing of at least 10 points has been achieved once (1970), with swings of greater than 5 points only achieved three times in 20 elections.
Conversely, the government's polling position has worsened in the last year before an election five times.
https://twitter.com/Dylan_Difford/status/1744488239493165550
Chickens and hatching and all that, but for Labour not to win at least fairly big requires the Conservatives to have the sort of recovery from death that would impress Jesus himself.
It’s not a priority for voters .
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/london-tourists-conservatives-crime-birmingham-b2521024.html
Not only tourism, but more damagingly the impact on foreign investment. I’ve seen it multiple times before with clients considering HQ locations when a newsworthy event comes along: foot and mouth (Britain an island of burning cow-pyres under lowering skies), terrorism in various places, the 2011 London riots, French strikes, manifestations and riots. But it’s not usually the government’s own propaganda doing the damage.
NEW THREAD
I’d expect the blocs to end up around 56:39, similar but with less recovery in the broader right wing vote.
The Greens have hit their ceiling it seems, and LDs haven't done well in recent GE, with Lab in second place in the last 2 GE (all Island wide of course). The obvious tactical vote here is for Lab, but Lab aren't going to sweep up it all. The Green vote here is more green than Corbynite, so squeezable, but a good well known candidate, with flyers out in a hipster pub that I went to last night, but limited ground game.
So I really don't know. I wonder what @IanB2 thinks?