Labour’s net zero target could cost ‘hundreds of billions’, leaked audio reveals Shadow chief secretary to the Treasury’s answers at public event suggest party’s spending could go far beyond public declarations
One strange thing about all of this, is it will be using PFI, which was absolutely toxic only a few years ago. The media used to run stories every week about how it cost £300 to change a light bulb or they couldn't mow their own sports field, because a moron from government didn't read the small print of PFI contracts.
I work in this area and “didn’t read the small print of PFI contracts” is a total mischaracterisation of the issue.
I was obviously being somewhat facetious. But particular under last Labour government, huge number of PFI deals were signed that were absolutely terrible for the tax payer.
Not in of their own right. The issue is the gutting of local authority and NHS legal teams and as such the public sector not having any idea what they are entitled to under such contracts, not the contracts themselves in a lot of cases.
Many turned out horrendously expensive, more pay day lender than mortgage.
You’re just talking in Daily Mail soundbites.
Issue is this:
PFI project company stops doing X, which they should be doing under their contract. NHS clinical and facilities staff on the ground grumble but have no knowledge of legal entitlement. The accounts team keeps paying the PFI service charge without deduction because same. Years go by. PFI project company is laughing all the way to the bank.
The problem isn’t the contract, it’s lack of any management of the contract. Perhaps you could argue that is a problem with the contract itself but any long-term contract needs to be managed by a person or team who knows what they’re doing, PFI or not.
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
Whatever, but someone will be superseeding him before too many more years pass, whether he loses Ukraine or goosesteps up Kiev High Street in a triumphant parade for the same reason that John Smith was suceeded a Labour Leader.
While he is ruthless, he is not crazy. We might not be so lucky with who follows.
These are so carbon copy as talking points I almost wonder if you’re being dictated them.
The war is a catastrophe for Russia. The only thing keeping it going is the pride and political investment of the regime. Even if Putin is succeeded by an extremist it’s very likely one of the first things they do is bring the boys home.
Indeed.
Its quite probable this war ends with Putin stepping too close to a window, then his successor ending this misadventure.
It's almost a surprise more dictators are not taken out by some rogue lone gunman or the like.
One area they are depressingly competent is maintaining their power and person.
Labour’s net zero target could cost ‘hundreds of billions’, leaked audio reveals Shadow chief secretary to the Treasury’s answers at public event suggest party’s spending could go far beyond public declarations
Hundreds of billions of pounds by 2050 to decarbonise the whole economy? Despite the sensationalist headline, that doesn’t actually sound like that much money or that unreasonable, over a timescale of 26 years…
What is their calculation of the excess cost over what would be spent to replace energy infrastructure, cars, housing etc in any event ?
The 18 reform seats in the Mirror / Baxter MRP are:
Ashfield. Barnsley South Boston & Skegness. Broadland and Fakenham. Burton and Uttoxeter. Cannock Chase Clacton. Cotswold North. Fareham and Waterlooville. Gosport. Great Yarmouth. Huntington. (More Peas John. Oh Yes) Louth and Horncastle. Orpington. Plymouth Moor View. Skipton and Ripon. Suffolk South. Washington and Gateshead South.
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
It may not be certain whoever followed Putin would be worse, but it would seem prudent to think that might be so, or that any replacement would be of similar substance.
However, similar but not exact could still be enough for significant changes. Even a horrible dictator replacement might make different choices if only to preserve their own power and place.
Quite. I fear we're in danger of dressing up sarcasm about 'bingo cards' as an actual argument.
Read the posts, and read the history. To convince people that we fear a replacement of Putin you have to show that what Putin is doing now is somehow showing restraint in Ukraine. There is zero evidence of that.
And if the riposte is what about nukes, then we might as well anticipate a nuclear attack from the significantly crazier North Korea at any moment.
The 18 reform seats in the Mirror / Baxter MRP are:
Ashfield. Barnsley South Boston & Skegness. Broadland and Fakenham. Burton and Uttoxeter. Cannock Chase Clacton. Cotswold North. Fareham and Waterlooville. Gosport. Great Yarmouth. Huntington. (More Peas John. Oh Yes) Louth and Horncastle. Orpington. Plymouth Moor View. Skipton and Ripon. Suffolk South. Washington and Gateshead South.
Washington and Gateshead South - not a chance in hell..
Likewise Skipton and Ripon
I don't know what they are drinking but neither of those seats have a chance of going reform unless it's a 4 way vote and reform sneak in by a few votes of 25% of the vote.
Labour to bring in automatic voter registration under plans to boost franchise
Labour is planning to introduce automatic registration for voting under plans to add millions more people to the electoral roll for future elections, especially young people, the Guardian has learned.
Starmer is not going to waste any opportunity to put finger on the scales once he gets power. Where as the Tories spent 14 years not really gaining a massive advantage of the much watered down redrawing constituencies (remember the more radical proposal originally was far fewer seats) and the voter id stuff which is nothing like the gerrymandering type stuff in the US.
I can see a scandal coming of people being auto registered who end up not being eligible.
Votes for 16 and auto enrolment.
How long before compulsory voting ?
I’m guessing the same people who condemned the Tories over their attempts to game the system will be as equally condemnatory here.
Is making it easier to vote, worth equal condemnation with making voting harder?
I don't think that's a reasonable summary of it though.
I don't support the Tories' voter ID changes*, but not all changes 'making it easier to vote' are automatically a good thing.
To take it to an extreme, votes at 12 would be making it easier to vote, but most people would not support that, quite reasonably. Allowing any foreign nationals to vote in all elections would be making it easier to vote, but would that be fair and reasonable, when to my knowledge no country operates that widely?
On votes at 16 I am not in favour of it, but it is a simple change to enact and for whatever reason support for it has been growing among political circles, so I'm more or less resigned to it.
Electoral changes tend to be proposed because those doing it think they will benefit, and whether they do or not not if they are reasonable they stick around. So Labour believing they will gain an advantage is not intrinsically wrong if the principal is still sound, or at least arguable.
But it is also the case that just because something is proposed for a supposedly positive reason, does not mean it is a good idea. Some people support electronic voting as it would be faster and you coudl do it from your phone or something, but in fact it is a terrible idea.
Auto-enrollment I'd need to see more details about, as it sounds reasonable but what is the reason it is not already the case (evil Tories cannot always be the answer).
*Weirdly, Labour are not proposing reversing the Tory voter ID changes.
I partly agree, but it's a straw man to bring in other changes that Labour aren't proposing. I was replying to a post that compared actual Labour and Tory policies, not "extreme" daft ones.
We know there are millions of people not on the electoral rolls. We also know they tend to be younger, more likely to rent etc. I can't think of a strong moral argument for not making it easier for them to take part in our democracy.
Labour’s net zero target could cost ‘hundreds of billions’, leaked audio reveals Shadow chief secretary to the Treasury’s answers at public event suggest party’s spending could go far beyond public declarations
One strange thing about all of this, is it will be using PFI, which was absolutely toxic only a few years ago. The media used to run stories every week about how it cost £300 to change a light bulb or they couldn't mow their own sports field, because a moron from government didn't read the small print of PFI contracts.
I work in this area and “didn’t read the small print of PFI contracts” is a total mischaracterisation of the issue.
I was obviously being somewhat facetious. But particular under last Labour government, huge number of PFI deals were signed that were absolutely terrible for the tax payer.
Not in of their own right. The issue is the gutting of local authority and NHS legal teams and as such the public sector not having any idea what they are entitled to under such contracts, not the contracts themselves in a lot of cases.
Many turned out horrendously expensive, more pay day lender than mortgage.
You’re just talking in Daily Mail soundbites.
Issue is this:
PFI project company stops doing X, which they should be doing under their contract. NHS clinical and facilities staff on the ground grumble but have no knowledge of legal entitlement. The accounts team keeps paying the PFI service charge without deduction because same. Years go by. PFI project company is laughing all the way to the bank.
The problem isn’t the contract, it’s lack of any management of the contract. Perhaps you could argue that is a problem with the contract itself but any long-term contract needs to be managed by a person or team who knows what they’re doing, PFI or not.
Not Daily Mail headlines, people like FT and NAO looked at them...
Third, early PFI projects were shown to be poor value for money, giving equity investors windfall gains not commensurate with the risks they had taken.
The theory is fine, its the implementation of it. The Tories in 2010-2015 tried to improve on them a bit. Lets see if Labour have learned lessons....also remember this is going to be an absolute massive centralised PFI scheme, despite what Labour call it, it is not a National Wealth Fund in the way most people understand it.
My point was also that PFI became toxic in the media, I don't know if they haven't worked out that Labour aren't proposing anything like Saudi Wealth Fund.
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
I think this was before Farage went full Quisling on Putin, so it may be that the Tories are past the worst.
Still they are going to get a kicking the like of which we have never seen in British politics, or indeed in British history.
