35,000 casualties a month would be completely unsustainable. The fact that the situation is being sustained tells you that the 1,200/day figure is bullshit.
No-one is expecting them to be able to sustain it indefinitely. That's the point. At the moment the figure is roughly equally to the estimated figure of new recruits that Russia is mobilising - so they are able to sustain that casualty rate for now.
The Russians have gone to great lengths to find non-Russians to fight and die for them in Ukraine, which certainly helps in making the casualty rate sustainable.
I think the point he is making is that taking casualty figures put out by the other side at face value is not necessarily wise if you intend to use the figures for serious debate rather than feelgood.
We had friends in Spain during the Falklands war who were breathlessly told by the Spanish media that HMS invincible had been sunk three times in a week.
Both sides are taking far too many casualties. History will judge Putin very badly for starting such a pointless slaughter.
To be fair one casualty is too many.
There’s an easy way to stop the slaughter, and that’s for the Russians to go back to Russia and leave Ukraine to the Ukranians.
The key point is going to be the US election in November and I think the Russians are hanging on and hoping that changes the strategic position of the US. The new government in the UK and the EU should be ramping up production far more than they are just in case they need to fill that gap.
The election doesn't matter as much any more. Even if the mortal remains of Biden manage to get re-elected he won't be getting another Ukraine loot drop through Congress in its current form.
I think for Biden to win given his current personal popularity likely implies the Dems get The House back? The GOP probably still get the Senate but not by huge margin and the Senate GOP are a lot less Putinist than The House.
35,000 casualties a month would be completely unsustainable. The fact that the situation is being sustained tells you that the 1,200/day figure is bullshit.
No-one is expecting them to be able to sustain it indefinitely. That's the point. At the moment the figure is roughly equally to the estimated figure of new recruits that Russia is mobilising - so they are able to sustain that casualty rate for now.
The Russians have gone to great lengths to find non-Russians to fight and die for them in Ukraine, which certainly helps in making the casualty rate sustainable.
I think the point he is making is that taking casualty figures put out by the other side at face value is not necessarily wise if you intend to use the figures for serious debate rather than feelgood.
We had friends in Spain during the Falklands war who were breathlessly told by the Spanish media that HMS invincible had been sunk three times in a week.
Both sides are taking far too many casualties. History will judge Putin very badly for starting such a pointless slaughter.
To be fair one casualty is too many.
There’s an easy way to stop the slaughter, and that’s for the Russians to go back to Russia and leave Ukraine to the Ukranians.
About as likely as the DUP supporting union with Dublin.
NY Times is all in on bringing him down. The vibe I'm seeing all over the place is that he'll go and Harris will be the nominee with no contested convention.
One big question is whether he leaves now and Harris becomes president. Great for her because she'd get incumbency and the chance to define herself much better. But the big problem is that she would need to get her new VP confirmed by both houses. No way the MAGA wing wouldn't try and cause mayhem. But stiil I think the Ds may go for it - the house wasn't able to impeach Biden because there are a handful of sane Republicans running in purple districts who need to run on being centerist.
I don't think the VP thing is a problem, she doesn't need one day-to-day and the GOP will make themselves look bad refusing to vote on them.
Yeah like looking bad has ever (well, since the Tea Party days) discouraged the GOP from acting with partisan malice.
Question - if President Harris has no VP, do Dems lose control of the Senate?
Still think Whitmer would stand a better chance of beating Trump.
Good question. Yes the Senate would be 50-50 with no VP, so the Dems would need to pick off a Republican or two to get things passed.
Whitmer is IMHO the best of the suggested replacement candidates.
Whitmer is probably the best of the replacement candidates, as she would ensure the Democrats carried Michigan comfortably. She's sensible and coherent and centrist.
I would prefer to see (from a straight enjoying the contest perspective) Buttigieg or Ossoff, though, simply because the contrast between Trump and them would be so great.
I think Newsom is dreadful.
It's highly unlikely that the Democrats would cast aside Harris for Newsom, who'd very likely do worse in the election.
