@harry_horton PM Rishi Sunak playing football at Chesham Utd in Chesham & Amersham - a seat the Lib Dems took off the Conservatives in a by-election three years ago.
@KevinASchofield Labour source: “The worst encounter between a politician and cones since John Major’s hotline.”
He does better than I likely would have.
I agree with the general thesis that some of the criticism of Rishi is pathetic. The main reason for not voting for him is that he has appalling political judgment not because his dribbling skills are lacking.
In terms of campaigning, Sunak is dropping inexorably into the Ed Miliband zone. It's not a good place to be.
If I were that Sean Thomas fella, I'd be having a strong word with the guy who drew the sketch of him at the top. Why was he drawn with that nosebleed?
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
If you don't trust Russia, do you trust the peace?
Of course you don't trust the peace. That's why you invest in defence.
And if your opponent does not think you are serious in your defence? ISTR we pledged defence of Poland in 1939, before Germany and Russia invaded. That did not work out well for us, or Poland.
Deterrence only works if the enemy believes your deterrence has teeth. And NATO (mainly Tump and his acolytes) are giving exactly the opposite impression.
It's mainly European NATO members that have been underinvesting in defence. Trump was right to call it out, and if they had responded while he was in office, Russia might have been deterred.
Do you really believe that sh*t? Trump has fairly consistently undermined NATO.
And remember Trump's comments on Putin's invasion: calling Putin a genius and savvy.
These are not comments designed to make an aggressor think the USA will stand behind one and all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You are exhibiting the problem by treating NATO as nothing more than a US protectorate rather than an alliance. If European members can't credibly defend Europe, that's their problem and Trump was right to point out the imbalance.
Europe united CAN defend itself against Russia. Without US involvement.
That doesn't mean it wasn't extremely foolish of Trump to suggest Putin invade NATO members. There would be considerable loss of life in repulsing Russia, on both sides.
Trump's remarks made a Russian invasion less likely by forcing the countries in question to take defence slightly more seriously.
Give over, not even you believe that nonsense.
It's self-evidently true.
No, it's not. Deterrence relies on the credible threat of retaliation. The more doubt there is of retaliation, the weaker the deterrence. The weaker the deterrence, the more likely the deterree (yes, deterree, I'm not backing down on the invented word) tries his luck. You don't fuck around with deterrence. The potential enemy has to know that you mean it.
That's why it was right for Trump (and other US presidents) to warn European countries not to fuck around with deterrence by underinvesting in defence. To think that it's all about relying on Daddy America to protect us shows an infantilised mentality.
But this goes way beyond talking about underinvestment. You can have those conversations in private. You can even have them in public without actually ENCOURAGING the person you are supposed to be deterring from making war.
It's like thinking your neighbour should pull their weight in the neighbourhood watch duties, and when you feel they aren't doing it, you go to the dodgiest boozer you can find and tell all the lowlifes to rob their house and you won't stop them. Whatever point you had is washed away by the strenuous, towering stupidity of the way you went about it. Trump is a fucking idiot.
Having the conversation in public makes it much more effective because it's more likely to be listened to and it still leaves the opponent questioning whether you really mean it.
The idea that if the US said nothing in public, Putin would never question their commitment to sending troops to recapture every inch of NATO territory is extremely naive.
Wait. I thought a Royal Commission was going to work out the details? So. As it stands. 670 000 18 year olds. Of whom 30 000 "brightest and best" (wonder what walk of life they'll be from?) will be paid a yet to be determined sum to join the Forces for a year and given priority in education and employment prospects. The firmly rejected other 640 000 will effectively be unpaid, presumably unmonitored, agency workers for the State (and God knows who else) one weekend a month for two years, doing Christ alone knows what.*
*As of 3:42 Monday.
30,000 is less than 5%. Are the other 2% of privately educated 18 year olds going to have to compulsory-volunteer along with the oiks?
There are a number of reasons why this early election was a terrible decision by Sunak but even if you put the case for the defence it is obvious that the Tories weren't ready for it.
The only way to keep the opposition guessing is to keep your own MPs guessing as to the date of the election.
@alexmassie The Conservatives Have Already Given Up. The Tory campaign only makes sense if you remember that it is not actually about winning the election.
Lucy Allan, Tory MP for Telford just endorsed the Reform candidate in her seat. Can’t remember if any Tories backed Goldsmith’s crew in 1997 but wouldn’t surprise me if they did. This campaign is going from bad to worse for Rishi.
George Gardiner, Tory MP for Reigate, stood for the Referendum Party at the 1997 election after defecting. Not quite the same thing.
- Outgoing Tory MP backing Reform to win her seat - CCHQ accidentally emailed senior Tory MPs saying they weren't working hard enough - An actual minister criticised the party's first big policy announcement
He was always a businessman, first and foremost. As was Jobs (who left the early technical work to Woz and others).