I thought things would probably pull back a little for Reform, and I still think that though not because of the Quisling stuff, I don't think people care enough to alter their voting intention, but as you say it won't be by enough to appreciably change the outcome.
18 Reform seats seems far too high, I have more faith in the country that it won't vote in that many Quislings.
Given your (correct imo) assessment of Farage as a grubby little racist it still surprises me that you voted for him in 2019. Ok, the Euro elections, but still. I would have thought no nose-peg could have been quite strong enough.
I voted for him to be ousted from [the European] Parliament, not elected into it.
And Theresa "Go Home" May was not much of a better alternative.
Yes I know the thinking. But I also know if I despised a politician as much as you do Nigel Farage, considered him a vile racist, I would need an unbelievably compelling reason to vote for them in any election under any circumstances. I guess your dislike of our EU membership was so strong as to be that reason. Quite something, when you think about it. And never again, one hopes.
The 18 reform seats in the Mirror / Baxter MRP are:
Ashfield. Barnsley South Boston & Skegness. Broadland and Fakenham. Burton and Uttoxeter. Cannock Chase Clacton. Cotswold North. Fareham and Waterlooville. Gosport. Great Yarmouth. Huntington. (More Peas John. Oh Yes) Louth and Horncastle. Orpington. Plymouth Moor View. Skipton and Ripon. Suffolk South. Washington and Gateshead South.
Are we sure this poll wasn't by Less in Common?
No, the other party are "Find Out Now" according to the OP who linked to it.
The 18 reform seats in the Mirror / Baxter MRP are:
Ashfield. Barnsley South Boston & Skegness. Broadland and Fakenham. Burton and Uttoxeter. Cannock Chase Clacton. Cotswold North. Fareham and Waterlooville. Gosport. Great Yarmouth. Huntington. (More Peas John. Oh Yes) Louth and Horncastle. Orpington. Plymouth Moor View. Skipton and Ripon. Suffolk South. Washington and Gateshead South.
Absolute drivel. Just to take one: The Cotswolds voted Remain, Libdems control the council and will be the challengers
Strange 3 way and 4 way marginals can throw up weird outcomes…
The 18 reform seats in the Mirror / Baxter MRP are:
Ashfield. Barnsley South Boston & Skegness. Broadland and Fakenham. Burton and Uttoxeter. Cannock Chase Clacton. Cotswold North. Fareham and Waterlooville. Gosport. Great Yarmouth. Huntington. (More Peas John. Oh Yes) Louth and Horncastle. Orpington. Plymouth Moor View. Skipton and Ripon. Suffolk South. Washington and Gateshead South.
Are we sure this poll wasn't by Less in Common?
No, the other party are "Find Out Now" according to the OP who linked to it.
Find Out Now is, of course, precisely what Rishi Sunak has been doing over the past four weeks.
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
18 Reform seats seems far too high, I have more faith in the country that it won't vote in that many Quislings.
Given your (correct imo) assessment of Farage as a grubby little racist it still surprises me that you voted for him in 2019. Ok, the Euro elections, but still. I would have thought no nose-peg could have been quite strong enough.
I voted for him to be ousted from [the European] Parliament, not elected into it.
And Theresa "Go Home" May was not much of a better alternative.
Yes I know the thinking. But I also know if I despised a politician as much as you do Nigel Farage, considered him a vile racist, I would need an unbelievably compelling reason to vote for them in any election under any circumstances. I guess your dislike of our EU membership was so strong as to be that reason. Quite something really when you think about it. And never again, one hopes.
Not my dislike of the EU, I was torn whether to vote Leave or Remain until the last minute and had entered the campaign backing Remain but was won over by Richard_Tyndall, Casino_Royale and others.
My desire to get him removed from Parliament, Theresa May removed as PM, as well as my belief in democracy and that having made a decision to Leave in 2016 that decision should be respected.
But yes it was absolutely sui generis and never again.
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
We aren't doing anything even vaguely comparable to Libya.
It's you who's suggesting we have some sort of influence over who runs Russia. That's just nuts.
The 18 reform seats in the Mirror / Baxter MRP are:
Ashfield. Barnsley South Boston & Skegness. Broadland and Fakenham. Burton and Uttoxeter. Cannock Chase Clacton. Cotswold North. Fareham and Waterlooville. Gosport. Great Yarmouth. Huntington. (More Peas John. Oh Yes) Louth and Horncastle. Orpington. Plymouth Moor View. Skipton and Ripon. Suffolk South. Washington and Gateshead South.
Absolute drivel. Just to take one: The Cotswolds voted Remain, Libdems control the council and will be the challengers
Yes some bonkers results there.
I’m not immediately pouring cold water on Reform getting that number of seats - they theoretically could though I think highly unlikely - but if I had to pick 18, a good 12-14 of those don’t look like the ones I’d choose.
Labour to bring in automatic voter registration under plans to boost franchise
Labour is planning to introduce automatic registration for voting under plans to add millions more people to the electoral roll for future elections, especially young people, the Guardian has learned.
Starmer is not going to waste any opportunity to put finger on the scales once he gets power. Where as the Tories spent 14 years not really gaining a massive advantage of the much watered down redrawing constituencies (remember the more radical proposal originally was far fewer seats) and the voter id stuff which is nothing like the gerrymandering type stuff in the US.
I can see a scandal coming of people being auto registered who end up not being eligible.
Votes for 16 and auto enrolment.
How long before compulsory voting ?
I’m guessing the same people who condemned the Tories over their attempts to game the system will be as equally condemnatory here.
Is making it easier to vote, worth equal condemnation with making voting harder?
I don't think that's a reasonable summary of it though.
I don't support the Tories' voter ID changes*, but not all changes 'making it easier to vote' are automatically a good thing.
To take it to an extreme, votes at 12 would be making it easier to vote, but most people would not support that, quite reasonably. Allowing any foreign nationals to vote in all elections would be making it easier to vote, but would that be fair and reasonable, when to my knowledge no country operates that widely?
On votes at 16 I am not in favour of it, but it is a simple change to enact and for whatever reason support for it has been growing among political circles, so I'm more or less resigned to it.
Electoral changes tend to be proposed because those doing it think they will benefit, and whether they do or not not if they are reasonable they stick around. So Labour believing they will gain an advantage is not intrinsically wrong if the principal is still sound, or at least arguable.
But it is also the case that just because something is proposed for a supposedly positive reason, does not mean it is a good idea. Some people support electronic voting as it would be faster and you coudl do it from your phone or something, but in fact it is a terrible idea.
Auto-enrollment I'd need to see more details about, as it sounds reasonable but what is the reason it is not already the case (evil Tories cannot always be the answer).
*Weirdly, Labour are not proposing reversing the Tory voter ID changes.
I partly agree, but it's a straw man to bring in other changes that Labour aren't proposing. I was replying to a post that compared actual Labour and Tory policies, not "extreme" daft ones.
We know there are millions of people not on the electoral rolls. We also know they tend to be younger, more likely to rent etc. I can't think of a strong moral argument for not making it easier for them to take part in our democracy.
It's not a straw man in the slightest because I did not say that Labour's proposals were those extreme ones, nor did I say their actual proposals were equivalent to those extreme ones, so there was no miresrepresentation of their position which I would argue is essential for a straw man argument. Indeed, I went out of my way to say that whilst I do not agree with Labour's position re 16 year olds, that they would probably gain advantage from it is not a sign it is inherently wrong, thus defending their right to do it.
Your post may have been off the back of the specific proposals, but it was presented as a general statement that suggested making it easier to vote was inherently good ("Is making it easier to vote, worth equal condemnation with making voting harder?"). Which is why I focused on that.
The answer would be that it might be worth equal condemnation, depending on what it was.
The 18 reform seats in the Mirror / Baxter MRP are:
Ashfield. Barnsley South Boston & Skegness. Broadland and Fakenham. Burton and Uttoxeter. Cannock Chase Clacton. Cotswold North. Fareham and Waterlooville. Gosport. Great Yarmouth. Huntington. (More Peas John. Oh Yes) Louth and Horncastle. Orpington. Plymouth Moor View. Skipton and Ripon. Suffolk South. Washington and Gateshead South.
Are we sure this poll wasn't by Less in Common?
No, the other party are "Find Out Now" according to the OP who linked to it.
It was a comment on the MRP findings about such heterogeneous constituencies. They seemingly have almost nowt in common with each other.
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
The same arguments were made for why Ukraine should surrender its nukes at the end of the Cold War.
Putin is going to die at some point. His successor may or may not be as much of a mobster and monster as him. But that’s up to them as much as the US choosing a madman like Trump. The people who worry loudly about Putin’s successor being worse are always, always, the same as those who say we should leave Ukraine to be carved up and do a deal with the fascists currently in charge.
