Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

After the crucial Osborne endorsement Badenoch continues to soar – politicalbetting.com

1235

Comments

  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,228
    It kicketh off

    Blasts in Tehran
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,541
    edited October 25
    Difficult to believe Americans are really going to elect Trump again. Surely not. 😐
  • Andy_JS said:

    "@FrankLuntz

    39% of Gen Z (born between 1997 and 2012) said Trump's McDonald’s shift made them like him somewhat or much more.

    That’s significantly more than the 23% who said the shift made them like Trump less, while 38% said it did not impact how much they like him."

    https://x.com/FrankLuntz/status/1849942075543793886

    The 38% interests me.

    I wonder how that breaks down?

    What proportion don’t care about politics vs what proportion do care, but recognise a campaign stunt when they see one and don’t see why such a stunt would alter their perception of the candidate.

    I feel the need for an answer to this ^ in order to inform my opinion on whether there is hope for the next generation of Americans.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,349
    Leon said:

    It kicketh off

    Blasts in Tehran

    A claim that the HQ of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is one of the targets.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,848
    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Newsnight: Washington Post will not endorse a candidate.

    There's a story circulating about how Bezos stepped in to prevent a Harris endorsement.
    So that's Musk and Bezos in the Trump camp. Maybe Zuckerberg has gone over to the dark side too?
    Tech bros love Trump, for the most part.
    Billionaires like tax cuts for billionaires, for the most part.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,189
    2 bits of news:

    In the first 23 days of all Germany's Schengen borders being subject to the temporary reintroduction of potential border controls 3778 illegal entry attempts were prevented.

    https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/deutschland-mehr-als-3700-unerlaubte-einreiseversuche-an-deutschen-grenzen-a-ce888808-13c4-4cd8-91dd-9155249ad10c

    I'm not sure how that compares with the previous 23 days when only some of Germany's borders had temporary Schengen suspensions.


    2nd bit of news:
    Having crossed a few German and other Schengen borders in the last 2 weeks I can confirm that reports of the death of Schengen are greatly exaggerated. No sign of any border controls anywhere.

    This wasn't surprising - even at the height of Covid, when not only was Schengen supposedly suspended basically everywhere, and there were actual legal restrictions on who could cross a border with testing requirements and supposedly paperwork to fill in, there was still no sign of any kind of controls when I crossed borders between Germany and the Netherlands/Belgium/France
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    This. 100x this. One of the most stupid political decisions in modern times.



    Ailbhe Rea
    @PronouncedAlva
    ·
    7h
    The worry: Gordon Brown’s first move as Chancellor was to make the Bank of England independent; for Rachel Reeves, it was scrapping help for pensioners with their heating bills.


    https://x.com/PronouncedAlva/status/1849846482217717870

    Meh. It needing doing and we'll be talking about something else by 2029.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,848
    Fishing said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Sean_F said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Omnium said:

    Sean_F said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Foxy said:

    Omnium said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent some time on the math, so it needs reposting:

    Nigelb said:

    This gives some insight into Putin's mindset (and Russian public opinion, such as it is).
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/22/high-russian-death-toll-fails-shift-opinion-ukraine-war

    Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.

    But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.

    In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.

    They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.

    If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.

    So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
    Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
    Russia very rarely loses wars on the battlefield. Much more often, it loses them on the home front. That has to be Ukraine's grand strategy here too. The Kremlin is overheating its economy because of war efforts and in the short term that will also bring some popularity but there will be a price to pay (literally) as inflation increasingly bites, as it will.

    Obviously, with a Trump presidency, Putin need worry less about Western retaliation to war crimes in terms of support for Ukraine, sanctions and so on, and presumably that's his plan: bomb Ukraine more. But it's not worked so far and people are resilient in such situations.
    And anyway, by the spring offensive it will be a question of which way will President Vance go. (Assuming Putin doesn't have the dirt on him too...CCTV of his sofa?)
    Vance has been even more vocally anti-Ukraine than Trump.
    Whilst there's no great threat to the UK, I'm pretty sure that Putin could invade us after Guy Fawkes night, and seize London. The Russian navy is no great shakes, but ours is almost an absence in force. It wouldn't hold of course - the Russians would have to fall back under a wave of soup thrown by odd people and beardy types clapping them far too firmly on the back. But, you know, just saying.
    No chance. The last Russian naval victory was in the age of sail. Pathetic as our defences are after years of Tory neglect, the Royal Navy and RAF would sink their rustbuckets easily. The Ukranians have swept them from most of the Black Sea with no Navy at all..
    Suppose you string out the RN in a big long line and imagine that each ship can defend say 20 miles of coast - we're still well short. The RAF has some crazily small number of combat aircraft.

    Look, I can't really judge, but it seems quite clear to me that we spend billions on the illusion of having a defence whereas the reality is that we have almost none at all.
    The Russian Navy never had much force projection.

    Their surface navy (the bit that still floats) is covered with big, liquid fueled missiles. Which exposed very nicely when hit, as the Ukrainians demonstrated. Similar reasons to why their tanks throw their turrets…

    Their one carrier is completely broken and can’t sail. And before you start the jokes, we have a carrier at sea. The F-35 on board are generations beyond anything Russian.

    Their sub fleet is out of service.

    Their amphibious landing capability is now next to nil.