Indeed. Gates was a never an amiable nerd, right from the start when Microsoft negotiated the DOS contract with IBM he was a ruthless businessman, always looking to push Microsoft's interests forward no matter what. Many of the tactics MS employed under Gates were reminiscent of the old robber barons, and courts punished the company accordingly in the end.
I wouldn't go quite that far - I've always had a bit of a soft spot for Gates. But the way he and Ballmer treated Paul Allen was terrible.
And if you think what MS did was bad, then what do you think of Apple's behaviour? But Apple is trendy and cool; MS never was...
Can't quite get my head around this one. If they're 18 then by definition they aren't children. Did Sunak really take time off to come up with this?
it's a half baked idea from a focus group/think tank. In government it's much harder to have new ideas truly fleshed out as propositions to the public because you're too busy running the country. This is made worse by having a disfunctional party to lead at the same time.
Labour on the other hand have much more time to formulate their policies as most of the time all they are doing is reacting to events (and the government) and not running the country. That is now the main risk for Labour, that the manifesto is too thin or they've not thought things through with the right people.
Lucy Allan, Tory MP for Telford just endorsed the Reform candidate in her seat. Can’t remember if any Tories backed Goldsmith’s crew in 1997 but wouldn’t surprise me if they did. This campaign is going from bad to worse for Rishi.
Not surprised tbh, but why anyone in Telford would listen to their hitherto absentee MP is beyond me.
@alexmassie The Conservatives Have Already Given Up. The Tory campaign only makes sense if you remember that it is not actually about winning the election.
New Statesman has the Tory share dropping by just 4.7% in West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine, but by a mammoth 30.1% in Rishi's seat of Richmond & Northallerton.
Can't quite get my head around this one. If they're 18 then by definition they aren't children. Did Sunak really take time off to come up with this?
it's a half baked idea from a focus group/think tank. In government it's much harder to have new ideas truly fleshed out as propositions to the public because you're too busy running the country. This is made worse by having a disfunctional party to lead at the same time.
Labour on the other hand have much more time to formulate their policies as most of the time all they are doing is reacting to events (and the government) and not running the country. That is now the main risk for Labour, that the manifesto is too thin or they've not thought things through with the right people.
Hmmm, curious how "half baked" is bad, but "oven ready" is good.
Lucy Allan, Tory MP for Telford just endorsed the Reform candidate in her seat. Can’t remember if any Tories backed Goldsmith’s crew in 1997 but wouldn’t surprise me if they did. This campaign is going from bad to worse for Rishi.
Not surprised tbh, but why anyone in Telford would listen to their hitherto absentee MP is beyond me.
Not sure the Reform candidate will welcome her endorsement!
If you believe that then betting on the Liberal Democrats in Epson and Ewell is great value: 14/1 on SkyBet and Bet365.
To be frank, it looks like that market has been mispriced.
(Won't last for long now I've advertised it)
Conversely - I've been trying to find any constituencies where it looks value to bet on Labour (on Bet365 - well done to them for their conatituency markets) - and I can't. There are seats well into the 200s of Labour target gain from Tories where Con are 5, 6, 8 to 1 to win. Altrincham and Sale West, Harlow, Sherwood Forest. If you don't think a Labour landslide is nailed on, there is excellent value there.
Looks like Lucy Allen has been immediately suspended from the Tory Party. Personally think in these circumstances she should be removed entirely but there you go.
Between the various misfires already, and now Steve Baker and Lucy Allan, this is worse - maybe far worse - than any campaign I’ve seen in my lifetime.
How are the Tories going to make it through 5 weeks?
It already looks like open warfare at Tory HQ. For once the Downfall spoofs seem accurate.
One Downing Street insider called the 61- year-old Labour leader "Sleepy Keir", an apparent attempt to link him in the public's mind to the US's 81-year-old President Joe Biden, dubbed "Sleepy Joe" by Donald Trump. "Campaigns are tough, tiring things and it's understandable that he may be weary," said a Tory campaign official. "But being prime minister is a 24/7 job which requires stamina."
If you believe that then betting on the Liberal Democrats in Epson and Ewell is great value: 14/1 on SkyBet and Bet365.
To be frank, it looks like that market has been mispriced.
(Won't last for long now I've advertised it)
Conversely - I've been trying to find any constituencies where it looks value to bet on Labour (on Bet365 - well done to them for their conatituency markets) - and I can't. There are seats well into the 200s of Labour target gain from Tories where Con are 5, 6, 8 to 1 to win. Altrincham and Sale West, Harlow, Sherwood Forest. If you don't think a Labour landslide is nailed on, there is excellent value there.
Have a little look around some of the less Laboury areas of Scotland. If the Tories and SNP are both struggling, then there's a lot of percentage points to be divided up. Not a betting recommendation, but it's the place I would start looking.
If you believe that then betting on the Liberal Democrats in Epson and Ewell is great value: 14/1 on SkyBet and Bet365.
To be frank, it looks like that market has been mispriced.