The 18 reform seats in the Mirror / Baxter MRP are:
Ashfield. Barnsley South Boston & Skegness. Broadland and Fakenham. Burton and Uttoxeter. Cannock Chase Clacton. Cotswold North. Fareham and Waterlooville. Gosport. Great Yarmouth. Huntington. (More Peas John. Oh Yes) Louth and Horncastle. Orpington. Plymouth Moor View. Skipton and Ripon. Suffolk South. Washington and Gateshead South.
Washington and Gateshead South - not a chance in hell..
Likewise Skipton and Ripon
I don't know what they are drinking but neither of those seats have a chance of going reform unless it's a 4 way vote and reform sneak in by a few votes of 25% of the vote.
We will find out soon enough. Washington and Sunderland South is one of the first to declare (estimated 00.45 according to Telegraph)
Much the same time as that Referendum declaration in Sunderland
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
The 18 reform seats in the Mirror / Baxter MRP are:
Ashfield. Barnsley South Boston & Skegness. Broadland and Fakenham. Burton and Uttoxeter. Cannock Chase Clacton. Cotswold North. Fareham and Waterlooville. Gosport. Great Yarmouth. Huntington. (More Peas John. Oh Yes) Louth and Horncastle. Orpington. Plymouth Moor View. Skipton and Ripon. Suffolk South. Washington and Gateshead South.
Absolute drivel. Just to take one: The Cotswolds voted Remain, Libdems control the council and will be the challengers
Strange 3 way and 4 way marginals can throw up weird outcomes…
A country that votes approximate 33% for centre/right parties is not going to sustain for long a Labour vs Lib Dem main battle. FPTP or no FPTP.
Not unless the LDs went full Centre-Right, but even then I think they are just too weak in too much of the country, and too much of the Tory/Reform vote would like at least the option of drifting further right from time to time, which the LDs would not permit.
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
The same arguments were made for why Ukraine should surrender its nukes at the end of the Cold War.
Putin is going to die at some point. His successor may or may not be as much of a mobster and monster as him. But that’s up to them as much as the US choosing a madman like Trump. The people who worry loudly about Putin’s successor being worse are always, always, the same as those who say we should leave Ukraine to be carved up and do a deal with the fascists currently in charge.
Yes they are, but it would be refreshing to hear a counterargument, not just accusing those people of bad faith.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know The Conservative Government have been in power since 2010 and have raised overall taxes to their highest level since 1948.
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
…is exactly what 2020s Russia is. Perhaps the 1930s might offer us some useful lessons here?
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
The same arguments were made for why Ukraine should surrender its nukes at the end of the Cold War.
Putin is going to die at some point. His successor may or may not be as much of a mobster and monster as him. But that’s up to them as much as the US choosing a madman like Trump. The people who worry loudly about Putin’s successor being worse are always, always, the same as those who say we should leave Ukraine to be carved up and do a deal with the fascists currently in charge.
The problem with the Ukraine Nukes is that the Ukranian government never had custody of them. They remained under the control of the Red Russian army.
Such an odd election. But the result next week is going to be utterly seismic. I’m unsure why we’ve not heard more discontent from Tory MPs tbh
Oh you will once the exit poll is released. It will be fun to watch. They will be tearing strips off each other. Heseltine will be on blaming Brexit Osbourne will say the party was too nasty to.immigrants. It will be a total riot.
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
No we don't. Putin is Ruthless, patient, Cold and Calculating. Hitler was a nutter liable to make crazy decisions in a fit of rage if crossed.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
Labour to bring in automatic voter registration under plans to boost franchise
Labour is planning to introduce automatic registration for voting under plans to add millions more people to the electoral roll for future elections, especially young people, the Guardian has learned.
Starmer is not going to waste any opportunity to put finger on the scales once he gets power. Where as the Tories spent 14 years not really gaining a massive advantage of the much watered down redrawing constituencies (remember the more radical proposal originally was far fewer seats) and the voter id stuff which is nothing like the gerrymandering type stuff in the US.
I can see a scandal coming of people being auto registered who end up not being eligible.
Votes for 16 and auto enrolment.
How long before compulsory voting ?
I’m guessing the same people who condemned the Tories over their attempts to game the system will be as equally condemnatory here.
Is making it easier to vote, worth equal condemnation with making voting harder?
I don't think that's a reasonable summary of it though.
I don't support the Tories' voter ID changes*, but not all changes 'making it easier to vote' are automatically a good thing.
To take it to an extreme, votes at 12 would be making it easier to vote, but most people would not support that, quite reasonably. Allowing any foreign nationals to vote in all elections would be making it easier to vote, but would that be fair and reasonable, when to my knowledge no country operates that widely?
On votes at 16 I am not in favour of it, but it is a simple change to enact and for whatever reason support for it has been growing among political circles, so I'm more or less resigned to it.
Electoral changes tend to be proposed because those doing it think they will benefit, and whether they do or not not if they are reasonable they stick around. So Labour believing they will gain an advantage is not intrinsically wrong if the principal is still sound, or at least arguable.
But it is also the case that just because something is proposed for a supposedly positive reason, does not mean it is a good idea. Some people support electronic voting as it would be faster and you coudl do it from your phone or something, but in fact it is a terrible idea.
Auto-enrollment I'd need to see more details about, as it sounds reasonable but what is the reason it is not already the case (evil Tories cannot always be the answer).
*Weirdly, Labour are not proposing reversing the Tory voter ID changes.
Look at 16 i had an above average interest in politics. But the extent of my knowledge was still comically limited. We are talking pre gcse students here.
The 18 reform seats in the Mirror / Baxter MRP are:
Ashfield. Barnsley South Boston & Skegness. Broadland and Fakenham. Burton and Uttoxeter. Cannock Chase Clacton. Cotswold North. Fareham and Waterlooville. Gosport. Great Yarmouth. Huntington. (More Peas John. Oh Yes) Louth and Horncastle. Orpington. Plymouth Moor View. Skipton and Ripon. Suffolk South. Washington and Gateshead South.
Absolute drivel. Just to take one: The Cotswolds voted Remain, Libdems control the council and will be the challengers
Strange 3 way and 4 way marginals can throw up weird outcomes…
Some of these predictions will be proven pretty ridiculous. But the overall result may not be massively out even if constituency predictions are characteristically bonkers.
For instance off the top of my head, I’d say seats that are way more likely to go REF than many on that list (and, to be clear, this isn’t a prediction, just a “if Reform did get 18 seats”) positing:
- South Holland and the Deepings - Gainsborough - North West Norfolk - Maldon - Basildon and Billericay
Far, far more likely to fall than seats like Skipton & Ripon and Cotswold North!
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
No we don't. Putin is Ruthless, patient, Cold and Calculating. Hitler was a nutter liable to make crazy decisions in a fit of rage if crossed.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
Labour to bring in automatic voter registration under plans to boost franchise
Labour is planning to introduce automatic registration for voting under plans to add millions more people to the electoral roll for future elections, especially young people, the Guardian has learned.
Starmer is not going to waste any opportunity to put finger on the scales once he gets power. Where as the Tories spent 14 years not really gaining a massive advantage of the much watered down redrawing constituencies (remember the more radical proposal originally was far fewer seats) and the voter id stuff which is nothing like the gerrymandering type stuff in the US.
I can see a scandal coming of people being auto registered who end up not being eligible.
Votes for 16 and auto enrolment.
How long before compulsory voting ?
I’m guessing the same people who condemned the Tories over their attempts to game the system will be as equally condemnatory here.
Is making it easier to vote, worth equal condemnation with making voting harder?
I don't think that's a reasonable summary of it though.
I don't support the Tories' voter ID changes*, but not all changes 'making it easier to vote' are automatically a good thing.
To take it to an extreme, votes at 12 would be making it easier to vote, but most people would not support that, quite reasonably. Allowing any foreign nationals to vote in all elections would be making it easier to vote, but would that be fair and reasonable, when to my knowledge no country operates that widely?
On votes at 16 I am not in favour of it, but it is a simple change to enact and for whatever reason support for it has been growing among political circles, so I'm more or less resigned to it.
Electoral changes tend to be proposed because those doing it think they will benefit, and whether they do or not not if they are reasonable they stick around. So Labour believing they will gain an advantage is not intrinsically wrong if the principal is still sound, or at least arguable.
But it is also the case that just because something is proposed for a supposedly positive reason, does not mean it is a good idea. Some people support electronic voting as it would be faster and you coudl do it from your phone or something, but in fact it is a terrible idea.
Auto-enrollment I'd need to see more details about, as it sounds reasonable but what is the reason it is not already the case (evil Tories cannot always be the answer).
*Weirdly, Labour are not proposing reversing the Tory voter ID changes.
I partly agree, but it's a straw man to bring in other changes that Labour aren't proposing. I was replying to a post that compared actual Labour and Tory policies, not "extreme" daft ones.
We know there are millions of people not on the electoral rolls. We also know they tend to be younger, more likely to rent etc. I can't think of a strong moral argument for not making it easier for them to take part in our democracy.
