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.
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.
Fbh given the difference in the headlines and the articles seems to me it's more like people coming into the NYT Offices (OK, online meetings) "Oh my god, how can we try and get rid of Biden today" whilst crying into their soy lattes
Can anyone explain exactly why Pensions are not subject to Inheritance Tax (other than obviously to spouse).
Seems to me that every penny should be subject to it. The purpose of tax free pension contributions is to fund your old age and stop you being dependent on the state. Not provide a bung to Tarquin and Melinda when you snuff it.
Dunno but note that you say "other than obviously to spouse" so even you favour some exemptions. I do not, have not and will not benefit from this quirk but aside from bureaucratic neatness, would we gain very much?
Can anyone explain exactly why Pensions are not subject to Inheritance Tax (other than obviously to spouse).
Seems to me that every penny should be subject to it. The purpose of tax free pension contributions is to fund your old age and stop you being dependent on the state. Not provide a bung to Tarquin and Melinda when you snuff it.
I honestly thought that when the Pensioner and spouse died that was it and the pension was no more. I assumed that was how pension companies actually made money. The idea that pensions could be inherited down the generations is a new one to me.
In short: it's complicated. But in general:
- defined benefit pensions are *not* inherited - with defined contribution, it's more complicated. If (as most people do), the pool is converted to an annuity, then that is not inherited either. And yes, Richard, that is exactly how pension companies make their money. - if, on the other hand, the pension pot is not converted to an annuity and is instead drawn down in one way or another, then yes it is an inheritable asset.
Except aiui (probably wrongly) the remaining pension cash is not quite inheritable so there is a nod-and-wink expression of wish that the pension company follows but strictly does not have to follow. Or something.
ETA this is where we need ex-PBer Antifrank, one of the country's leading authorities on pension law.
Background: I lean left. I'm approaching 60. And I'm a born worrier...
...and right now the spectre of 1992 is worrying me. The poll of polls graph is showing a dip. One poll has just a 13% lead.
Those dang MRP polls have ramped expectations so much that a "mere" 100-seat majority would suck the joy out of what should be one of the happiest General Election nights of my lifetime... and I could easily see it being a sub-100 majority to be frank.
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.
So a depressing but perhaps utterly predictable update from my Surrey tory friend.
For weeks she has told me that for the first time in her life she wouldn’t vote for the Conservatives, that she would vote LibDem or Labour (edit or even Green), that the tory party had left her behind not the other way around, that she dislikes Rishi Sunak, that people like Badenoch and Braverman are thoroughly nasty etc. etc. etc.
And tonight? She has told me ...
… that she is voting Conservative
Why? Because her MP Jonathan Lord helped Seema Misa the sub post mistress who was imprisoned whilst pregnant whilst the LibDems’ Ed Davey didn’t listen.
To be honest, I resigned myself to her staying blue. I didn’t criticise her though I did gently point out that she could be voting for Badenoch or Braverman (whom she professes to loathe).
A certain, perhaps significant, number always return to the fold.
Cons 100-200 seats is very much in play in my opinion.
Me and ma friend get along beautifully, despite being across the political divide. Great and very very close friends. We share our loves and displeasures, our hopes and our despairs, our triumphs and our tragedies.
Not quite sure what prompted @TOPPING ’s intemperate outburst but I’ve noticed tetchiness increasing on here. Also the propensity to add invective to situations that people aren’t privy to. Ill-informed comment is a malaise, I guess, of internet forums generally.
This is literally the only forum I’m on, and I doubt I will stick around after the election tbh. It’s deteriorated since Mike’s tragic illness. Far too much trolling and flaming and it’s not a safe space for a woman.
First major poll now has him 6 down to Trump. He can't survive this.
The vanity is not edifying is it?
I went off Joe Biden with the disastrous shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan, which I and many others are convinced greenlit Putin to invade Ukraine.
The tragedy for the Democrats and, I’m bound to say for America, is that Trump is there for the taking.
And they are making surprisingly few gains for the effort. The precarious balance seems to be tilting back towards Ukraine - no doubt helped by the resumption of arms deliveries.
So a depressing but perhaps utterly predictable update from my Surrey tory friend.
For weeks she has told me that for the first time in her life she wouldn’t vote for the Conservatives, that she would vote LibDem or Labour (edit or even Green), that the tory party had left her behind not the other way around, that she dislikes Rishi Sunak, that people like Badenoch and Braverman are thoroughly nasty etc. etc. etc.
And tonight? She has told me ...
… that she is voting Conservative
Why? Because her MP Jonathan Lord helped Seema Misa the sub post mistress who was imprisoned whilst pregnant whilst the LibDems’ Ed Davey didn’t listen.
To be honest, I resigned myself to her staying blue. I didn’t criticise her though I did gently point out that she could be voting for Badenoch or Braverman (whom she professes to loathe).
A certain, perhaps significant, number always return to the fold.
Cons 100-200 seats is very much in play in my opinion.
Me and ma friend get along beautifully, despite being across the political divide. Great and very very close friends. We share our loves and displeasures, our hopes and our despairs, our triumphs and our tragedies.
Not quite sure what prompted @TOPPING ’s intemperate outburst but I’ve noticed tetchiness increasing on here. Also the propensity to add invective to situations that people aren’t privy to. Ill-informed comment is a malaise, I guess, of internet forums generally.
This is literally the only forum I’m on, and I doubt I will stick around after the election tbh. It’s deteriorated since Mike’s tragic illness. Far too much trolling and flaming and it’s not a safe space for a woman.
Things should return to normal after the election.
Background: I lean left. I'm approaching 60. And I'm a born worrier...
...and right now the spectre of 1992 is worrying me. The poll of polls graph is showing a dip. One poll has just a 13% lead.
Those dang MRP polls have ramped expectations so much that a "mere" 100-seat majority would suck the joy out of what should be one of the happiest General Election nights of my lifetime... and I could easily see it being a sub-100 majority to be frank.
Am I alone...?
No you’re not.
I’ve wavered this past fortnight. And when I hear someone like my good friend telling me that she is, after all, voting tory it reminds me of the difference between what people say in the run-up and what they do on the day.
I’m not anticipating an extinction for the Conservatives. I just hope Labour get a decent working majority.