(Won't last for long now I've advertised it)
Conversely - I've been trying to find any constituencies where it looks value to bet on Labour (on Bet365 - well done to them for their conatituency markets) - and I can't. There are seats well into the 200s of Labour target gain from Tories where Con are 5, 6, 8 to 1 to win. Altrincham and Sale West, Harlow, Sherwood Forest. If you don't think a Labour landslide is nailed on, there is excellent value there.
Stevenage is astonishing. The Conservatives currently hold it, and are 40/1.
Now, they will very probably lose it - but those odds are slightly OTT.
@harry_horton PM Rishi Sunak playing football at Chesham Utd in Chesham & Amersham - a seat the Lib Dems took off the Conservatives in a by-election three years ago.
@KevinASchofield Labour source: “The worst encounter between a politician and cones since John Major’s hotline.”
He does better than I likely would have.
I agree with the general thesis that some of the criticism of Rishi is pathetic. The main reason for not voting for him is that he has appalling political judgment not because his dribbling skills are lacking.
In terms of campaigning, Sunak is dropping inexorably into the Ed Miliband zone. It's not a good place to be.
No sign of the Ed Stone yet - though the campaign is still young.
@SkyNews Scotland's First Minister John Swinney has delivered a campaign speech.
He said: 'Votes for the SNP are the quickest way to get rid of the Tory MPs and Tory government from Scotland.'
@staylorish Voters are not this stupid. The SNP won almost all the seats in Scotland at the 2015 general election, reducing the Tories to just one. This did not get rid of the Tory government. If you want to get rid of Tory government at Westminster, voting Labour works. Voting SNP doesn’t.
If you believe that then betting on the Liberal Democrats in Epson and Ewell is great value: 14/1 on SkyBet and Bet365.
To be frank, it looks like that market has been mispriced.
(Won't last for long now I've advertised it)
Conversely - I've been trying to find any constituencies where it looks value to bet on Labour (on Bet365 - well done to them for their conatituency markets) - and I can't. There are seats well into the 200s of Labour target gain from Tories where Con are 5, 6, 8 to 1 to win. Altrincham and Sale West, Harlow, Sherwood Forest. If you don't think a Labour landslide is nailed on, there is excellent value there.
PS. Scotland has several value bet options for Labour
Looks like Lucy Allen has been immediately suspended from the Tory Party. Personally think in these circumstances she should be removed entirely but there you go.
For what?
OK sorry I see. She said a year ago she was standing down anyway
Can't quite get my head around this one. If they're 18 then by definition they aren't children. Did Sunak really take time off to come up with this?
it's a half baked idea from a focus group/think tank. In government it's much harder to have new ideas truly fleshed out as propositions to the public because you're too busy running the country. This is made worse by having a disfunctional party to lead at the same time.
Labour on the other hand have much more time to formulate their policies as most of the time all they are doing is reacting to events (and the government) and not running the country. That is now the main risk for Labour, that the manifesto is too thin or they've not thought things through with the right people.
Hmmm, curious how "half baked" is bad, but "oven ready" is good.
Oven-ready hasn't been expoed to the heat of half-baked.
It’s absolutely clear that it’s not just the Tory MPs who need a cull/shake-up but CCHQ needs to be completely broken up and rebuilt as everything they seem to do is crap from candidate selection - MPs and London Mayor for example - to communications, checks on donors, general management of a political party.
Would be interested if anyone here knows how CCHQ is constructed - is it a bunch of entryists under Boris, old timers who came in during the Cameron opposition years, jellyfish?
If they can’t get it right at the organisational level then this is where it ends up.
The Conservative Party will outperform expectations on 4 July, and will get more than 200 seats. The LibDems will more than double their seat count, and will do rather better in terms of vote share than the current polls predict, but will miss out on a dozen seats by small margins. The SNP will hold on to their number two spot, getting around 30 seats. And Labour will manage an inverse of 2019, achieving a majority of around 80.
New Statesman has the Tory share dropping by just 4.7% in West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine, but by a mammoth 30.1% in Rishi's seat of Richmond & Northallerton.
"Were you up for Rishi?" would be an extraordinary moment on the night.
Unlikely, but as I've said previously I've heard from friends who live round those parts he isn't very popular as a local MP.
And it saves him taking the Chiltern Hundreds a month later so he can be in Silicon Valley by September, so it's probably a win-win for him...
Please God, yes. Also, there’s precedent for with Nick Clegg losing his seat before heading off for more lucrative pastures.
I'm largely withdrawing from Betfair Exchange overall majority/most seats to focus on the constituency markets.
Labour majority odds seem to be dropping by 0.01 every 12-18 hours (and is now down as low as 1.12) but there is still great value on the constituency markets.
A much better use of limited funds to pursue profit.
A Conservative Party spokesperson said: “Lucy Allan has been suspended from the Party with immediate effect. The people of Telford now have the chance to vote for a dedicated and hardworking new candidate who will put Telford first. A vote for Reform is a vote for Keir Starmer.”
Looks like Lucy Allen has been immediately suspended from the Tory Party. Personally think in these circumstances she should be removed entirely but there you go.