It's not a straw man in the slightest because I did not say that Labour's proposals were those extreme ones, nor did I say their actual proposals were equivalent to those extreme ones, so there was no miresrepresentation of their position which I would argue is essential for a straw man argument. Indeed, I went out of my way to say that whilst I do not agree with Labour's position re 16 year olds, that they would probably gain advantage from it is not a sign it is inherently wrong, thus defending their right to do it.
Your post may have been off the back of the specific proposals, but it was presented as a general statement that suggested making it easier to vote was inherently good ("Is making it easier to vote, worth equal condemnation with making voting harder?"). Which is why I focused on that.
The answer would be that it might be worth equal condemnation, depending on what it was.
You're not misrepresenting Labour's arguments, you're misrepresenting mine. Hence the straw man.
My post was only a "general statement" if you take it out of context of the post I replied to. The post I replied to wasn't particularly long, or convoluted, and I even bolded the section in Taz's post that it related to.
If you've read my post without context, then your comments make sense. I'd agree that that if we extend votes to otters it would be worthy of condemnation
Readers added context they thought people might want to know The Conservative Government have been in power since 2010 and have raised overall taxes to their highest level since 1948.
Which is because spending has been raised to its highest level.
This is a country which simultaneously believes:
1) That is has undergone austerity when it hasn't 2) That says it is willing to pay more in tax when it isn't
This denial of reality seems highest among oldies.
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
No we don't. Putin is Ruthless, patient, Cold and Calculating. Hitler was a nutter liable to make crazy decisions in a fit of rage if crossed.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
Putin is actually seen as too soft by the Russians.
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
No we don't. Putin is Ruthless, patient, Cold and Calculating. Hitler was a nutter liable to make crazy decisions in a fit of rage if crossed.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
Putin is a nutter too, who believes his own garbage and spin.
A calculating leader would never have made such a horrendous mistake as to invade Ukraine.
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
No we don't. Putin is Ruthless, patient, Cold and Calculating. Hitler was a nutter liable to make crazy decisions in a fit of rage if crossed.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
Interesting choice of capitalization.
Less emphasis as patience is often seen as a positive virtue.
Labour to bring in automatic voter registration under plans to boost franchise
Labour is planning to introduce automatic registration for voting under plans to add millions more people to the electoral roll for future elections, especially young people, the Guardian has learned.
Starmer is not going to waste any opportunity to put finger on the scales once he gets power. Where as the Tories spent 14 years not really gaining a massive advantage of the much watered down redrawing constituencies (remember the more radical proposal originally was far fewer seats) and the voter id stuff which is nothing like the gerrymandering type stuff in the US.
I can see a scandal coming of people being auto registered who end up not being eligible.
Votes for 16 and auto enrolment.
How long before compulsory voting ?
I’m guessing the same people who condemned the Tories over their attempts to game the system will be as equally condemnatory here.
Is making it easier to vote, worth equal condemnation with making voting harder?
I don't think that's a reasonable summary of it though.
I don't support the Tories' voter ID changes*, but not all changes 'making it easier to vote' are automatically a good thing.
To take it to an extreme, votes at 12 would be making it easier to vote, but most people would not support that, quite reasonably. Allowing any foreign nationals to vote in all elections would be making it easier to vote, but would that be fair and reasonable, when to my knowledge no country operates that widely?
On votes at 16 I am not in favour of it, but it is a simple change to enact and for whatever reason support for it has been growing among political circles, so I'm more or less resigned to it.
Electoral changes tend to be proposed because those doing it think they will benefit, and whether they do or not not if they are reasonable they stick around. So Labour believing they will gain an advantage is not intrinsically wrong if the principal is still sound, or at least arguable.
But it is also the case that just because something is proposed for a supposedly positive reason, does not mean it is a good idea. Some people support electronic voting as it would be faster and you coudl do it from your phone or something, but in fact it is a terrible idea.
Auto-enrollment I'd need to see more details about, as it sounds reasonable but what is the reason it is not already the case (evil Tories cannot always be the answer).
*Weirdly, Labour are not proposing reversing the Tory voter ID changes.
Look at 16 i had an above average interest in politics. But the extent of my knowledge was still comically limited. We are talking pre gcse students here.
I didn't support votes at 16 when I was 16 and I don't now, I think better to raise other outliers (like joining the army) than lower voting age. But it's a quick and easy change which has been set out in the manifesto, so it will happen, and once done I doubt a future Tory government will change it back.
The 18 reform seats in the Mirror / Baxter MRP are:
Ashfield. Barnsley South Boston & Skegness. Broadland and Fakenham. Burton and Uttoxeter. Cannock Chase Clacton. Cotswold North. Fareham and Waterlooville. Gosport. Great Yarmouth. Huntington. (More Peas John. Oh Yes) Louth and Horncastle. Orpington. Plymouth Moor View. Skipton and Ripon. Suffolk South. Washington and Gateshead South.
Absolute drivel. Just to take one: The Cotswolds voted Remain, Libdems control the council and will be the challengers
Yes some bonkers results there.
I’m not immediately pouring cold water on Reform getting that number of seats - they theoretically could though I think highly unlikely - but if I had to pick 18, a good 12-14 of those don’t look like the ones I’d choose.
I note in the Economist version IoW West goes Reform. I think that MRP models break down on such extreme swings in individual seats. A probalistic method might be closer.
So the biggest Reform shares are now with YG, Redfield and Whitestone Insight, the rest are herding 15
Or, alternatively, Farage's fanboism has resulted in the number of people choosing to go Reform falling back somewhat.
It is - of course - entirely possible there is some shy Reform support out there. It is also entirely possible that on election day, many Reform voters decide to vote Conservative because they see that as the best way of preventing Starmer from getting too big a majority, or because they hate the LibDems more than the Conservatives.
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
No we don't. Putin is Ruthless, patient, Cold and Calculating. Hitler was a nutter liable to make crazy decisions in a fit of rage if crossed.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
Putin is actually seen as too soft by the Russians.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know The Conservative Government have been in power since 2010 and have raised overall taxes to their highest level since 1948.
Which is because spending has been raised to its highest level.
This is a country which simultaneously believes:
1) That is has undergone austerity when it hasn't 2) That says it is willing to pay more in tax when it isn't
This denial of reality seems highest among oldies.
The oldies are willing to see workers pay more tax.
If NI is merged with Income Tax then justice will be done and there'll be no extra taxation on working people.
Will Labour use its landslide to grasp that long overdue nettle?
So the biggest Reform shares are now with YG, Redfield and Whitestone Insight, the rest are herding 15
Or, alternatively, Farage's fanboism has resulted in the number of people choosing to go Reform falling back somewhat.
It is - of course - entirely possible there is some shy Reform support out there. It is also entirely possible that on election day, many Reform voters decide to vote Conservative because they see that as the best way of preventing Starmer from getting too big a majority, or because they hate the LibDems more than the Conservatives.
I've found it tricky to find any bets that I feel confident about this GE - just have a few hundred pounds on the main markets which I've built up over many months. Not very exciting at all.
I have placed some small bets recently though - and these revolve around the idea that the pollsters may be edging towards not-mad when reporting their results. I think it's possible that the Tories will get fewer seats than we imagine, as will the LDs, and as will Reform. So I have a very modest bet on Labour over 500 and the LDs under 40. I'm almost certainly mistaken, but the odds seem good enough to make it worthwhile.
Two thoughts, you may be right or it's the old adage - the more you refuse to believe something will happen, the more likely it is to happen.
It's outside our experience therefore we don't accept it.
IF it is wrong and the Conservatives come out the other side with 120 seats there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces. If it's 50-80 seats, it'll be a different story.
What do you think will happen - we still have a week, a lifetime in politics as someone once said. Sunak may be brilliant tonight and rally the Conservative vote but it really is the last orders in the last chance saloon.
Except...
We know the Conservatives will play the social media card hard in the last 72 hours.
The problem is that a lot of votes have already been cast so can't be refused.
Which means I voted Labour and was then presented with a Labour leaflet on small boat migrants that was so misdirected I would have voted Lib Dem if it had arrived 4 hours earlier...
My postal vote remains on the table and won't be used until the weekend for just those reasons.
For instance off the top of my head, I’d say seats that are way more likely to go REF than many on that list (and, to be clear, this isn’t a prediction, just a “if Reform did get 18 seats”) positing:
- South Holland and the Deepings - Gainsborough - North West Norfolk - Maldon - Basildon and Billericay
Far, far more likely to fall than seats like Skipton & Ripon and Cotswold North!
I wouldn't be shocked if the Barnsley Doncaster part of South Yorkshire (where I'm from) returned at least one Reform MP.
Labour’s net zero target could cost ‘hundreds of billions’, leaked audio reveals Shadow chief secretary to the Treasury’s answers at public event suggest party’s spending could go far beyond public declarations
One strange thing about all of this, is it will be using PFI, which was absolutely toxic only a few years ago. The media used to run stories every week about how it cost £300 to change a light bulb or they couldn't mow their own sports field, because a moron from government didn't read the small print of PFI contracts.