I only wish they were the socialists Casino Royale says. Sadly they aren’t.
Best of luck to all of those standing, of any and all political persuasion, especially to PBers @Tissue_Price and @RochdalePioneers, and to all of those working or volunteering for a politician or helping with the organisation of the day.
Personally I have only one bet on the election, and will have a bottle of champagne in the fridge ready to be opened when it comes off!
Best of luck to all of those standing, of any and all political persuasion, especially to PBers @Tissue_Price and @RochdalePioneers, and to all of those working or volunteering for a politician or helping with the organisation of the day.
Personally I have only one bet on the election, and will have a bottle of champagne in the fridge ready to be opened when it comes off!
Haha good luck with it. I think you’re safe!
I love democracy. I was re-reading about one of my heroes yesterday: Emily Davison.
I don’t need to say it to folks on here but please vote!
Best of luck to all of those standing, of any and all political persuasion, especially to PBers @Tissue_Price and @RochdalePioneers, and to all of those working or volunteering for a politician or helping with the organisation of the day.
Personally I have only one bet on the election, and will have a bottle of champagne in the fridge ready to be opened when it comes off!
FYI, Tissue_Price isn't standing. He decided rather late on that he wouldn't seek re-election. Given how everything has gone, seems very likely he would have lost the seat anyway, but seems like a loss to HoC (He wasn't scared to call out the BS from own side, ripped into Boris in the chamber).
At a cost of 40,000 men per month, half a million per year, plus equipment losses that will soon become unsustainable. They’re already moving troops around in civvy 4x4s and on motorbikes, easy for snipers to pick off one at a time, because they’re unable to get their hands on armoured infantry vehicles.
At a cost of 40,000 men per month, half a million per year, plus equipment losses that will soon become unsustainable. They’re already moving troops around in civvy 4x4s and on motorbikes, easy for snipers to pick off one at a time, because they’re unable to get their hands on armoured infantry vehicles.
That's why they are looking to deploy North Koreans.
Best of luck to all of those standing, of any and all political persuasion, especially to PBers @Tissue_Price and @RochdalePioneers, and to all of those working or volunteering for a politician or helping with the organisation of the day.
Personally I have only one bet on the election, and will have a bottle of champagne in the fridge ready to be opened when it comes off!
FYI, Tissue_Price isn't standing. He decided rather late on that he wouldn't seek re-election. Given how everything has gone, seems very likely he would have lost the seat anyway, but seems like a loss to HoC (He wasn't scared to call out the BS from own side, ripped into Boris in the chamber).
Oh, I didn’t know that about Aaron, hopefully we see him back here soon. A difficult decision for a lot of MPs who have other careers to which they might want to return.
At a cost of 40,000 men per month, half a million per year, plus equipment losses that will soon become unsustainable. They’re already moving troops around in civvy 4x4s and on motorbikes, easy for snipers to pick off one at a time, because they’re unable to get their hands on armoured infantry vehicles.
That's why they are looking to deploy North Koreans.
And yes, it is totally unsustainable.
How many men will the old chubster to be able to send to their death before it might get a tad tricky for him?
rather stupid of Starmer to say he wouldn't rejoin the EU in his lifetime. No one obliged him to say anything and now he's just lost himself a large cohort of voters without a good reason
No. The reality that the EU don't want us yet and the real politik of Europe at the moment means Starmer's statement counts for nothing. Besides which, if there is to be a second term (assuming even he gets a first) if the land lies more favourably it's not like he's not prone to change his mind.
Background: I lean left. I'm approaching 60. And I'm a born worrier...
...and right now the spectre of 1992 is worrying me. The poll of polls graph is showing a dip. One poll has just a 13% lead.
Those dang MRP polls have ramped expectations so much that a "mere" 100-seat majority would suck the joy out of what should be one of the happiest General Election nights of my lifetime... and I could easily see it being a sub-100 majority to be frank.
Am I alone...?
No you’re not.
I’ve wavered this past fortnight. And when I hear someone like my good friend telling me that she is, after all, voting tory it reminds me of the difference between what people say in the run-up and what they do on the day.
I’m not anticipating an extinction for the Conservatives. I just hope Labour get a decent working majority.
I only wish they were the socialists Casino Royale says. Sadly they aren’t.
Barring by far the biggest polling failure of all time, this general election will result in the largest swing ever recorded and a landslide for Labour. The Conservatives aren't going to get obliterated, but they're going to go down to their worst ever defeat in terms of both vote share and seat count. It's an extraordinary turnaround from five years ago, and any element of disappointment at the scale thereof will be entirely down to the most extreme predictions and the Government's desperate response to them. As we can all see, they've now bet the farm on admitting defeat and trying to corral their shrunken base of elderly voters with a combination of pathetic pleading and pitiful, ludicrous fairytales about Keir Starmer's eternal Marxist dictatorship. Stick a fork in 'em, they're done.
The important thing to remember is that the Conservative Party somehow managing to save a third (rather than a quarter or a fifth) of their MPs would not be some kind of triumph. It would just be a slightly less heavy defeat. The Sunak Ministry ends tomorrow morning, and from thereon in whatever small fraction of his colleagues survive the rout may be safely ignored for a long, long time. Rejoice!
At a cost of 40,000 men per month, half a million per year, plus equipment losses that will soon become unsustainable. They’re already moving troops around in civvy 4x4s and on motorbikes, easy for snipers to pick off one at a time, because they’re unable to get their hands on armoured infantry vehicles.
That's why they are looking to deploy North Koreans.
And yes, it is totally unsustainable.
The Ukranians should find out where the NorKs are fighting, and drop leaflets on them in Korean telling them to defect and enjoy life in Ukraine after the war.
One gets the impression that, while the NorKs are really good at parade ground drills, they’ve no experience at all of actually fighting anyone.
Best of luck to all of those standing, of any and all political persuasion, especially to PBers @Tissue_Price and @RochdalePioneers, and to all of those working or volunteering for a politician or helping with the organisation of the day.
Personally I have only one bet on the election, and will have a bottle of champagne in the fridge ready to be opened when it comes off!