For what?
Endorsing the candidate of a rival party. See posts passim.
The Conservative Party will outperform expectations on 4 July, and will get more than 200 seats. The LibDems will more than double their seat count, and will do rather better in terms of vote share than the current polls predict, but will miss out on a dozen seats by small margins. The SNP will hold on to their number two spot, getting around 30 seats. And Labour will manage an inverse of 2019, achieving a majority of around 80.
@SkyNews Scotland's First Minister John Swinney has delivered a campaign speech.
He said: 'Votes for the SNP are the quickest way to get rid of the Tory MPs and Tory government from Scotland.'
@staylorish Voters are not this stupid. The SNP won almost all the seats in Scotland at the 2015 general election, reducing the Tories to just one. This did not get rid of the Tory government. If you want to get rid of Tory government at Westminster, voting Labour works. Voting SNP doesn’t.
Most jobs aren't seven days a week. If you work at the weekend you will not be working at other times. Finding four or so hours per month shouldn't be that difficult.
Post Office scandal: Police to deploy 80 detectives for criminal inquiry Exclusive: Investigation will dig into potential perjury offences and perverting the course of justice by senior leaders and Fujitsu
The Conservative Party will outperform expectations on 4 July, and will get more than 200 seats. The LibDems will more than double their seat count, and will do rather better in terms of vote share than the current polls predict, but will miss out on a dozen seats by small margins. The SNP will hold on to their number two spot, getting around 30 seats. And Labour will manage an inverse of 2019, achieving a majority of around 80.
You heard it here first.
Aye, right...
In other random news, Fish (erstwhile Marillion frontman) is selling his home and studio outside Edinburgh
I only mention it because apparently some band you may have heard of recorded something there
If you already have a job, you will have to quit it and do national service instead.
The plan will only ever be a plan, so it ought not to matter.
If ever there's a genuine need for some kind of national service (though given we don't have a hostile immediate neighbour as do (eg) S Korea or Finland, it's hard to see how), then there would have first to be some sort of cross party consensus.
A scribbled on a post it note policy dreamed up during an election campaign does not qualify.
If you believe that then betting on the Liberal Democrats in Epson and Ewell is great value: 14/1 on SkyBet and Bet365.
To be frank, it looks like that market has been mispriced.
(Won't last for long now I've advertised it)
Conversely - I've been trying to find any constituencies where it looks value to bet on Labour (on Bet365 - well done to them for their conatituency markets) - and I can't. There are seats well into the 200s of Labour target gain from Tories where Con are 5, 6, 8 to 1 to win. Altrincham and Sale West, Harlow, Sherwood Forest. If you don't think a Labour landslide is nailed on, there is excellent value there.
PS. Scotland has several value bet options for Labour
Thanks. Haven't looked at Scotland. I also think Stoke on Trent south is value for Con.
Jesus. That pen-profile of the illustrious author at the top of the article.
Cleanse my eyes!
It's paywalled, so I cannot read the whole thing. But the paragraph I can read contains a falsehood. Bull Gates was seen as being 'bad' throughout the eighties - witness Slashdot's Borg-Gates caricature on any MS story. MS were the bad guys; Apple okay; Linux et al the good guys.
Gates was never really seen as being an 'amiable nerd making glitchy but intriguing software.' as the author wrongly claims.
He was always a businessman, first and foremost. As was Jobs (who left the early technical work to Woz and others).
You can read a few articles for free by registering. I do that with the New Statesman and Economist as well.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
If you don't trust Russia, do you trust the peace?
Of course you don't trust the peace. That's why you invest in defence.
And if your opponent does not think you are serious in your defence? ISTR we pledged defence of Poland in 1939, before Germany and Russia invaded. That did not work out well for us, or Poland.
Deterrence only works if the enemy believes your deterrence has teeth. And NATO (mainly Tump and his acolytes) are giving exactly the opposite impression.
It's mainly European NATO members that have been underinvesting in defence. Trump was right to call it out, and if they had responded while he was in office, Russia might have been deterred.
Do you really believe that sh*t? Trump has fairly consistently undermined NATO.
And remember Trump's comments on Putin's invasion: calling Putin a genius and savvy.
These are not comments designed to make an aggressor think the USA will stand behind one and all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You are exhibiting the problem by treating NATO as nothing more than a US protectorate rather than an alliance. If European members can't credibly defend Europe, that's their problem and Trump was right to point out the imbalance.
Europe united CAN defend itself against Russia. Without US involvement.
That doesn't mean it wasn't extremely foolish of Trump to suggest Putin invade NATO members. There would be considerable loss of life in repulsing Russia, on both sides.
Trump's remarks made a Russian invasion less likely by forcing the countries in question to take defence slightly more seriously.
While in office, Trump did nothing to persuade Putin to pull back from Crimea or the Donbas.
Thank you for again highlighting the fact that Russia gained territory on Obama and Biden's watch and not while Trump was in power.