I work in this area and “didn’t read the small print of PFI contracts” is a total mischaracterisation of the issue.
I was obviously being somewhat facetious. But particular under last Labour government, huge number of PFI deals were signed that were absolutely terrible for the tax payer.
Not in of their own right. The issue is the gutting of local authority and NHS legal teams and as such the public sector not having any idea what they are entitled to under such contracts, not the contracts themselves in a lot of cases.
Many turned out horrendously expensive, more pay day lender than mortgage.
You’re just talking in Daily Mail soundbites.
Issue is this:
PFI project company stops doing X, which they should be doing under their contract. NHS clinical and facilities staff on the ground grumble but have no knowledge of legal entitlement. The accounts team keeps paying the PFI service charge without deduction because same. Years go by. PFI project company is laughing all the way to the bank.
The problem isn’t the contract, it’s lack of any management of the contract. Perhaps you could argue that is a problem with the contract itself but any long-term contract needs to be managed by a person or team who knows what they’re doing, PFI or not.
Not Daily Mail headlines, people like FT and NAO looked at them...
Third, early PFI projects were shown to be poor value for money, giving equity investors windfall gains not commensurate with the risks they had taken.
The theory is fine, its the implementation of it. The Tories in 2010-2015 tried to improve on them a bit. Lets see if Labour have learned lessons....also remember this is going to be an absolute massive centralised PFI scheme, despite what Labour call it, it is not a National Wealth Fund in the way most people understand it.
My point was also that PFI became toxic in the media, I don't know if they haven't worked out that Labour aren't proposing anything like Saudi Wealth Fund.
You’re arguing with someone who does this for a living. I am just saying it’s not as simple as the headlines often indicate. PFI isn’t inherently bad.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know The Conservative Government have been in power since 2010 and have raised overall taxes to their highest level since 1948.
Which is because spending has been raised to its highest level.
This is a country which simultaneously believes:
1) That is has undergone austerity when it hasn't 2) That says it is willing to pay more in tax when it isn't
This denial of reality seems highest among oldies.
On a somewhat related note there is this from the Guardian:
The Birmingham Dispatch - one of the new breed of local news start-ups - has an in-depth account of the battle for the Sutton Coldfield seat held by Andrew Mitchell for the Conservatives.
After mentioning that Mitchell has been endorsed by Bob Geldof, the reporter continues:
I begin asking [Mitchell] if he thinks he is out of touch with his constituents who earn an average salary of £38,000, but he cuts me off. I’m wrong, he tells me, and I must be referring to the average salary across the country, not in his constituency. “No, you wouldn’t know what the average salary is,” he assures me. “It’s much higher than that.”
“What is it?” I ask him. “No idea. But we are fortunate to be in quite a wealthy area.”
(According to the Office for National Statistics, the mean salary in Sutton Coldfield is £37,506.)
One thing that seems widespread to me is a belief that average wages are far higher than they are.
Which leads to the mentality of 'the rich can pay for everything'.
Well it could be worse, at least the Tories are ahead of Reform still on seats on both MRPs and still ahead of Reform on voteshare on the new polls in all but Findoutnow. Plus also still ahead of the LDs on seats with Wethinkpolling even if not with Findoutnow.
Though yes Rishi really needs to smash it out the park in his debate with Starmer tonight
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
No we don't. Putin is Ruthless, patient, Cold and Calculating. Hitler was a nutter liable to make crazy decisions in a fit of rage if crossed.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
Putin is a nutter too, who believes his own garbage and spin.
A calculating leader would never have made such a horrendous mistake as to invade Ukraine.
All long term leaders suffer from too many people feeding them bullshit because they think that is what they want to hear.
In Russia, Ukrainan control of Crimea and Donbass (and the coast to Odesa and Kharkiv) is seen by many in the same light as Alsace-Lorraine was with France from 1870 to 1918, a historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for venegance.
Well it could be worse, at least the Tories are ahead of Reform still on votes and seats on both MRPs. Plus also still ahead of the LDs on seats with Wethinkpolling even if not with Findoutnow.
Though yes Rishi really needs to smash it out the park in his debate with Starmer tonight
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
So... the moment any country in the world gets nukes, it becomes the interest of the rest of the world to prop up their government?
The 18 reform seats in the Mirror / Baxter MRP are:
Ashfield. Barnsley South Boston & Skegness. Broadland and Fakenham. Burton and Uttoxeter. Cannock Chase Clacton. Cotswold North. Fareham and Waterlooville. Gosport. Great Yarmouth. Huntington. (More Peas John. Oh Yes) Louth and Horncastle. Orpington. Plymouth Moor View. Skipton and Ripon. Suffolk South. Washington and Gateshead South.
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
No we don't. Putin is Ruthless, patient, Cold and Calculating. Hitler was a nutter liable to make crazy decisions in a fit of rage if crossed.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
Putin is a nutter too, who believes his own garbage and spin.
A calculating leader would never have made such a horrendous mistake as to invade Ukraine.
All long term leaders suffer from too many people feeding them bullshit because they think that is what they want to hear.
In Russia, Ukrainan control of Crimea and Donbass (and the coast to Odesa and Kharkiv is seen by many in the same light as Alsace-Lorraine was with France from 1870 to 1918, a historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for venegance.
A country that votes approximate 33% for centre/right parties is not going to sustain for long a Labour vs Lib Dem main battle. FPTP or no FPTP.
Reform and the Tories would merge under FPTP if the LDs were ahead of them both on seats, it would just be a matter of time. Only PR would keep them separate parties as they could win much more seats that reflect their voteshare with PR than FPTP even if they still divide the right of centre vote
"Readers added context they thought people might want to know The Conservative Government have been in power since 2010 and have raised overall taxes to their highest level since 1948."
For instance off the top of my head, I’d say seats that are way more likely to go REF than many on that list (and, to be clear, this isn’t a prediction, just a “if Reform did get 18 seats”) positing:
- South Holland and the Deepings - Gainsborough - North West Norfolk - Maldon - Basildon and Billericay
Far, far more likely to fall than seats like Skipton & Ripon and Cotswold North!
I wouldn't be shocked if the Barnsley Doncaster part of South Yorkshire (where I'm from) returned at least one Reform MP.
Rotherham constituency is perhaps the most likely as it doesn't have a Conservative candidate.
So the biggest Reform shares are now with YG, Redfield and Whitestone Insight, the rest are herding 15
Or, alternatively, Farage's fanboism has resulted in the number of people choosing to go Reform falling back somewhat.
It is - of course - entirely possible there is some shy Reform support out there. It is also entirely possible that on election day, many Reform voters decide to vote Conservative because they see that as the best way of preventing Starmer from getting too big a majority, or because they hate the LibDems more than the Conservatives.
18 Reform seats seems far too high, I have more faith in the country that it won't vote in that many Quislings.
Given your (correct imo) assessment of Farage as a grubby little racist it still surprises me that you voted for him in 2019. Ok, the Euro elections, but still. I would have thought no nose-peg could have been quite strong enough.
I voted for him to be ousted from [the European] Parliament, not elected into it.
And Theresa "Go Home" May was not much of a better alternative.
Yes I know the thinking. But I also know if I despised a politician as much as you do Nigel Farage, considered him a vile racist, I would need an unbelievably compelling reason to vote for them in any election under any circumstances. I guess your dislike of our EU membership was so strong as to be that reason. Quite something really when you think about it. And never again, one hopes.
Not my dislike of the EU, I was torn whether to vote Leave or Remain until the last minute and had entered the campaign backing Remain but was won over by Richard_Tyndall, Casino_Royale and others.
My desire to get him removed from Parliament, Theresa May removed as PM, as well as my belief in democracy and that having made a decision to Leave in 2016 that decision should be respected.
But yes it was absolutely sui generis and never again.
Sounds like your vote for Nigel Farage was in your mind a vote against Nigel Farage then. Interesting way of looking at it. We were just talking earlier about "thinking outside the box". Good example right here.
Even if I believed that RefUK was going to gain 19 seats, I can not believe that they will gain *these* seats.
I mean, I get it that the working class Tories are defecting en masse some to Reform, some to Labour (equally middle class Tories are defecting en masse to the Liberal Democrats). However, there is not the concentration or the organisation to get the Reform candidates over they line in very many places. Now, of course there *could* be some high paid US analyst Svengali directing things for Farage, but who is it? The quality of candidates and the slapdash campaign shows no evidence that RefUK has a particularly professional campaign, let alone some stealth weapon. So I am beginning to think that much of this polling is not going to be borne out in reality. The Tories do have very expensive voter ID software and the means to target their message, a capability they have demonstrated on numerous occasions, Reform shows no evidence of having such sophisticated campaign tools, let alone knowing how to use them.