And the idea being floated of a 'mini primary' ahead of the convention also seems somewhat far fetched.
I think if Biden goes then the odds are around 3 or 4/1 in favour of Harris.
35,000 casualties a month would be completely unsustainable. The fact that the situation is being sustained tells you that the 1,200/day figure is bullshit.
No-one is expecting them to be able to sustain it indefinitely. That's the point. At the moment the figure is roughly equally to the estimated figure of new recruits that Russia is mobilising - so they are able to sustain that casualty rate for now.
The Russians have gone to great lengths to find non-Russians to fight and die for them in Ukraine, which certainly helps in making the casualty rate sustainable.
I think the point he is making is that taking casualty figures put out by the other side at face value is not necessarily wise if you intend to use the figures for serious debate rather than feelgood.
We had friends in Spain during the Falklands war who were breathlessly told by the Spanish media that HMS invincible had been sunk three times in a week.
Both sides are taking far too many casualties. History will judge Putin very badly for starting such a pointless slaughter.
Tomorrow is a public holiday in the US. I plan on getting up early, getting on my bike, and successfully getting to the top of Kenter Canyon (which is a brutal Category 2/3 climb on Strava). It does involve passing the VP's California residence on my way up, so I will wave as I pass.
Then barbeque with the family (I have a big steak I'm looking to cook), before a quick check of the exit poll at 2pm (10pm). At about 4pm, I will settle in by my computer with a bottle of wine to enjoy the show.
There may be some mild betting activity.
Thanks for all you do to keep the oils of this site running Robert, especially from the other side of the water even if it is a global site.
She’s awoken this morning to tell me she’s not now sure that she will vote Conservative!
“Genuinely conflicted this morning” is her comment.
I made no attempt to persuade her but we both agreed that it’s important to vote.
I suspect there are an awful lot of tories like her. Perhaps this really will be a bad night for them.
The most important thing is that she votes. I've said this to undecideds at every election - VOTE. If you don't vote then you have no voice, so you can't really moan about the government / council because you abstained.
And again, this country clung on by its fingertips for the right to vote. Women battled and protested and died for the right to vote. Voting matters.
I suspect @Heathener that your friend like so many Tories will simply stay at home. I'd rather she came out and voted positively for someone, but a -1 on the Tory tally still has its value to all of us who want to see them destroyed today.
35,000 casualties a month would be completely unsustainable. The fact that the situation is being sustained tells you that the 1,200/day figure is bullshit.
No-one is expecting them to be able to sustain it indefinitely. That's the point. At the moment the figure is roughly equally to the estimated figure of new recruits that Russia is mobilising - so they are able to sustain that casualty rate for now.
The Russians have gone to great lengths to find non-Russians to fight and die for them in Ukraine, which certainly helps in making the casualty rate sustainable.
I think the point he is making is that taking casualty figures put out by the other side at face value is not necessarily wise if you intend to use the figures for serious debate rather than feelgood.
We had friends in Spain during the Falklands war who were breathlessly told by the Spanish media that HMS invincible had been sunk three times in a week.
A significant issue is that AFAIAA Russia has not updated its casualty figures since 2022.
An issue is also what is classed as 'Russian' troops. Do you count the LPR/DNR troops in the Russian total? Wagner-style soldiers? How about foreign mercenaries? The North Korean troops if/when they arrive?
Anyway off to RHS Wisley. Beautiful morning for it.
I voted Labour by post down in Newton Abbot last week.
p.s. @Farooq lol. I feel a bit queasy about trying to badger someone, especially a friend, over how to vote. End of the day each person needs to make up their own mind. So you won’t find me saying VOTE LABOUR Oh ...
The lady at the door asked us if we had ID, but no one asked to see it. I was second in the queue at 6.55; as I left at 6.02 there were around seven or eight waiting.
I doubt the numbers voting first thing mean a lot. It's how many still queuing in the evening.
She’s awoken this morning to tell me she’s not now sure that she will vote Conservative!