If you already have a job, you will have to quit it and do national service instead.
That’s what used to happen in the 50’s. Unless you were an apprentice, in which case as soon as you’d finished you got your call-up papers. Similar with a degree.
@harry_horton PM Rishi Sunak playing football at Chesham Utd in Chesham & Amersham - a seat the Lib Dems took off the Conservatives in a by-election three years ago.
@KevinASchofield Labour source: “The worst encounter between a politician and cones since John Major’s hotline.”
He does better than I likely would have.
I agree with the general thesis that some of the criticism of Rishi is pathetic. The main reason for not voting for him is that he has appalling political judgment not because his dribbling skills are lacking.
In terms of campaigning, Sunak is dropping inexorably into the Ed Miliband zone. It's not a good place to be.
Ed Miliband gets a lot of stick - and he did lose the election, but it's worth remembering that he gained net seats from the Tories. Labour lost ground overall because of Scotland, and the Tories won a majority thanks to the Lib Dem collapse.
There are worse places for Sunak to be than the Ed Miliband zone.
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
If you don't trust Russia, do you trust the peace?
Of course you don't trust the peace. That's why you invest in defence.
And if your opponent does not think you are serious in your defence? ISTR we pledged defence of Poland in 1939, before Germany and Russia invaded. That did not work out well for us, or Poland.
Deterrence only works if the enemy believes your deterrence has teeth. And NATO (mainly Tump and his acolytes) are giving exactly the opposite impression.
It's mainly European NATO members that have been underinvesting in defence. Trump was right to call it out, and if they had responded while he was in office, Russia might have been deterred.
Do you really believe that sh*t? Trump has fairly consistently undermined NATO.
And remember Trump's comments on Putin's invasion: calling Putin a genius and savvy.
These are not comments designed to make an aggressor think the USA will stand behind one and all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You are exhibiting the problem by treating NATO as nothing more than a US protectorate rather than an alliance. If European members can't credibly defend Europe, that's their problem and Trump was right to point out the imbalance.
Europe united CAN defend itself against Russia. Without US involvement.
That doesn't mean it wasn't extremely foolish of Trump to suggest Putin invade NATO members. There would be considerable loss of life in repulsing Russia, on both sides.
Trump's remarks made a Russian invasion less likely by forcing the countries in question to take defence slightly more seriously.
While in office, Trump did nothing to persuade Putin to pull back from Crimea or the Donbas.
Thank you for again highlighting the fact that Russia gained territory on Obama and Biden's watch and not while Trump was in power.
But he did nothing to "urge" Putin to withdraw.
What do you think he should have done? Sent troops to Ukraine? Threaten to nuke Russia?
The Conservative Party will outperform expectations on 4 July, and will get more than 200 seats. The LibDems will more than double their seat count, and will do rather better in terms of vote share than the current polls predict, but will miss out on a dozen seats by small margins. The SNP will hold on to their number two spot, getting around 30 seats. And Labour will manage an inverse of 2019, achieving a majority of around 80.
You heard it here first.
How do you come to this conclusion?
It's probably not a bad guess for some of the same reasons Lab didn't collapse in 2019. Unless the Tories completely fall apart and descend into open warfare (not impossible) you'd expect some rallying round as the party and its more disgruntled voters accept defeat and look to salvage something.
If you're a natural conservative mulling voter mulling voting Labour or Lib Dem because you think the current government has to go then you might just keep the faith if you think they are screwed and going to lose anyway, but don't want a wipeout.
But then that is rather dependent on the current clown show stopping so they don't end up in an Asterix-style huge punch up and the argument that the current Conservative Party is so flawed it needs razing gains purchase.
If you already have a job, you will have to quit it and do national service instead.
The plan will only ever be a plan, so it ought not to matter.
If ever there's a genuine need for some kind of national service (though given we don't have a hostile immediate neighbour as do (eg) S Korea or Finland, it's hard to see how), then there would have first to be some sort of cross party consensus.
A scribbled on a post it note policy dreamed up during an election campaign does not qualify.
Yes the problem with this policy is not just the what, but the how. It won´t stick and since it reflects the way the Tories have been running the country over the past five PMs, there is no confidence in either policy or process.
I don't think people here fully grasp what a moment this is, coming up on 4th July. Absent an almighty shock we are going to see something which although not quite Haley’s comet is nevertheless a vanishingly rare event - a change of governing party at Westminster. In my entire adult life, as I have ripened from callow teen to the sweet old fruit I am today, 45 winters and 44 summers, I've experienced this only twice. So I don't go with all this 'yawn' and 'no enthusiasm' talk. I'm excited.
Changing one set of lying useless arseholes for another set of lying useless arseholes is far from exciting.
But a Labour arsehole is fundamentally different to a Tory one. And we're talking here about something that comes along less than once a decade. Think about world cups and olympic games, how momentous each one seems, being only every 4 years. Well, this is almost four times as rare. In fact if we look specifically at the Tories being kicked out of power, I'm 63 and it's happened just once in my adult lifetime. Once.