I get it that the Tories are in meltdown, and even the seats they win will be held very very thin margins, but head to head, I´d still give the edge to the Tories. RefUk will, on a fantastic night, get Farage, Anderson and maybe three others. These polls seem to be much more media fluff than political reality on the ground.
A country that votes approximate 33% for centre/right parties is not going to sustain for long a Labour vs Lib Dem main battle. FPTP or no FPTP.
Reform and the Tories would merge under FPTP if the LDs were ahead of them both on seats, it would just be a matter of time. Only PR would keep them separate parties as they could win much more seats that reflect their voteshare with PR than FPTP even if they still divide the right of centre vote
If the Tories merge with Farage's Reform then any decent Tory MPs would have little choice but to cross the floor to the Lib Dems or someone else.
18 Reform seats seems far too high, I have more faith in the country that it won't vote in that many Quislings.
Given your (correct imo) assessment of Farage as a grubby little racist it still surprises me that you voted for him in 2019. Ok, the Euro elections, but still. I would have thought no nose-peg could have been quite strong enough.
I voted for him to be ousted from [the European] Parliament, not elected into it.
And Theresa "Go Home" May was not much of a better alternative.
Yes I know the thinking. But I also know if I despised a politician as much as you do Nigel Farage, considered him a vile racist, I would need an unbelievably compelling reason to vote for them in any election under any circumstances. I guess your dislike of our EU membership was so strong as to be that reason. Quite something really when you think about it. And never again, one hopes.
Not my dislike of the EU, I was torn whether to vote Leave or Remain until the last minute and had entered the campaign backing Remain but was won over by Richard_Tyndall, Casino_Royale and others.
My desire to get him removed from Parliament, Theresa May removed as PM, as well as my belief in democracy and that having made a decision to Leave in 2016 that decision should be respected.
But yes it was absolutely sui generis and never again.
Sounds like your vote for Nigel Farage was in your mind a vote against Nigel Farage then. Interesting way of looking at it. We were just talking earlier about "thinking outside the box". Good example right here.
Yes, it was a vote that got him out of Parliament. He's a has-been now who is not an elected representative.
"Readers added context they thought people might want to know The Conservative Government have been in power since 2010 and have raised overall taxes to their highest level since 1948."
Yep. Fails on two levels. Firstly, as you say, mentioning tax just brings back out the fact that tax is high thanks to thresholds. But secondly, it is just shit. Like a child yelling hysterically: "I won't, I won't, I won't..."
Con social media is clearly being run by someone's nephew who "knows about these things".
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
No we don't. Putin is Ruthless, patient, Cold and Calculating. Hitler was a nutter liable to make crazy decisions in a fit of rage if crossed.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
Putin is a nutter too, who believes his own garbage and spin.
A calculating leader would never have made such a horrendous mistake as to invade Ukraine.
All long term leaders suffer from too many people feeding them bullshit because they think that is what they want to hear.
In Russia, Ukrainan control of Crimea and Donbass (and the coast to Odesa and Kharkiv is seen by many in the same light as Alsace-Lorraine was with France from 1870 to 1918, a historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for venegance.
Putin never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. He has by his actions created a Ukranian nationalist consciousness in places that never had it before, and earned the permanent opposition of Russian speaking Ukranians.
In very much the same way that British actions over the 1916 Easter rising and the Black and Tans created Nationalist Ireland.
Even if I believed that RefUK was going to gain 19 seats, I can not believe that they will gain *these* seats.
I mean, I get it that the working class Tories are defecting en masse some to Reform, some to Labour (equally middle class Tories are defecting en masse to the Liberal Democrats). However, there is not the concentration or the organisation to get the Reform candidates over they line in very many places. Now, of course there *could* be some high paid US analyst Svengali directing things for Farage, but who is it? The quality of candidates and the slapdash campaign shows no evidence that RefUK has a particular professional campaign, let alone some stealth weapon. So I am beginning to think that much of this polling is not going to be borne out in reality. The Tories do have very expensive voter ID software and the means to target their message, a capability they have demonstrated on numerous occasions, Reform shows no evidence of having such sophisticated campaign tools, let alone knowing how to use them.
I get it that the Tories are in meltdown, and even the seats they win will be held very very thin margins, but head to head, I´d still give the edge to the Tories. RefUk will, on a fantastic night, get Farage, Anderson and maybe three others. These polls seem to be much more media fluff than political reality on the ground.
Middle class Tories are not 'defecting en masse' to the LDs. The LDs are polling no higher or not much higher than 2019 and still lower than they got from 1997-2010, indeed they have leaked more to the Sunak Tories as a percentage of their vote than the Sunak Tories have leaked to the LDs, just the latter is a bigger group.
Labour are also polling closer to Corbyn 2017 than Blair 1997 levels now too.
No the big leakage remains Tory to Reform, as you say especially of working class Leavers who backed Boris in 2019. Almost every poll for example now has Reform higher even than UKIP got in 2015
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
No we don't. Putin is Ruthless, patient, Cold and Calculating. Hitler was a nutter liable to make crazy decisions in a fit of rage if crossed.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
Putin is a nutter too, who believes his own garbage and spin.
A calculating leader would never have made such a horrendous mistake as to invade Ukraine.
All long term leaders suffer from too many people feeding them bullshit because they think that is what they want to hear.
In Russia, Ukrainan control of Crimea and Donbass (and the coast to Odesa and Kharkiv is seen by many in the same light as Alsace-Lorraine was with France from 1870 to 1918, a historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for venegance.
So what?
Lots of Brits thought Calais was British.
Not in the last 200 years or so.
Altbough you might be forgiven for thinking so in the heyday of booze cruises.
"Readers added context they thought people might want to know The Conservative Government have been in power since 2010 and have raised overall taxes to their highest level since 1948."
Yep. Fails on two levels. Firstly, as you say, mentioning tax just brings back out the fact that tax is high thanks to thresholds. But secondly, it is just shit. Like a child yelling hysterically: "I won't, I won't, I won't..."
Con social media is clearly being run by someone's nephew who "knows about these things".
I think it's more that they nothing positive to talk about, no decent ideas and are just going for any attack point they can think of.
See the earlier post where they misquoted Martin Lewis - literally the most trusted person in the country when it comes to money...
Even if I believed that RefUK was going to gain 19 seats, I can not believe that they will gain *these* seats.
I mean, I get it that the working class Tories are defecting en masse some to Reform, some to Labour (equally middle class Tories are defecting en masse to the Liberal Democrats). However, there is not the concentration or the organisation to get the Reform candidates over they line in very many places. Now, of course there *could* be some high paid US analyst Svengali directing things for Farage, but who is it? The quality of candidates and the slapdash campaign shows no evidence that RefUK has a particular professional campaign, let alone some stealth weapon. So I am beginning to think that much of this polling is not going to be borne out in reality. The Tories do have very expensive voter ID software and the means to target their message, a capability they have demonstrated on numerous occasions, Reform shows no evidence of having such sophisticated campaign tools, let alone knowing how to use them.
I get it that the Tories are in meltdown, and even the seats they win will be held very very thin margins, but head to head, I´d still give the edge to the Tories. RefUk will, on a fantastic night, get Farage, Anderson and maybe three others. These polls seem to be much more media fluff than political reality on the ground.
The only thing I would say there is I am not sure whether the Tory machine is really even functioning now. It feels like the whole apparatus of the party has just collapsed and it doesn’t know what to do. Rudderless and heading for the falls…
That doesn’t make a Reform breakthrough in loads of seats hugely likely (I agree with your final paragraph re Reform seats), but just an observation.
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
No we don't. Putin is Ruthless, patient, Cold and Calculating. Hitler was a nutter liable to make crazy decisions in a fit of rage if crossed.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
Putin is a nutter too, who believes his own garbage and spin.
A calculating leader would never have made such a horrendous mistake as to invade Ukraine.
All long term leaders suffer from too many people feeding them bullshit because they think that is what they want to hear.
In Russia, Ukrainan control of Crimea and Donbass (and the coast to Odesa and Kharkiv) is seen by many in the same light as Alsace-Lorraine was with France from 1870 to 1918, a historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for venegance.
How many other countries are entitled to invade their neighbours to right a 'historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for vengeance' ?
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
No we don't. Putin is Ruthless, patient, Cold and Calculating. Hitler was a nutter liable to make crazy decisions in a fit of rage if crossed.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
Putin is a nutter too, who believes his own garbage and spin.
A calculating leader would never have made such a horrendous mistake as to invade Ukraine.
All long term leaders suffer from too many people feeding them bullshit because they think that is what they want to hear.
In Russia, Ukrainan control of Crimea and Donbass (and the coast to Odesa and Kharkiv is seen by many in the same light as Alsace-Lorraine was with France from 1870 to 1918, a historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for venegance.
Putin never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. He has by his actions created a Ukranian nationalist consciousness in places that never had it before, and earned the permanent opposition of Russian speaking Ukranians.