FYI, Tissue_Price isn't standing. He decided rather late on that he wouldn't seek re-election. Given how everything has gone, seems very likely he would have lost the seat anyway, but seems like a loss to HoC (He wasn't scared to call out the BS from own side, ripped into Boris in the chamber).
Oh, I didn’t know that about Aaron, hopefully we see him back here soon. A difficult decision for a lot of MPs who have other careers to which they might want to return.
He is a smart guy, I am sure he will be fine on civvie street. Just a shame that while Rishi has been shoving all this plonker team into safe seats, decent MPs get dislodged, thus degrading the quality of MPs overall.
Best of luck to all of those standing, of any and all political persuasion, especially to PBers @Tissue_Price and @RochdalePioneers, and to all of those working or volunteering for a politician or helping with the organisation of the day.
Personally I have only one bet on the election, and will have a bottle of champagne in the fridge ready to be opened when it comes off!
FYI, Tissue_Price isn't standing. He decided rather late on that he wouldn't seek re-election. Given how everything has gone, seems very likely he would have lost the seat anyway, but seems like a loss to HoC (He wasn't scared to call out the BS from own side, ripped into Boris in the chamber).
Best of luck to all of those standing, of any and all political persuasion, especially to PBers @Tissue_Price and @RochdalePioneers, and to all of those working or volunteering for a politician or helping with the organisation of the day.
Personally I have only one bet on the election, and will have a bottle of champagne in the fridge ready to be opened when it comes off!
FYI, Tissue_Price isn't standing. He decided rather late on that he wouldn't seek re-election. Given how everything has gone, seems very likely he would have lost the seat anyway, but seems like a loss to HoC (He wasn't scared to call out the BS from own side, ripped into Boris in the chamber).
At a cost of 40,000 men per month, half a million per year, plus equipment losses that will soon become unsustainable. They’re already moving troops around in civvy 4x4s and on motorbikes, easy for snipers to pick off one at a time, because they’re unable to get their hands on armoured infantry vehicles.
That's why they are looking to deploy North Koreans.
And yes, it is totally unsustainable.
How many men will the old chubster to be able to send to their death before it might get a tad tricky for him?
As many as he likes, unfortunately. Russian dissenters are, in the main, in exile, in prison or in their graves. The remaining population are mainly too stupid to see through his propaganda or too terrified to challenge it. There's a long tradition of faltering dictatorships fighting to the last old man and teenage boy, and Russia is still a very long way from that.
The lack of enthusiasm for Labour at this election really is striking. Among those who plan to vote Labour tomorrow, the party is much less well-liked than in 2019, 2017 or 2015 (no data before that). Quite a flimsy voter coalition that could unravel in the absence of results.
A few has emerged that the voters fall into two blocks: LLDG and ConRef. Actually I think its more Con/Lab versus none of the above.
It seems quite regional: RefUK in East and North with Lib Dems in South and West. We have not discussed thus because the demographics are so different: ABC going Lib Dem in the South, RefUK getting CDE voters elsewhere.
However this is mangling the previous Tory voter coalition, and squeezing them from both red wall and blue wall.
Labour seem set for a landslide with less than a third of the electorate. There is little enthusiasm for SKS's rather thin lipped managerialism.
The Tories, however, are absolutely loathed, detested, and their voter base now reduced to the absolute core vote.
However, Labour have very little room for manoeuvre and without demonstrable progress within the next few months, they too will quickly become just as unpopular as the Tories.
The none of the above parties will be make big advances in the locals next spring.
SkS had better have something substantial up his sleeve, or the very basis of British democracy will come under challenge. Bullshit and bluster can not just be replaced with minimal competence, welcome though that would be.
I think despite a massive Labour majority, indeed partly because of it, politics is going to become increasingly turbulent.
Has anyone else woken with a sense of trepidation?
Are the polls wrong? Will Farage do better than expected? Will Guido drop a story about Starmer and donkeys? Will the disgusting flights to Rwanda take of this month after all?
rather stupid of Starmer to say he wouldn't rejoin the EU in his lifetime. No one obliged him to say anything and now he's just lost himself a large cohort of voters without a good reason
No. The reality that the EU don't want us yet and the real politik of Europe at the moment means Starmer's statement counts for nothing. Besides which, if there is to be a second term (assuming even he gets a first) if the land lies more favourably it's not like he's not prone to change his mind.
This term: TCA with a mindset supporting cooperation on trade. Post 2028: Single customs and a United market. Post 2032/3: Who knows, but I can't see Strong Britain types enjoying having the same status as Lichtenstein.
At a cost of 40,000 men per month, half a million per year, plus equipment losses that will soon become unsustainable. They’re already moving troops around in civvy 4x4s and on motorbikes, easy for snipers to pick off one at a time, because they’re unable to get their hands on armoured infantry vehicles.
That's why they are looking to deploy North Koreans.
And yes, it is totally unsustainable.
The Ukranians should find out where the NorKs are fighting, and drop leaflets on them in Korean telling them to defect and enjoy life in Ukraine after the war.
One gets the impression that, while the NorKs are really good at parade ground drills, they’ve no experience at all of actually fighting anyone.
There's no sign that any N Koreans have actually deployed there.
At a cost of 40,000 men per month, half a million per year, plus equipment losses that will soon become unsustainable. They’re already moving troops around in civvy 4x4s and on motorbikes, easy for snipers to pick off one at a time, because they’re unable to get their hands on armoured infantry vehicles.
That's why they are looking to deploy North Koreans.
And yes, it is totally unsustainable.
How many men will the old chubster to be able to send to their death before it might get a tad tricky for him?
As many as he likes, unfortunately. Russian dissenters are, in the main, in exile, in prison or in their graves. The remaining population are mainly too stupid to see through his propaganda or too terrified to challenge it. There's a long tradition of faltering dictatorships fighting to the last old man and teenage boy, and Russia is still a very long way from that.
I was talking about North Koreans. If 100,000s of them start getting slaughtered, could that get a bit dicey in the Communist utopia? Its one thing being poor, short on food and life being a bit shit, but if everybody knows somebody from their family that got killed in Ukraine, are they just going to sit and take it? Revolutions have happened over less.