I am totally cynical about all politician's nowadays, they are all only on the make for themselves, grab as much as they can and F*** the public, that includes the silent ones who just take the money and hide except to vote.
"All" is surely overdoing the cynicism. Eg you like Salmond, don't you. And look at the last 3 Labour leaders down here. Brown, Corbyn, Miliband. You might not rate them but they weren't charlatans or phonies out only for themselves. Starmer doesn't seem to be either. Or Reeves or Lammy or Cooper. Course they might turn out to be wrong uns but there's no particular reason to expect that.
You can add useless to all of them and many it is down to their high estimations of themselves that make them shit , ie Brown. Bunch of hypocrites, Lammy many jobs for instance , Labour hate private schools but send their children to them , and on and on and on
Jesus. The comments below that article. A searing hatred of young people, who simply wouldn't have the physical or mental capacity to do the unpaid labour that none of the commenters ever did.
Is it all Boomers cosplaying as though they were the Greatest Generation?
I don't think people here fully grasp what a moment this is, coming up on 4th July. Absent an almighty shock we are going to see something which although not quite Haley’s comet is nevertheless a vanishingly rare event - a change of governing party at Westminster. In my entire adult life, as I have ripened from callow teen to the sweet old fruit I am today, 45 winters and 44 summers, I've experienced this only twice. So I don't go with all this 'yawn' and 'no enthusiasm' talk. I'm excited.
Changing one set of lying useless arseholes for another set of lying useless arseholes is far from exciting.
But a Labour arsehole is fundamentally different to a Tory one. And we're talking here about something that comes along less than once a decade. Think about world cups and olympic games, how momentous each one seems, being only every 4 years. Well, this is almost four times as rare. In fact if we look specifically at the Tories being kicked out of power, I'm 63 and it's happened just once in my adult lifetime. Once.
I am totally cynical about all politician's nowadays, they are all only on the make for themselves, grab as much as they can and F*** the public, that includes the silent ones who just take the money and hide except to vote.
"All" is surely overdoing the cynicism. Eg you like Salmond, don't you. And look at the last 3 Labour leaders down here. Brown, Corbyn, Miliband. You might not rate them but they weren't charlatans or phonies out only for themselves. Starmer doesn't seem to be either. Or Reeves or Lammy or Cooper. Course they might turn out to be wrong uns but there's no particular reason to expect that.
Brown was undoubtedly a charlatan. His central political strategy was a kind of confidence trick to convince people he had hidden depths, and he relied on intimidating his rivals into submission.
What I mean is he did not view politics as a vehicle to enrich himself, to attain power for power's sake, or as primarily a game.
I agree he didn't view it as a vehicle to enrich himself. And yes, he took it, and himself, far too seriously to see it mostly as a game.
But to attain power for its own sake, I'm not so sure. Brown schemed, plotted and bided his time for ten years to become PM, and, when he did, obviously had no idea what to do with it. Everybody assumed there would be some great package of reforms, but there was nothing at all. Given that he didn't want money, the only thing I can assume is that he did actually want power for its own sake.
His ego was bigger than a planet , he thought he was the cleverest man in the world.
I have no idea if they were being wise, the airline crass, or if the parents are over-reacting.
Overreacting thinking she was a BBC star. They did not inform the airline 48 hours before as per process so leaves them in sticky position . Then insulting cabin staff and trying to get on flight deck. Prima Donna's.
He was always a businessman, first and foremost. As was Jobs (who left the early technical work to Woz and others).
Indeed. Gates was a never an amiable nerd, right from the start when Microsoft negotiated the DOS contract with IBM he was a ruthless businessman, always looking to push Microsoft's interests forward no matter what. Many of the tactics MS employed under Gates were reminiscent of the old robber barons, and courts punished the company accordingly in the end.
I wouldn't go quite that far - I've always had a bit of a soft spot for Gates. But the way he and Ballmer treated Paul Allen was terrible.
And if you think what MS did was bad, then what do you think of Apple's behaviour? But Apple is trendy and cool; MS never was...
Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.
Really? Care to give examples?
I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.
But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.
His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.
You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.
You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?
Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.
If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.
And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.
You need credible deterrence, not trust.
Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.
If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?
If you don't trust Russia, do you trust the peace?
Of course you don't trust the peace. That's why you invest in defence.
And if your opponent does not think you are serious in your defence? ISTR we pledged defence of Poland in 1939, before Germany and Russia invaded. That did not work out well for us, or Poland.
Deterrence only works if the enemy believes your deterrence has teeth. And NATO (mainly Tump and his acolytes) are giving exactly the opposite impression.
It's mainly European NATO members that have been underinvesting in defence. Trump was right to call it out, and if they had responded while he was in office, Russia might have been deterred.
Do you really believe that sh*t? Trump has fairly consistently undermined NATO.
And remember Trump's comments on Putin's invasion: calling Putin a genius and savvy.