In very much the same way that British actions over the 1916 Easter rising and the Black and Tans created Nationalist Ireland.
But doubled down in the six Oblasts Counties.
Its going to end up with Ulster type partition.
And yes just as much strong feelings on both sides of that partition.
The 18 reform seats in the Mirror / Baxter MRP are:
Ashfield. Barnsley South Boston & Skegness. Broadland and Fakenham. Burton and Uttoxeter. Cannock Chase Clacton. Cotswold North. Fareham and Waterlooville. Gosport. Great Yarmouth. Huntington. (More Peas John. Oh Yes) Louth and Horncastle. Orpington. Plymouth Moor View. Skipton and Ripon. Suffolk South. Washington and Gateshead South.
Absolute drivel. Just to take one: The Cotswolds voted Remain, Libdems control the council and will be the challengers
Yes. Reform on 18 adds to the fascination of this gothic horror but this isn't going to happen. The post mortems are going to be extensive.
The 18 reform seats in the Mirror / Baxter MRP are:
Ashfield. Barnsley South Boston & Skegness. Broadland and Fakenham. Burton and Uttoxeter. Cannock Chase Clacton. Cotswold North. Fareham and Waterlooville. Gosport. Great Yarmouth. Huntington. (More Peas John. Oh Yes) Louth and Horncastle. Orpington. Plymouth Moor View. Skipton and Ripon. Suffolk South. Washington and Gateshead South.
Absolute drivel. Just to take one: The Cotswolds voted Remain, Libdems control the council and will be the challengers
Yes. Reform on 18 adds to the fascination of this gothic horror but this isn't going to happen. The post mortems are going to be extensive.
Tbe baxter projection on their website is minimum 9, maximum 99, projected 19.
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
No we don't. Putin is Ruthless, patient, Cold and Calculating. Hitler was a nutter liable to make crazy decisions in a fit of rage if crossed.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
Putin is a nutter too, who believes his own garbage and spin.
A calculating leader would never have made such a horrendous mistake as to invade Ukraine.
All long term leaders suffer from too many people feeding them bullshit because they think that is what they want to hear.
In Russia, Ukrainan control of Crimea and Donbass (and the coast to Odesa and Kharkiv is seen by many in the same light as Alsace-Lorraine was with France from 1870 to 1918, a historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for venegance.
So what?
Lots of Brits thought Calais was British.
Not in the last 200 years or so.
Altbough you might be forgiven for thinking so in the heyday of booze cruises.
You think that Charles Stuart is drinking himself to death in Rome and Admiral Anson is commanding the Royal Navy?
I’m unconvinced by these MRPs. In fact, I’m going from unconvinced to downright sceptical.
I think I’m going to return to national polls only and stay measured. I’ll stick with my prediction:
Lab 39 Con 25 LibDem 15 Ref 14 Green 4
Conservatives on 140 seats. Labour majority 160
It's an astonishing gap between the 15 of Find out now and the 25 of JL Partners. Its like a poll showing Labour on 50 followed by one on 30. I think your figures are about right, although I think LD a little lower, 12ish
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
No we don't. Putin is Ruthless, patient, Cold and Calculating. Hitler was a nutter liable to make crazy decisions in a fit of rage if crossed.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
Putin is a nutter too, who believes his own garbage and spin.
A calculating leader would never have made such a horrendous mistake as to invade Ukraine.
All long term leaders suffer from too many people feeding them bullshit because they think that is what they want to hear.
In Russia, Ukrainan control of Crimea and Donbass (and the coast to Odesa and Kharkiv) is seen by many in the same light as Alsace-Lorraine was with France from 1870 to 1918, a historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for venegance.
How many other countries are entitled to invade their neighbours to right a 'historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for vengeance' ?
None, but it happens and they get away with it when they are too big to stop without unacceptable consequences. See China/Tibet for example.
So the biggest Reform shares are now with YG, Redfield and Whitestone Insight, the rest are herding 15
Or, alternatively, Farage's fanboism has resulted in the number of people choosing to go Reform falling back somewhat.
It is - of course - entirely possible there is some shy Reform support out there. It is also entirely possible that on election day, many Reform voters decide to vote Conservative because they see that as the best way of preventing Starmer from getting too big a majority, or because they hate the LibDems more than the Conservatives.
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
No we don't. Putin is Ruthless, patient, Cold and Calculating. Hitler was a nutter liable to make crazy decisions in a fit of rage if crossed.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
Putin is a nutter too, who believes his own garbage and spin.
A calculating leader would never have made such a horrendous mistake as to invade Ukraine.
All long term leaders suffer from too many people feeding them bullshit because they think that is what they want to hear.
In Russia, Ukrainan control of Crimea and Donbass (and the coast to Odesa and Kharkiv is seen by many in the same light as Alsace-Lorraine was with France from 1870 to 1918, a historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for venegance.
Putin never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. He has by his actions created a Ukranian nationalist consciousness in places that never had it before, and earned the permanent opposition of Russian speaking Ukranians.
In very much the same way that British actions over the 1916 Easter rising and the Black and Tans created Nationalist Ireland.
But doubled down in the six Oblasts Counties.
Its going to end up with Ulster type partition.
And yes just as much strong feelings on both sides of that partition.
Thats just reality.
It's hard to tell, for obvious reasons, but I doubt that pro-Russian sentiment in Russian-occupied Ukraine is as strong as pro-British sentiment in Northern Ireland.
You don't have to be a Putin fan to accept that no one is going to evict him from the six counties oblasts (five in Ukraine plus Transdinistra) any time soon and an armistice with partition, then support to make it stick a la South Korea is better than continuing the slaughter and risking it escalating further, and being of the view that interfering in other countries affairs on sanctimonious moral grounds often disguising vested interests (Ukraine 2014, Libya 2011, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 2003-2022, Iran 1953 ends up causing far worse problems than the ones they were intended to resolve.
Remember: invading is usually the easy part.
And it's the occupation that usually kills you.
Those Oblasts will be a constant resource drain on the Russian economy, in terms of men and material, and they will produce bugger all tax revenue.
And all the time, Russia will grow economically weaker. It is utterly dependent on energy exports, and it has completely fucked itself.
And it is hard to consider but Putin will die. He might be like my dad and think he won't, but he will. And the world will be a better place.
You are joking?
Whoever replaces Putin will be far worse (if we are lucky he might be less skilled at the art of politics (unless less skilled in the Kaiser Bill sense).
One reason Putin went in in 2022 was becsause it was a domestic issue big enough that he might have been vulnerable to hardliners if he didn't.
And so we get closer to house in the Russia talking points bingo. “Whoever succeeds Putin will be worse!” Tell that to Ukrainians being subjected to all out war and the attempted obliteration of their country and culture.
Seriously, that is straight from the textbook. And if you follow the history of deposed or naturally dying tyrants, most of the time it’s bogus.
You can presumably point to some solid indications that if Putin falls, he will be replaced by a nice, moderate pro-Westerner? Or perhaps some case studies of other nasty dictators that the West has toppled recently leading to the establishment of a nice, pro-Western peace-loving democracy? Or do people just keep saying it because it's not a bad best guess?
That’s Russia’s business, not Tim’s. Which was his point, if you didn’t get it.
If we end up with Libya, except with nukes, that's everyone's business - that is everyone sane's point, in case you're struggling.
Or 1930s Germany with Nukes.
That's effectively what we have now you pillock. Putin's already tried his version of annexing the Sudatenland, only with more violence.
No we don't. Putin is Ruthless, patient, Cold and Calculating. Hitler was a nutter liable to make crazy decisions in a fit of rage if crossed.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
Putin is a nutter too, who believes his own garbage and spin.
A calculating leader would never have made such a horrendous mistake as to invade Ukraine.
All long term leaders suffer from too many people feeding them bullshit because they think that is what they want to hear.
In Russia, Ukrainan control of Crimea and Donbass (and the coast to Odesa and Kharkiv is seen by many in the same light as Alsace-Lorraine was with France from 1870 to 1918, a historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for venegance.
18 Reform seats seems far too high, I have more faith in the country that it won't vote in that many Quislings.
I agree; but if it did turn out that way (i.e. LD 71 C 60 R 18) would the prospect of being able to grab "official opposition" status back from the LDs make a merger wih Reform seem too attractive to decline for whoever is controlling the Tory party at that point?
I think if the Tories are reduced to below 100, which is likely, then whether Reform get 1 seat or 18 only matters in terms of negotiating position - whoever leads the Tories at that point will probably be desperate for merger or alliance.
As some speculate it might cost them a few Wets, but in terms of voter base it would probably be much larger.
However this is two scorpions in a small cage. How keen will sane Tories be to negotiate a deal with a Potemkin party who (a) ran candidates who publicly fellow travelled with fascists and (b) ensured the demolition of the Tories. The aftermath and lattermath won't be dull.