At a cost of 40,000 men per month, half a million per year, plus equipment losses that will soon become unsustainable. They’re already moving troops around in civvy 4x4s and on motorbikes, easy for snipers to pick off one at a time, because they’re unable to get their hands on armoured infantry vehicles.
That's why they are looking to deploy North Koreans.
And yes, it is totally unsustainable.
That it is socially and politically sustainable at all in the 21st century is scary enough.
How many bereaved families must there be in Russia?
At a cost of 40,000 men per month, half a million per year, plus equipment losses that will soon become unsustainable. They’re already moving troops around in civvy 4x4s and on motorbikes, easy for snipers to pick off one at a time, because they’re unable to get their hands on armoured infantry vehicles.
That's why they are looking to deploy North Koreans.
And yes, it is totally unsustainable.
The Ukranians should find out where the NorKs are fighting, and drop leaflets on them in Korean telling them to defect and enjoy life in Ukraine after the war.
One gets the impression that, while the NorKs are really good at parade ground drills, they’ve no experience at all of actually fighting anyone.
There's no sign that any N Koreans have actually deployed there.
Has anyone else woken with a sense of trepidation?
Are the polls wrong? Will Farage do better than expected? Will Guido drop a story about Starmer and donkeys? Will the disgusting flights to Rwanda take of this month after all?
Wake me up tomorrow!
Quick, stop the count, its a disaster for Starmer....a yuuuugggggg scandal has broken overnight.....he once glared at somebody.
The lack of enthusiasm for Labour at this election really is striking. Among those who plan to vote Labour tomorrow, the party is much less well-liked than in 2019, 2017 or 2015 (no data before that). Quite a flimsy voter coalition that could unravel in the absence of results.
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?
rather stupid of Starmer to say he wouldn't rejoin the EU in his lifetime. No one obliged him to say anything and now he's just lost himself a large cohort of voters without a good reason
It doesn't cost him anything because nobody is going to not vote Labour over it.
He's done it because it cockblocks the tories from running a 24 Hours To Save Our Precious Brexit campaign. What SKS actually believes or intends at this point is irrelevant. Everything is subservient to getting elected and he's decided he isn't going to give the tories a chink of daylight on Brexit.
Yep, SKS will say, or not say, whatever he needs to in order to get elected.
At a cost of 40,000 men per month, half a million per year, plus equipment losses that will soon become unsustainable. They’re already moving troops around in civvy 4x4s and on motorbikes, easy for snipers to pick off one at a time, because they’re unable to get their hands on armoured infantry vehicles.
That's why they are looking to deploy North Koreans.
And yes, it is totally unsustainable.
Didn't you say at the beginning of 2023 that the Russian army would collapse within weeks? (I might be misremembering)
At a cost of 40,000 men per month, half a million per year, plus equipment losses that will soon become unsustainable. They’re already moving troops around in civvy 4x4s and on motorbikes, easy for snipers to pick off one at a time, because they’re unable to get their hands on armoured infantry vehicles.
That's why they are looking to deploy North Koreans.
And yes, it is totally unsustainable.
The Ukranians should find out where the NorKs are fighting, and drop leaflets on them in Korean telling them to defect and enjoy life in Ukraine after the war.
One gets the impression that, while the NorKs are really good at parade ground drills, they’ve no experience at all of actually fighting anyone.
There's no sign that any N Koreans have actually deployed there.
We’ve not seen them in Ukraine yet, but the two idiots agreed to some NorK troops heading to Russia last month when they met.
If they have any sense (yes I know) they’ll keep the NorKs well away from Ukraine, doing other work that frees up more Russkis to head there instead.
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?
Biden’s tech restriction on China seem to have been pretty effective.
Almost all of the leaders at China tech giants put on a brave face when asked publicly about impact from U.S. export control on AI chips in the past 12 months. Here's the truth.. https://x.com/jingyanghk/status/1808563737076584650
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?
Your 60 mins warning.....repeat your 60 minute warning...
Not quite: "You have sixty minutes to save the country."
But it feels like it.
I don't think we have had the x days to save the NHS on the bingo card this time around have we? Thankfully minimal use of the stupid "open letters" and limited celebs wading in to give their informed opinions.
Fbh given the difference in the headlines and the articles seems to me it's more like people coming into the NYT Offices (OK, online meetings) "Oh my god, how can we try and get rid of Biden today" whilst crying into their soy lattes
I'm keeping a perfectly balanced Biden v Harris portfolio.
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?
The lack of enthusiasm for Labour at this election really is striking. Among those who plan to vote Labour tomorrow, the party is much less well-liked than in 2019, 2017 or 2015 (no data before that). Quite a flimsy voter coalition that could unravel in the absence of results.
A few has emerged that the voters fall into two blocks: LLDG and ConRef. Actually I think its more Con/Lab versus none of the above.
It seems quite regional: RefUK in East and North with Lib Dems in South and West. We have not discussed thus because the demographics are so different: ABC going Lib Dem in the South, RefUK getting CDE voters elsewhere.
However this is mangling the previous Tory voter coalition, and squeezing them from both red wall and blue wall.
Labour seem set for a landslide with less than a third of the electorate. There is little enthusiasm for SKS's rather thin lipped managerialism.
The Tories, however, are absolutely loathed, detested, and their voter base now reduced to the absolute core vote.
However, Labour have very little room for manoeuvre and without demonstrable progress within the next few months, they too will quickly become just as unpopular as the Tories.
The none of the above parties will be make big advances in the locals next spring.
SkS had better have something substantial up his sleeve, or the very basis of British democracy will come under challenge. Bullshit and bluster can not just be replaced with minimal competence, welcome though that would be.
I think despite a massive Labour majority, indeed partly because of it, politics is going to become increasingly turbulent.
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?
Background: I lean left. I'm approaching 60. And I'm a born worrier...
...and right now the spectre of 1992 is worrying me. The poll of polls graph is showing a dip. One poll has just a 13% lead.
Those dang MRP polls have ramped expectations so much that a "mere" 100-seat majority would suck the joy out of what should be one of the happiest General Election nights of my lifetime... and I could easily see it being a sub-100 majority to be frank.
Am I alone...?
No you’re not.
I’ve wavered this past fortnight. And when I hear someone like my good friend telling me that she is, after all, voting tory it reminds me of the difference between what people say in the run-up and what they do on the day.