These are not comments designed to make an aggressor think the USA will stand behind one and all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You are exhibiting the problem by treating NATO as nothing more than a US protectorate rather than an alliance. If European members can't credibly defend Europe, that's their problem and Trump was right to point out the imbalance.
Europe united CAN defend itself against Russia. Without US involvement.
That doesn't mean it wasn't extremely foolish of Trump to suggest Putin invade NATO members. There would be considerable loss of life in repulsing Russia, on both sides.
Trump's remarks made a Russian invasion less likely by forcing the countries in question to take defence slightly more seriously.
While in office, Trump did nothing to persuade Putin to pull back from Crimea or the Donbas.
Thank you for again highlighting the fact that Russia gained territory on Obama and Biden's watch and not while Trump was in power.
But he did nothing to "urge" Putin to withdraw.
What do you think he should have done? Sent troops to Ukraine? Threaten to nuke Russia?
he should have sent a shitload of long range weapons
Jesus. The comments below that article. A searing hatred of young people, who simply wouldn't have the physical or mental capacity to do the unpaid labour that none of the commenters ever did.
Is it all Boomers cosplaying as though they were the Greatest Generation?
I'm wondering which PB poster will go ballistic and off-reservation this election. We usually have one.
This year, with both the UK and USA elections, we might have a bumper crop...
I have a real feeling that the right are going to go crackers when labour take office. The moderating effect of government is gone, the betrayal narrative is rampant, frustration is rife.... it wouldn't surprise me if something serious happens. Just like it did when Trump lost.
The relevant right are 60 and older. And unarmed.
That has been the electoral basis true, but there is a very aggressive core of young uneducated white men with no prospects who are extremely active on the far right....
They are a problem no matter who is in government.
Conflict sociology says otherwise. Political violence is not a random or spontaneous thing. It is well understood. It has precursors and tigger points.
I'm wondering which PB poster will go ballistic and off-reservation this election. We usually have one.
This year, with both the UK and USA elections, we might have a bumper crop...
I have a real feeling that the right are going to go crackers when labour take office. The moderating effect of government is gone, the betrayal narrative is rampant, frustration is rife.... it wouldn't surprise me if something serious happens. Just like it did when Trump lost.
It didn't happen in 1997. Nowhere near.
I'd actually argue the hard left / pro-Hamas section are more likely to go ballistic.
Why are you comparing with 1997? That is strange. Can you unpack that for me.
I'm wondering which PB poster will go ballistic and off-reservation this election. We usually have one.
This year, with both the UK and USA elections, we might have a bumper crop...
I have a real feeling that the right are going to go crackers when labour take office. The moderating effect of government is gone, the betrayal narrative is rampant, frustration is rife.... it wouldn't surprise me if something serious happens. Just like it did when Trump lost.
It didn't happen in 1997. Nowhere near.
I'd actually argue the hard left / pro-Hamas section are more likely to go ballistic.
Why are you comparing with 1997? That is strange. Can you unpack that for me.
The Conservative Party will outperform expectations on 4 July, and will get more than 200 seats. The LibDems will more than double their seat count, and will do rather better in terms of vote share than the current polls predict, but will miss out on a dozen seats by small margins. The SNP will hold on to their number two spot, getting around 30 seats. And Labour will manage an inverse of 2019, achieving a majority of around 80.
You heard it here first.
That’s broadly how I see it, although I’d have the Tories about 185-190 and a Labour majority of about 100.
I'm wondering which PB poster will go ballistic and off-reservation this election. We usually have one.
This year, with both the UK and USA elections, we might have a bumper crop...
I have a real feeling that the right are going to go crackers when labour take office. The moderating effect of government is gone, the betrayal narrative is rampant, frustration is rife.... it wouldn't surprise me if something serious happens. Just like it did when Trump lost.
It didn't happen in 1997. Nowhere near.
I'd actually argue the hard left / pro-Hamas section are more likely to go ballistic.
Why are you comparing with 1997? That is strange. Can you unpack that for me.
It’s the last time Labour “took office”.
But that is a completely different social context. The changing of government would be a trigger, but not the underlying structural driver.
I'm wondering which PB poster will go ballistic and off-reservation this election. We usually have one.
This year, with both the UK and USA elections, we might have a bumper crop...
I have a real feeling that the right are going to go crackers when labour take office. The moderating effect of government is gone, the betrayal narrative is rampant, frustration is rife.... it wouldn't surprise me if something serious happens. Just like it did when Trump lost.
The relevant right are 60 and older. And unarmed.
That has been the electoral basis true, but there is a very aggressive core of young uneducated white men with no prospects who are extremely active on the far right....
They are a problem no matter who is in government.
Conflict sociology says otherwise. Political violence is not a random or spontaneous thing. It is well understood. It has precursors and tigger points.
No it doesn't. It is about people who want to be violent and are just looking for a pretext to be so.
I'm wondering which PB poster will go ballistic and off-reservation this election. We usually have one.
This year, with both the UK and USA elections, we might have a bumper crop...