Comments
Issue is this:
PFI project company stops doing X, which they should be doing under their contract. NHS clinical and facilities staff on the ground grumble but have no knowledge of legal entitlement. The accounts team keeps paying the PFI service charge without deduction because same. Years go by. PFI project company is laughing all the way to the bank.
The problem isn’t the contract, it’s lack of any management of the contract. Perhaps you could argue that is a problem with the contract itself but any long-term contract needs to be managed by a person or team who knows what they’re doing, PFI or not.
One area they are depressingly competent is maintaining their power and person.
And if the riposte is what about nukes, then we might as well anticipate a nuclear attack from the significantly crazier North Korea at any moment.
Likewise Skipton and Ripon
I don't know what they are drinking but neither of those seats have a chance of going reform unless it's a 4 way vote and reform sneak in by a few votes of 25% of the vote.
We know there are millions of people not on the electoral rolls. We also know they tend to be younger, more likely to rent etc. I can't think of a strong moral argument for not making it easier for them to take part in our democracy.
Third, early PFI projects were shown to be poor value for money, giving equity investors windfall gains not commensurate with the risks they had taken.
PFI discredited by cost, complexity and inflexibility
https://www.ft.com/content/4c52dde0-a2c1-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c98a2
UK finance watchdog exposes lost PFI billions
https://www.ft.com/content/db1b5c66-fba7-11e7-9b32-d7d59aace167
The theory is fine, its the implementation of it. The Tories in 2010-2015 tried to improve on them a bit. Lets see if Labour have learned lessons....also remember this is going to be an absolute massive centralised PFI scheme, despite what Labour call it, it is not a National Wealth Fund in the way most people understand it.
My point was also that PFI became toxic in the media, I don't know if they haven't worked out that Labour aren't proposing anything like Saudi Wealth Fund.
No, the other party are "Find Out Now" according to the OP who linked to it.
I remember before the 2015 election, feeling that some of the lib dem MPs would survive, surely...
I think I was still in denial at that point.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/calcwork23.py?seat=Cotswolds North
Looks like Baxter website updated? now has Cotswolds North going Reform
What would go up during a Labour government? Tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax...
https://x.com/Conservatives/status/1805932619856548153
(The word tax is then repeated about 200 times)
My desire to get him removed from Parliament, Theresa May removed as PM, as well as my belief in democracy and that having made a decision to Leave in 2016 that decision should be respected.
But yes it was absolutely sui generis and never again.
Website now updated and showing 19 Reform seats
It's you who's suggesting we have some sort of influence over who runs Russia. That's just nuts.
I’m not immediately pouring cold water on Reform getting that number of seats - they theoretically could though I think highly unlikely - but if I had to pick 18, a good 12-14 of those don’t look like the ones I’d choose.
Your post may have been off the back of the specific proposals, but it was presented as a general statement that suggested making it easier to vote was inherently good ("Is making it easier to vote, worth equal condemnation with making voting harder?"). Which is why I focused on that.
The answer would be that it might be worth equal condemnation, depending on what it was.
They seemingly have almost nowt in common with each other.
Putin is going to die at some point. His successor may or may not be as much of a mobster and monster as him. But that’s up to them as much as the US choosing a madman like Trump. The people who worry loudly about Putin’s successor being worse are always, always, the same as those who say we should leave Ukraine to be carved up and do a deal with the fascists currently in charge.
Much the same time as that Referendum declaration in Sunderland
For those who don't know the Cotswolds, this is roughly equivalent to Jaywick voting for the Rejoin EU party.
(Northleach, on the other hand, I could believe.)
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
The Conservative Government have been in power since 2010 and have raised overall taxes to their highest level since 1948.
Heseltine will be on blaming Brexit
Osbourne will say the party was too nasty to.immigrants.
It will be a total riot.
Hitler would probably have nuked Kiev after the Kerch Bridge was attacked.
- South Holland and the Deepings
- Gainsborough
- North West Norfolk
- Maldon
- Basildon and Billericay
Far, far more likely to fall than seats like Skipton & Ripon and Cotswold North!
My post was only a "general statement" if you take it out of context of the post I replied to. The post I replied to wasn't particularly long, or convoluted, and I even bolded the section in Taz's post that it related to.
If you've read my post without context, then your comments make sense. I'd agree that that if we extend votes to otters it would be worthy of condemnation
This is a country which simultaneously believes:
1) That is has undergone austerity when it hasn't
2) That says it is willing to pay more in tax when it isn't
This denial of reality seems highest among oldies.
A calculating leader would never have made such a horrendous mistake as to invade Ukraine.
I nearly left it out for that reason.
It is - of course - entirely possible there is some shy Reform support out there. It is also entirely possible that on election day, many Reform voters decide to vote Conservative because they see that as the best way of preventing Starmer from getting too big a majority, or because they hate the LibDems more than the Conservatives.
We'll find out in eight days time.
If NI is merged with Income Tax then justice will be done and there'll be no extra taxation on working people.
Will Labour use its landslide to grasp that long overdue nettle?
Reform on 18 seats with this MRP
I have placed some small bets recently though - and these revolve around the idea that the pollsters may be edging towards not-mad when reporting their results. I think it's possible that the Tories will get fewer seats than we imagine, as will the LDs, and as will Reform. So I have a very modest bet on Labour over 500 and the LDs under 40. I'm almost certainly mistaken, but the odds seem good enough to make it worthwhile.
The Birmingham Dispatch - one of the new breed of local news start-ups - has an in-depth account of the battle for the Sutton Coldfield seat held by Andrew Mitchell for the Conservatives.
After mentioning that Mitchell has been endorsed by Bob Geldof, the reporter continues:
I begin asking [Mitchell] if he thinks he is out of touch with his constituents who earn an average salary of £38,000, but he cuts me off. I’m wrong, he tells me, and I must be referring to the average salary across the country, not in his constituency. “No, you wouldn’t know what the average salary is,” he assures me. “It’s much higher than that.”
“What is it?” I ask him. “No idea. But we are fortunate to be in quite a wealthy area.”
(According to the Office for National Statistics, the mean salary in Sutton Coldfield is £37,506.)
One thing that seems widespread to me is a belief that average wages are far higher than they are.
Which leads to the mentality of 'the rich can pay for everything'.
For all the obsession about converting brownfield sites into new housing they are very ecologically interested if re-wilded instead.
Though yes Rishi really needs to smash it out the park in his debate with Starmer tonight
In Russia, Ukrainan control of Crimea and Donbass (and the coast to Odesa and Kharkiv) is seen by many in the same light as Alsace-Lorraine was with France from 1870 to 1918, a historic monumental wrong crying out to heaven for venegance.
Lots of Brits thought Calais was British.
The Conservative Government have been in power since 2010 and have raised overall taxes to their highest level since 1948."
I will get my coat
I mean, I get it that the working class Tories are defecting en masse some to Reform, some to Labour (equally middle class Tories are defecting en masse to the Liberal Democrats). However, there is not the concentration or the organisation to get the Reform candidates over they line in very many places. Now, of course there *could* be some high paid US analyst Svengali directing things for Farage, but who is it? The quality of candidates and the slapdash campaign shows no evidence that RefUK has a particularly professional campaign, let alone some stealth weapon. So I am beginning to think that much of this polling is not going to be borne out in reality. The Tories do have very expensive voter ID software and the means to target their message, a capability they have demonstrated on numerous occasions, Reform shows no evidence of having such sophisticated campaign tools, let alone knowing how to use them.
I get it that the Tories are in meltdown, and even the seats they win will be held very very thin margins, but head to head, I´d still give the edge to the Tories. RefUk will, on a fantastic night, get Farage, Anderson and maybe three others. These polls seem to be much more media fluff than political reality on the ground.
Good riddance.
Con social media is clearly being run by someone's nephew who "knows about these things".
In very much the same way that British actions over the 1916 Easter rising and the Black and Tans created Nationalist Ireland.
Labour are also polling closer to Corbyn 2017 than Blair 1997 levels now too.
No the big leakage remains Tory to Reform, as you say especially of working class Leavers who backed Boris in 2019. Almost every poll for example now has Reform higher even than UKIP got in 2015
Altbough you might be forgiven for thinking so in the heyday of booze cruises.
See the earlier post where they misquoted Martin Lewis - literally the most trusted person in the country when it comes to money...
I think I’m going to return to national polls only and stay measured. I’ll stick with my prediction:
Lab 39
Con 25
LibDem 15
Ref 14
Green 4
Conservatives on 140 seats. Labour majority 160
That doesn’t make a Reform breakthrough in loads of seats hugely likely (I agree with your final paragraph re Reform seats), but just an observation.
Its going to end up with Ulster type partition.
And yes just as much strong feelings on both sides of that partition.
Thats just reality.
I think your figures are about right, although I think LD a little lower, 12ish
(But hopefully with some more CON seats in the end)
👍
Or India /Goa.
Con 100 seats or more is 2.96!