I’m not anticipating an extinction for the Conservatives. I just hope Labour get a decent working majority.
I only wish they were the socialists Casino Royale says. Sadly they aren’t.
It's not what I say they are, it's what Sir Keir Starmer says he is.
The lack of enthusiasm for Labour at this election really is striking. Among those who plan to vote Labour tomorrow, the party is much less well-liked than in 2019, 2017 or 2015 (no data before that). Quite a flimsy voter coalition that could unravel in the absence of results.
A few has emerged that the voters fall into two blocks: LLDG and ConRef. Actually I think its more Con/Lab versus none of the above.
It seems quite regional: RefUK in East and North with Lib Dems in South and West. We have not discussed thus because the demographics are so different: ABC going Lib Dem in the South, RefUK getting CDE voters elsewhere.
However this is mangling the previous Tory voter coalition, and squeezing them from both red wall and blue wall.
Labour seem set for a landslide with less than a third of the electorate. There is little enthusiasm for SKS's rather thin lipped managerialism.
The Tories, however, are absolutely loathed, detested, and their voter base now reduced to the absolute core vote.
However, Labour have very little room for manoeuvre and without demonstrable progress within the next few months, they too will quickly become just as unpopular as the Tories.
The none of the above parties will be make big advances in the locals next spring.
SkS had better have something substantial up his sleeve, or the very basis of British democracy will come under challenge. Bullshit and bluster can not just be replaced with minimal competence, welcome though that would be.
I think despite a massive Labour majority, indeed partly because of it, politics is going to become increasingly turbulent.
Oh for sure, ructions are guaranteed with a new Government faced with getting to grips with so many intractable problems - and voter groups with diametrically opposed interests - at once. But there is opportunity as well as risk in the new electoral geography.
The big two parties are utterly reliant on their power bases as the foundation of a Parliamentary majority, i.e. areas that are not sufficient to win in and of themselves, but where a firm grip is essential if they are to have any chance of doing so. For Labour that's the urban cores; for the Tories, that's Southern England outside London.
For the first time since the Blair landslides, the South is back in play, and there's a unique opportunity coming to lock the Tories out of large chunks of it and thus prevent them from returning to power for a very long time. Because we all suspect that the Conservative response to defeat will be to look at Reform, say they want a piece of that action, and go charging off further rightwards to try to wrest back, to put it bluntly, the white ethno-nationalist vote. That accords with the inclinations of many of their MPs and most of the party membership, but it's also liable to be voter repellent for middle class, aspirational and socially liberal voters in much of the South.
A big task now for Labour, but especially for the Lib Dems, who have the advantage in this context of still being in opposition, is to put down roots in the places that they are going to gain today, and to persuade erstwhile Tory voters that they now better reflect their values than a rump Conservative party off peddling Trumpian populism to angry poor people in run down coastal and Northern towns; to break the Tory voting habit permanently; build their majorities up; and thus lock the Conservatives out. So that, if and when the Tories do start to capitalise on any lack of progress by Labour in improving conditions in the North, they find that swathes of the South don't want them back and it's therefore impossible for them to recover their former strength.
Put more succinctly, if the Lib Dems can grab and hold at least thirty or forty Southern seats then there's not going to be enough left available for the Tories to win a majority. The kinds of policies and campaigning tactics they're liable to use to regain lost ground in the North won't work in the South and will probably expose more marginals there to attack.
Your 60 mins warning.....repeat your 60 minute warning...
Not quite: "You have sixty minutes to save the country."
But it feels like it.
I don't think we have had the x days to save the NHS on the bingo card this time around have we? Thankfully minimal use of the stupid "open letters" and limited celebs wading in to give their informed opinions.
We know the NHS is on its knees and nearly dead. Since the Tories have been in for 14 years, everyone knows who is killing the NHS off.
At a cost of 40,000 men per month, half a million per year, plus equipment losses that will soon become unsustainable. They’re already moving troops around in civvy 4x4s and on motorbikes, easy for snipers to pick off one at a time, because they’re unable to get their hands on armoured infantry vehicles.
That's why they are looking to deploy North Koreans.
And yes, it is totally unsustainable.
The Ukranians should find out where the NorKs are fighting, and drop leaflets on them in Korean telling them to defect and enjoy life in Ukraine after the war.
One gets the impression that, while the NorKs are really good at parade ground drills, they’ve no experience at all of actually fighting anyone.
There's no sign that any N Koreans have actually deployed there.
Isn't it PRK engineers that are supposed to be deployed? So more like our Chinese Labour Corps in WW1?
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.
It's not 50-50, it's 51-49, albeit one of the 51 is Systema who left the Dems.
Actually, I think Manchin is now an independent too.
So, that's 49 Republicans, 47 Democrats, 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats (King and Sanders), and two Independents who are ex-Democrats and usually vote with the Democrats (Manchin and Sinema).
At a cost of 40,000 men per month, half a million per year, plus equipment losses that will soon become unsustainable. They’re already moving troops around in civvy 4x4s and on motorbikes, easy for snipers to pick off one at a time, because they’re unable to get their hands on armoured infantry vehicles.
That's why they are looking to deploy North Koreans.
And yes, it is totally unsustainable.
That it is socially and politically sustainable at all in the 21st century is scary enough.
How many bereaved families must there be in Russia?
It's only sustainable because the Russian people have been indoctrinated to think it is right. They are fighting Nazis - because anyone who is against Mother Russia is a Nazi, or in league with the Nazis.
A lie that, sadly, some here in the west shamefully spread. On both left and right.
And a lie that allows the Russian leadership to say they are fighting Nazis, whilst being fascists themselves. And anyone who bleats about "Azov!" whilst ignoring what Russia is doing is aiding and abetting fascism. Including those on the left.
(There's also a rather ridiculous lie that this war is existential for Russia; that if they lose, Russia dies. This is laughable, and it is the war itself that is threatening the continuation of Russia. I find it hard to believe the Russian people can actually believe that, but it's what the media is apparently saying.)
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.
The lack of enthusiasm for Labour at this election really is striking. Among those who plan to vote Labour tomorrow, the party is much less well-liked than in 2019, 2017 or 2015 (no data before that). Quite a flimsy voter coalition that could unravel in the absence of results.