I have a real feeling that the right are going to go crackers when labour take office. The moderating effect of government is gone, the betrayal narrative is rampant, frustration is rife.... it wouldn't surprise me if something serious happens. Just like it did when Trump lost.
It didn't happen in 1997. Nowhere near.
I'd actually argue the hard left / pro-Hamas section are more likely to go ballistic.
Why are you comparing with 1997? That is strange. Can you unpack that for me.
Back in 1997, the Tories lost to a Labour landslide, as is likely to happen again this year. The Tories did not 'go crackers'; and there was no serious disruption, and certanly nothing like the scale of what happened after Trump lost.
So I was comparing this year with last time a Labour landslide occurred - 1997.
Comments
The idea that if the US said nothing in public, Putin would never question their commitment to sending troops to recapture every inch of NATO territory is extremely naive.
Poor sods.
If they're 18 then by definition they aren't children.
Did Sunak really take time off to come up with this?
The Conservatives Have Already Given Up. The Tory campaign only makes sense if you remember that it is not actually about winning the election.
https://alexmassie.substack.com/p/the-conservatives-have-already-given
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fw5RpcztmM
Day 5 so far:
- Outgoing Tory MP backing Reform to win her seat
- CCHQ accidentally emailed senior Tory MPs saying they weren't working hard enough
- An actual minister criticised the party's first big policy announcement
And if you think what MS did was bad, then what do you think of Apple's behaviour? But Apple is trendy and cool; MS never was...
Labour on the other hand have much more time to formulate their policies as most of the time all they are doing is reacting to events (and the government) and not running the country. That is now the main risk for Labour, that the manifesto is too thin or they've not thought things through with the right people.
Also, there’s precedent for with Nick Clegg losing his seat before heading off for more lucrative pastures.
A single infusion of engineered long-lived and multifunctional T cells confers durable remission of asthma in mice
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-024-01834-9
Half baked was cooked, but badly.
Obviously
How are the Tories going to make it through 5 weeks?
It already looks like open warfare at Tory HQ.
For once the Downfall spoofs seem accurate.
Not a betting recommendation, but it's the place I would start looking.
If you already have a job, you will have to quit it and do national service instead.
Now, they will very probably lose it - but those odds are slightly OTT.
Scotland's First Minister John Swinney has delivered a campaign speech.
He said: 'Votes for the SNP are the quickest way to get rid of the Tory MPs and Tory government from Scotland.'
@staylorish
Voters are not this stupid. The SNP won almost all the seats in Scotland at the 2015 general election, reducing the Tories to just one. This did not get rid of the Tory government. If you want to get rid of Tory government at Westminster, voting Labour works. Voting SNP doesn’t.
It’s to be done on weekends. Right?
Right?
I think we need a chef to settle this one.
OK sorry I see. She said a year ago she was standing down anyway
https://x.com/PA/status/1795119909170524359
Another "mistake".
Get rid.
There will be "no exemption for those in work".
Would be interested if anyone here knows how CCHQ is constructed - is it a bunch of entryists under Boris, old timers who came in during the Cameron opposition years, jellyfish?
If they can’t get it right at the organisational level then this is where it ends up.
You heard it here first.
Labour majority odds seem to be dropping by 0.01 every 12-18 hours (and is now down as low as 1.12) but there is still great value on the constituency markets.
A much better use of limited funds to pursue profit.
A Conservative Party spokesperson said:
“Lucy Allan has been suspended from the Party with immediate effect. The people of Telford now have the chance to vote for a dedicated and hardworking new candidate who will put Telford first. A vote for Reform is a vote for Keir Starmer.”
But hopefully you say the same about the Hamas leadership, after they launched rockets at Israel from Rafah?
Typically a cake, or loaf of bread, is not visibly half baked until you slice it, at which point it's too late
NEW THREAD
Exclusive: Investigation will dig into potential perjury offences and perverting the course of justice by senior leaders and Fujitsu
https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/27/post-office-scandal-police-to-deploy-80-detectives-for-criminal-inquiry
In other random news, Fish (erstwhile Marillion frontman) is selling his home and studio outside Edinburgh
I only mention it because apparently some band you may have heard of recorded something there
If ever there's a genuine need for some kind of national service (though given we don't have a hostile immediate neighbour as do (eg) S Korea or Finland, it's hard to see how), then there would have first to be some sort of cross party consensus.
A scribbled on a post it note policy dreamed up during an election campaign does not qualify.
I also think Stoke on Trent south is value for Con.
There are worse places for Sunak to be than the Ed Miliband zone.
If you're a natural conservative mulling voter mulling voting Labour or Lib Dem because you think the current government has to go then you might just keep the faith if you think they are screwed and going to lose anyway, but don't want a wipeout.
But then that is rather dependent on the current clown show stopping so they don't end up in an Asterix-style huge punch up and the argument that the current Conservative Party is so flawed it needs razing gains purchase.
So I was comparing this year with last time a Labour landslide occurred - 1997.