“Genuinely conflicted this morning” is her comment.
I made no attempt to persuade her but we both agreed that it’s important to vote.
I suspect there are an awful lot of tories like her. Perhaps this really will be a bad night for them.
The most important thing is that she votes. I've said this to undecideds at every election - VOTE. If you don't vote then you have no voice, so you can't really moan about the government / council because you abstained.
And again, this country clung on by its fingertips for the right to vote. Women battled and protested and died for the right to vote. Voting matters.
I suspect @Heathener that your friend like so many Tories will simply stay at home. I'd rather she came out and voted positively for someone, but a -1 on the Tory tally still has its value to all of us who want to see them destroyed today.
The lady at the door asked us if we had ID, but no one asked to see it. I was second in the queue at 6.55; as I left at 6.02 there were around seven or eight waiting.
I doubt the numbers voting first thing mean a lot. It's how many still queuing in the evening.
Well, it's supposed to be compulsory that you do show ID, so I'm not sure what was going on there.
Starmer didn't seal the deal. He's losing voters hand over fist at the moment because he didn't make a pitch to voters that would convince them to stick with him if they faced doubts, or to vote Labour rather than Lib Dem or Green.
He's rather stumbling over the finish line now. He's presumably far enough ahead, but I think it will be a tense wait for the results from the first marginals.
He's played this incredibly smartly in my view. He has played up to his boring tag, he has done nothing to scare the horses or even the right wing media, he makes it all sound like more of the same but with more sensible people in charge. He started with a 20% lead and is finishing with one of around 16%. That is a result and a half. The Tories have frankly not laid a glove on him.
Yep. I think he has been tactically spot on in this election. He has kept manifesto hostages to fortune to a minimum, made sure his opponents have as little to work with as possible and just concentrated on geting elected with a decent majority so he can do what he thinks is necessary.
Pretty much flawless campaign really.
And the point is, ladies and gentleman, that boring, for lack of a better word, is good. Boring is right, boring works. Boring clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the Parliamentary spirit.
A flawless campaign, where he has lost at least 6pp during the course of a campaign? That flawless campaign?
My, how our standards have fallen.
A campaign that he has apparently won and by a large margin.
So been to vote, no polling station pooch which was a disappointment. It’s the longest I’ve ever taken over a ballot paper, whilst I was 90% sure of my vote I wasn’t absolutely certain. It was the first time in 25 years that in a single candidate election I didn’t vote Tory.
The key point is going to be the US election in November and I think the Russians are hanging on and hoping that changes the strategic position of the US. The new government in the UK and the EU should be ramping up production far more than they are just in case they need to fill that gap.
The election doesn't matter as much any more. Even if the mortal remains of Biden manage to get re-elected he won't be getting another Ukraine loot drop through Congress in its current form.
Congress won't be on its current form - there's an election if you recall. Quite likely the new House will be Democratic; the Senate less so.
So been to vote, no polling station pooch which was a disappointment. It’s the longest I’ve ever taken over a ballot paper, whilst I was 90% sure of my vote I wasn’t absolutely certain. It was the first time in 25 years that in a single candidate election I didn’t vote Tory.
And it will likely be the first time I vote for the winning MP.
With Labour set to win a large majority on a low share of the vote, I would guess that a much lower proportion than normal will vote for the winning candidate.
It's slightly disconcerting that there's a significant difference between the number of seats allocated by YouGov, based on its own final election poll for 'The Times' and the number of seats allocated by the time-honoured ElectoralCalculus which specialises in producing their own seat calculations, based, we have to presume, on identical information.
In this instance, YouGov calculates that Labour will win 431 seats compred with EC's 458 seats, a difference of 27 seats. In terms of Tory seats,YouGov comes up with a total of 102 seats, whereas EC calculates the Blue Team's tally as being 75 seats. Again an equal and opposite difference of 27 seats, which is sort of reassuring insofar as it goes. Obviously the two calculations of seat numbers are based on different statistical models and therefore some difference in their totals was only to be expected. However a difference of 27 seats does seem quite significant, especially if one doubles it to 54 seats in arriving at the impact on the overall majority involved.