A few has emerged that the voters fall into two blocks: LLDG and ConRef. Actually I think its more Con/Lab versus none of the above.
It seems quite regional: RefUK in East and North with Lib Dems in South and West. We have not discussed thus because the demographics are so different: ABC going Lib Dem in the South, RefUK getting CDE voters elsewhere.
However this is mangling the previous Tory voter coalition, and squeezing them from both red wall and blue wall.
Labour seem set for a landslide with less than a third of the electorate. There is little enthusiasm for SKS's rather thin lipped managerialism.
The Tories, however, are absolutely loathed, detested, and their voter base now reduced to the absolute core vote.
However, Labour have very little room for manoeuvre and without demonstrable progress within the next few months, they too will quickly become just as unpopular as the Tories.
The none of the above parties will be make big advances in the locals next spring.
SkS had better have something substantial up his sleeve, or the very basis of British democracy will come under challenge. Bullshit and bluster can not just be replaced with minimal competence, welcome though that would be.
I think despite a massive Labour majority, indeed partly because of it, politics is going to become increasingly turbulent.
Yes, think I agree with that.
The 'competent managerialism' may work for a bit but the structural problems will ultimately remain. This is why I think that a new force will enter politics, one that purports to have 'solutions', and will be quite radical as well. I just don't believe that bland centrism can deliver.
At a cost of 40,000 men per month, half a million per year, plus equipment losses that will soon become unsustainable. They’re already moving troops around in civvy 4x4s and on motorbikes, easy for snipers to pick off one at a time, because they’re unable to get their hands on armoured infantry vehicles.
That's why they are looking to deploy North Koreans.
And yes, it is totally unsustainable.
Didn't you say at the beginning of 2023 that the Russian army would collapse within weeks? (I might be misremembering)
I wasn't quite that extreme! But I did say that at some point the cost of continuing the war would exceed the cost of ending it, and forecast that tipping point would be reached by summer of 2023.
It was wrong. Russia has been able to continue fighting much longer than I had expected.
But their resources are not limitless. And the motivation of the defender is always greater than that of the invader. And - of course - the invading is usually the easy part. It's usually the occupation that kills you.
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.
I think President and VP cannot be from the same state, so President Kamala couldn't have Newsom as VP..
The lack of enthusiasm for Labour at this election really is striking. Among those who plan to vote Labour tomorrow, the party is much less well-liked than in 2019, 2017 or 2015 (no data before that). Quite a flimsy voter coalition that could unravel in the absence of results.
A few has emerged that the voters fall into two blocks: LLDG and ConRef. Actually I think its more Con/Lab versus none of the above.
It seems quite regional: RefUK in East and North with Lib Dems in South and West. We have not discussed thus because the demographics are so different: ABC going Lib Dem in the South, RefUK getting CDE voters elsewhere.
However this is mangling the previous Tory voter coalition, and squeezing them from both red wall and blue wall.
Labour seem set for a landslide with less than a third of the electorate. There is little enthusiasm for SKS's rather thin lipped managerialism.
The Tories, however, are absolutely loathed, detested, and their voter base now reduced to the absolute core vote.
However, Labour have very little room for manoeuvre and without demonstrable progress within the next few months, they too will quickly become just as unpopular as the Tories.
The none of the above parties will be make big advances in the locals next spring.
SkS had better have something substantial up his sleeve, or the very basis of British democracy will come under challenge. Bullshit and bluster can not just be replaced with minimal competence, welcome though that would be.
I think despite a massive Labour majority, indeed partly because of it, politics is going to become increasingly turbulent.
Yes, think I agree with that.
The 'competent managerialism' may work for a bit but the structural problems will ultimately remain. This is why I think that a new force will enter politics, one that purports to have 'solutions', and will be quite radical as well. I just don't believe that bland centrism can deliver.
The problem is that what you might describe as the non-centrist elements seem even less willing to admit what the structural challenges are.
In the 1970s, you had an extraordinary fount of intellectual energy against the - yes - cozy Keynesianism managerialism of the day, that resulted in moneterism, deregulation, and trade union reform. It was a free market revolution, that was bitterly opposed by many.
But it was also predicated on a recognition of what the problems were. Mrs Thatcher and Geoffrey Howe said, this - inflation - is the problem, and we have to kill it, and it will be painful. And they won the argument.
We have just as big problems today: specifically the inability of the UK to pay for itself (which last happened when Clarke was Chancellor in the mid 1990s), and a growing structural state spending deficit caused by a demographic timebomb. And alongside this, of course, we have the rise of emerging markets, which means it's no longer just a few rich countries monopolizing the purchase of commodities.
What does Farage or Galloway or the Greens or Corbyn or Truss say of these problems? Nothing. They deny they exist.
It may not be the "cozy center" that solves the issues - in fact it almost certainly won't be - but at least they seem to be willing to admit they exist.
Until Ukraine can no longer lose however many a day they are losing with less than a quarter of Russias population. That is how attrition works.
Nah.
As Russia herself proved in the Second World War, the proportion of people willing to give up their lives to repel an invader is far greater than the number of people willing to give them up for territorial gains.
Until Ukraine can no longer lose however many a day they are losing with less than a quarter of Russias population. That is how attrition works.
They’re also losing around a quarter of the troops Russia is losing, so well before Ukraine is out of troops Russia is going to be calling up all the Moscovites and St. Petersbergers, which I suspect won’t go down too well with the middle-class whites in those cities bing told to send their sons to the meat grinder.
Unless I have missed it, it seems deepfakes are the dogs that haven't barked in this election. A few months ago I was expecting the campaign to be full of videos of Starmer castrating a minor aide over his chai being too milky, or Sunak eating indigenous Moldovans in place of his favoured sandwich, which a few days later were exposed as the twisted creation of a Dura_Ace-type figure operating from the dark web.
The relative absence of such videos tells me one of two things: (a) our security services are doing a decent job of information security; or (b) said videos are now good enough and we are collectively gullible enough that they haven't been spotted.
Unless I have missed it, it seems deepfakes are the dogs that haven't barked in this election. A few months ago I was expecting the campaign to be full of videos of Starmer castrating a minor aide over his chai being too milky, or Sunak eating indigenous Moldovans in place of his favoured sandwich, which a few days later were exposed as the twisted creation of a Dura_Ace-type figure operating from the dark web.
The relative absence of such videos tells me one of two things: (a) our security services are doing a decent job of information security; or (b) said videos are now good enough and we are collectively gullible enough that they haven't been spotted.
So long as The Blob is able to transfer power seamlessly from Sunak to Starmer, they are happy. The Deepfakes would only have been deployed if the people started looking like voting for someone dangerous, like Davey.
The lack of enthusiasm for Labour at this election really is striking. Among those who plan to vote Labour tomorrow, the party is much less well-liked than in 2019, 2017 or 2015 (no data before that). Quite a flimsy voter coalition that could unravel in the absence of results.
A few has emerged that the voters fall into two blocks: LLDG and ConRef. Actually I think its more Con/Lab versus none of the above.
It seems quite regional: RefUK in East and North with Lib Dems in South and West. We have not discussed thus because the demographics are so different: ABC going Lib Dem in the South, RefUK getting CDE voters elsewhere.
However this is mangling the previous Tory voter coalition, and squeezing them from both red wall and blue wall.
Labour seem set for a landslide with less than a third of the electorate. There is little enthusiasm for SKS's rather thin lipped managerialism.
The Tories, however, are absolutely loathed, detested, and their voter base now reduced to the absolute core vote.
However, Labour have very little room for manoeuvre and without demonstrable progress within the next few months, they too will quickly become just as unpopular as the Tories.
The none of the above parties will be make big advances in the locals next spring.
SkS had better have something substantial up his sleeve, or the very basis of British democracy will come under challenge. Bullshit and bluster can not just be replaced with minimal competence, welcome though that would be.
I think despite a massive Labour majority, indeed partly because of it, politics is going to become increasingly turbulent.
Yes, think I agree with that.
The 'competent managerialism' may work for a bit but the structural problems will ultimately remain. This is why I think that a new force will enter politics, one that purports to have 'solutions', and will be quite radical as well. I just don't believe that bland centrism can deliver.
The problem is the "radical" people just piss and shout and then dissolve into incompetence.
What you really need is someone serious and competent with a good team behind them dedicated to serious reform: like renegotiating the web of international asylum treaties and HR law.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fjEViOF4JE
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.
ETA this is where we need ex-PBer Antifrank, one of the country's leading authorities on pension law.
...and right now the spectre of 1992 is worrying me. The poll of polls graph is showing a dip. One poll has just a 13% lead.
Those dang MRP polls have ramped expectations so much that a "mere" 100-seat majority would suck the joy out of what should be one of the happiest General Election nights of my lifetime... and I could easily see it being a sub-100 majority to be frank.
Am I alone...?
This is however the complete opposite of how it’s being reported this side of the pond
‘I’m running,’ Biden says
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crgrwgnvqgvo
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c047gr9mgxxo
First major poll now has him 6 down to Trump. He can't survive this.
Me and ma friend get along beautifully, despite being across the political divide. Great and very very close friends. We share our loves and displeasures, our hopes and our despairs, our triumphs and our tragedies.
Not quite sure what prompted @TOPPING ’s intemperate outburst but I’ve noticed tetchiness increasing on here. Also the propensity to add invective to situations that people aren’t privy to. Ill-informed comment is a malaise, I guess, of internet forums generally.
This is literally the only forum I’m on, and I doubt I will stick around after the election tbh. It’s deteriorated since Mike’s tragic illness. Far too much trolling and flaming and it’s not a safe space for a woman.
I went off Joe Biden with the disastrous shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan, which I and many others are convinced greenlit Putin to invade Ukraine.
The tragedy for the Democrats and, I’m bound to say for America, is that Trump is there for the taking.
I always (well = since 1997!) find it a slightly strange experience until 10pm because the News services suddenly leave campaign mode.
So I’m off to RHS Wisley this morning. One of my faves.
I’ve wavered this past fortnight. And when I hear someone like my good friend telling me that she is, after all, voting tory it reminds me of the difference between what people say in the run-up and what they do on the day.
I’m not anticipating an extinction for the Conservatives. I just hope Labour get a decent working majority.
I only wish they were the socialists Casino Royale says. Sadly they aren’t.
https://x.com/DamianSurvation/status/1808275248271261745
Brexit Payback Day is here!
Best of luck to all of those standing, of any and all political persuasion, especially to PBers @Tissue_Price and @RochdalePioneers, and to all of those working or volunteering for a politician or helping with the organisation of the day.
Personally I have only one bet on the election, and will have a bottle of champagne in the fridge ready to be opened when it comes off!
I love democracy. I was re-reading about one of my heroes yesterday: Emily Davison.
I don’t need to say it to folks on here but please vote!
And yes, it is totally unsustainable.
https://www.reformparty.uk/hornchurch-and-upminster-constituency
Silly me
https://www.reformparty.uk/hornchurch-and-upminster-constituency
Edit, just seen yours @Sandpit - thanks
MI 7 Dead Reckoning is partly what inspired me to return to Norway. I think MI 8 is filming back there:
https://www.inthesnow.com/new-mission-impossible-filmed-in-norway/
The important thing to remember is that the Conservative Party somehow managing to save a third (rather than a quarter or a fifth) of their MPs would not be some kind of triumph. It would just be a slightly less heavy defeat. The Sunak Ministry ends tomorrow morning, and from thereon in whatever small fraction of his colleagues survive the rout may be safely ignored for a long, long time. Rejoice!
One gets the impression that, while the NorKs are really good at parade ground drills, they’ve no experience at all of actually fighting anyone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf91xEsaw8Q
Not The Nick Palmer.
Actually I think its more Con/Lab versus none of the above.
It seems quite regional: RefUK in East and North with Lib Dems in South and West. We have not discussed thus because the demographics are so different: ABC going Lib Dem in the South, RefUK getting CDE voters elsewhere.
However this is mangling the previous Tory voter coalition, and squeezing them from both red wall and blue wall.
Labour seem set for a landslide with less than a third of the electorate. There is little enthusiasm for SKS's rather thin lipped managerialism.