Thank goodness no money is involved here as a result of such a discrepancy ... Oh wait!
All the final polls tonight have Labour below the 43% Blair got in 1997 but heading for a bigger majority than then due to the split on the right between Tory and Reform. LDs also below 1997 levels but again may get more seats than then for the same reason, looks like FPTP will really boost the left and hit the right for once tomorrow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_Kingdom_general_election
The MRPs at least suggest the Tories will be over the pyschologically important 100 seats mark though and still clearly the main opposition to a near certain Starmer government
It’s your crooked voting system; lap it up.
FPTP is not crooked, it is just not, to my mind, the best option.
No option is great but a top up system would probably give the conservatives another 100 seats.
And it’s not about you it’s about us.
An aside I’ve always wondered if we could weight votes. The predicted 80 Tories sharing 21% of the 650 votes. So each member vote counts as 136/80 of the total.
It keeps the constituency link and the proportional weight.
I don't really follow your second sentence. I am one of us as well, I don't know what you mean.
Sorry about that. I was thinking about the numbers. Not the conversation. Whoops.
I was being rhetorical, addressing the political class. Which was a bit bonkers as I’m council leadership, so I’m probably one of them rather than one of us.
I’ll have another go at putting PR into the current system. Back of an envelope workings.
21% of 650 MPs would be about 136. The proportion represented. Say 80MPs.
Comments
And the idea being floated of a 'mini primary' ahead of the convention also seems somewhat far fetched.
I think if Biden goes then the odds are around 3 or 4/1 in favour of Harris.
And it will likely be the first time I vote for the winning MP.
And again, this country clung on by its fingertips for the right to vote. Women battled and protested and died for the right to vote. Voting matters.
I suspect @Heathener that your friend like so many Tories will simply stay at home. I'd rather she came out and voted positively for someone, but a -1 on the Tory tally still has its value to all of us who want to see them destroyed today.
Leaving it to the discretion of the polling clerk is absolutely outrageous
If you want a summation, then Wiki collates the data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War
An issue is also what is classed as 'Russian' troops. Do you count the LPR/DNR troops in the Russian total? Wagner-style soldiers? How about foreign mercenaries? The North Korean troops if/when they arrive?
Owen Jones"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQZDVswkhQI
NEW THREAD
I voted Labour by post down in Newton Abbot last week.
p.s. @Farooq lol. I feel a bit queasy about trying to badger someone, especially a friend, over how to vote. End of the day each person needs to make up their own mind. So you won’t find me saying VOTE LABOUR Oh ...
I was second in the queue at 6.55; as I left at 6.02 there were around seven or eight waiting.
I doubt the numbers voting first thing mean a lot. It's how many still queuing in the evening.
Vote Count Binface - because that hand dryer really does need to be relocated.
Quite likely the new House will be Democratic; the Senate less so.
Must. Calculate.
In this instance, YouGov calculates that Labour will win 431 seats compred with EC's 458 seats, a difference of 27 seats.
In terms of Tory seats,YouGov comes up with a total of 102 seats, whereas EC calculates the Blue Team's tally as being 75 seats.
Again an equal and opposite difference of 27 seats, which is sort of reassuring insofar as it goes.
Obviously the two calculations of seat numbers are based on different statistical models and therefore some difference in their totals was only to be expected.
However a difference of 27 seats does seem quite significant, especially if one doubles it to 54 seats in arriving at the impact on the overall majority involved.
Thank goodness no money is involved here as a result of such a discrepancy ... Oh wait!
I was being rhetorical, addressing the political class. Which was a bit bonkers as I’m council leadership, so I’m probably one of them rather than one of us.
I’ll have another go at putting PR into the current system. Back of an envelope workings.
21% of 650 MPs would be about 136.
The proportion represented. Say 80MPs.
I’m suggesting a Tory MP has a vote worth 136/80