The Tories, however, are absolutely loathed, detested, and their voter base now reduced to the absolute core vote.
However, Labour have very little room for manoeuvre and without demonstrable progress within the next few months, they too will quickly become just as unpopular as the Tories.
The none of the above parties will be make big advances in the locals next spring.
SkS had better have something substantial up his sleeve, or the very basis of British democracy will come under challenge. Bullshit and bluster can not just be replaced with minimal competence, welcome though that would be.
I think despite a massive Labour majority, indeed partly because of it, politics is going to become increasingly turbulent.
Labour 38
Con 20
Ref 17
Lib 12
Green 7
SNP 3
Fieldwork 1 to 3 July .
So it’s just the Ipsos Mori I to come and that only includes those saying 10/10 certainty to vote which seems sensible .
Are the polls wrong? Will Farage do better than expected? Will Guido drop a story about Starmer and donkeys? Will the disgusting flights to Rwanda take of this month after all?
Wake me up tomorrow!
Post 2028: Single customs and a United market.
Post 2032/3: Who knows, but I can't see Strong Britain types enjoying having the same status as Lichtenstein.
How many bereaved families must there be in Russia?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/03/barrister-allison-bailey-accuses-keir-starmer-of-glaring/
If I was the Telegraph I would be embarrassed that anybody even pitched this story, let alone agreed to run it.
If anything I'd have expected it to be the other way round.
Though it seems the last time Harris used her tiebreak was in December last year:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/TieVotes.htm
so maybe it doesn't matter that much
Still think Whitmer would stand a better chance of beating Trump.
Only then will he show his hand.
If they have any sense (yes I know) they’ll keep the NorKs well away from Ukraine, doing other work that frees up more Russkis to head there instead.
Almost all of the leaders at China tech giants put on a brave face when asked publicly about impact from U.S. export control on AI chips in the past 12 months. Here's the truth..
https://x.com/jingyanghk/status/1808563737076584650
Whitmer is IMHO the best of the suggested replacement candidates.
But it feels like it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate#:~:text=Since the enactment of the,is Patty Murray of Washington.
The big two parties are utterly reliant on their power bases as the foundation of a Parliamentary majority, i.e. areas that are not sufficient to win in and of themselves, but where a firm grip is essential if they are to have any chance of doing so. For Labour that's the urban cores; for the Tories, that's Southern England outside London.
For the first time since the Blair landslides, the South is back in play, and there's a unique opportunity coming to lock the Tories out of large chunks of it and thus prevent them from returning to power for a very long time. Because we all suspect that the Conservative response to defeat will be to look at Reform, say they want a piece of that action, and go charging off further rightwards to try to wrest back, to put it bluntly, the white ethno-nationalist vote. That accords with the inclinations of many of their MPs and most of the party membership, but it's also liable to be voter repellent for middle class, aspirational and socially liberal voters in much of the South.
A big task now for Labour, but especially for the Lib Dems, who have the advantage in this context of still being in opposition, is to put down roots in the places that they are going to gain today, and to persuade erstwhile Tory voters that they now better reflect their values than a rump Conservative party off peddling Trumpian populism to angry poor people in run down coastal and Northern towns; to break the Tory voting habit permanently; build their majorities up; and thus lock the Conservatives out. So that, if and when the Tories do start to capitalise on any lack of progress by Labour in improving conditions in the North, they find that swathes of the South don't want them back and it's therefore impossible for them to recover their former strength.
Put more succinctly, if the Lib Dems can grab and hold at least thirty or forty Southern seats then there's not going to be enough left available for the Tories to win a majority. The kinds of policies and campaigning tactics they're liable to use to regain lost ground in the North won't work in the South and will probably expose more marginals there to attack.
So, that's 49 Republicans, 47 Democrats, 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats (King and Sanders), and two Independents who are ex-Democrats and usually vote with the Democrats (Manchin and Sinema).
A lie that, sadly, some here in the west shamefully spread. On both left and right.
And a lie that allows the Russian leadership to say they are fighting Nazis, whilst being fascists themselves. And anyone who bleats about "Azov!" whilst ignoring what Russia is doing is aiding and abetting fascism. Including those on the left.
(There's also a rather ridiculous lie that this war is existential for Russia; that if they lose, Russia dies. This is laughable, and it is the war itself that is threatening the continuation of Russia. I find it hard to believe the Russian people can actually believe that, but it's what the media is apparently saying.)
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 was wrong. Russia has been able to continue fighting much longer than I had expected.
But their resources are not limitless. And the motivation of the defender is always greater than that of the invader. And - of course - the invading is usually the easy part. It's usually the occupation that kills you.
Thanks to Brexit we are electing our own government, for better or worse, not a subordinate council to the unelected Gentlemen in Russia.
In the 1970s, you had an extraordinary fount of intellectual energy against the - yes - cozy Keynesianism managerialism of the day, that resulted in moneterism, deregulation, and trade union reform. It was a free market revolution, that was bitterly opposed by many.
But it was also predicated on a recognition of what the problems were. Mrs Thatcher and Geoffrey Howe said, this - inflation - is the problem, and we have to kill it, and it will be painful. And they won the argument.
We have just as big problems today: specifically the inability of the UK to pay for itself (which last happened when Clarke was Chancellor in the mid 1990s), and a growing structural state spending deficit caused by a demographic timebomb. And alongside this, of course, we have the rise of emerging markets, which means it's no longer just a few rich countries monopolizing the purchase of commodities.
What does Farage or Galloway or the Greens or Corbyn or Truss say of these problems? Nothing. They deny they exist.
It may not be the "cozy center" that solves the issues - in fact it almost certainly won't be - but at least they seem to be willing to admit they exist.
They aren't Trump.
As Russia herself proved in the Second World War, the proportion of people willing to give up their lives to repel an invader is far greater than the number of people willing to give them up for territorial gains.
I expect to hear many reports that voting is brisk.....
The relative absence of such videos tells me one of two things:
(a) our security services are doing a decent job of information security; or
(b) said videos are now good enough and we are collectively gullible enough that they haven't been spotted.
What you really need is someone serious and competent with a good team behind them dedicated to serious reform: like renegotiating the web of international asylum treaties and HR law.