    So they can’t get to the U.K., can’t defend themselves on the way here and can’t land anything when they arrive. Aside from that…

    Oh, and you don’t defend the U.K. by creating a picket line round the country (every 20 miles etc). As Nelson pointed out when he was in charge of the Channel Fleet, that’s not how it works
    Ok, so just for the hell of it, what would you suggest would happen if Putin decided to try to seize London? RN sweeping the waves, and nothing more to be said?

    His navy, such as it is, would be sunk in the Skaggerack.
    So a first strike by NATO? Just 10k Russian troops on a holiday cruise and you sink them? I know such scenarios are outlandish and unrealistic, but say it was just a thousand Russian special forces - seize a Scottish airbase, fly in more troops. It wouldn't work - it'd be a horrible defeat for Russia, but the line between it working and not working is very far from where it should be.
    You think there are 10,000 Russian special forces troops still alive and not tied down in trying to keep the Ukrainian invasion going?
    Well I said ' a thousand'.
    This is starting to sound like those comic Internet threads where the Argentina crash land Boeing 747s of troops on the Falklands.

    As demonstrated at Kyiv airport and elsewhere, unsupported and unresupplied “special forces” just turning up are dead meat against even vague resistance.

    Special forces aren’t magic ninjas. They are specialist recon, mostly. With a very small scale ability to undertake heroic, knife-in-your-teeth operations.

    Ok lets step through this

    1. Could Putin find 1k special forces troops?
    2. Cold Putin find some barges or the like with those troops on them to nip into a Scottish port?
    3. Could those troops swiftly find and seize and airport?
    4. Could Putin fly in more troops?
    5. Could the assembled force push south and seize quite a lot of things?

    To all of the above the answer is probably yes.

    Happily

    6. Could this be sustained?

    Is a fairly clear 'no'.

    We are now at The Alien Space Bats version of Operation Sealion.

    The ASBs were invented by the late, great Alison Brooks, an authority on invasion plans for the U.K.

    Their place is to posit/explain insane actions by invaders and the opposition.

    Such as “the Army, RN and Airforce took a three day holiday. Until the Germans got ashore. To be sporting.”
    Ah - the 1914 and 1939 argument. They worked out well.

    In 1939 if the Germans had chosen a very high risk invasion then it's far from clear that they may not have succeeded.

    The idea of Putin attacking the UK is obviously daft, but being blindsided is dafter still. I don't believe for a moment that you imagine that our armed forces are up to the task of defending us. They should be, but they aren't. Much of the shortfall is just horrible budget mismanagement, the rest mostly ghastly management generally, and some element is underfunding.
    Had the Germans launched a seaborne invasion, it would have been a turkey shoot.
    Not quite what Churchill thought though.
    No, he knew very well that the Nazis could not invade, but for political reasons he portrayed the situation otherwise.
    Something you've read, or just your opinion, or both? (You may be right, although my view is that he had a real and well-founded fear. Curious as to your source)
    Read vast amounts over the years. Main info of late from the we have ways podcast - James Holland and Al Murray. Churchill would know full well how strong the navy was.
    The various war cabinet diaries and minutes bear this out.

    I can’t remember who quoted Earl St Vincent - “I do not say they cannot come. I say they cannot come by sea.”
    At heart Hitler was a continentalist. He thought in terms of land warfare in Europe and had no understanding of Britain's sea power, trade links and the power of the empire. He had no plans for invading England. He mainly hoped he wouldn't need to invade. Sea lion doesn't even deserve the term half-baked.
    There is and always was a strand of nonsense about our ww2 history. We stood alone...apart from the empire and rather a lot of help from a not very neutral USA...
    Russia beat Germany - end of story. Even D-Day was a minor skirmish in comparison with any one of many battles on the eastern front. Britain lost.... but was spared the need to revise its identity due to the good fortune of having the allies sort things out.
    Russia lost ... but was spared by the British who had worn down German air power in the Battle of Britain, and were forcing them to keep three dozen divisions in Western Europe and several more in North Africa, without which Hitler would have won in 1941 or mid-1942.

    World War 2 was a team effort on the Allied side. The contribution of each of the three major allies was essential.
    Was it? What would have happened if Russia had capitulated? There's a good chance things would have turned out just as they did, because freeing up a lot of Panzers for Operation Sealion does not actually help very much.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,546

    Is Badenoch the Keir Starmer of the Tories?

    She's going to get 170 seat majority?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Newsnight: Washington Post will not endorse a candidate.

    There's a story circulating about how Bezos stepped in to prevent a Harris endorsement.
    So that's Musk and Bezos in the Trump camp. Maybe Zuckerberg has gone over to the dark side too?
    Tech bros love Trump, for the most part.
    Billionaires like tax cuts for billionaires, for the most part.
    There's that but also the Biden SEC thinks that all cryptocurrencies are illegal (except the one which still wrecks the environment, for reasons they remain vague about) which casts a shadow over the bags of basically any tech VC fund.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,060

    Trump claiming that Harris has allowed "the largest border invasion in the history of the world".

    Now, excuse me Donald, you are dissing those Nazi generals you so admire. Those who undertook Operation Barbarossa. Unless at the Mexican border, the invaders have turned up with more than 190 divisions and 4 air fleets (Luftflotten) including 5,500,000 officers and men, more than 47,000 field guns and mortars, 4,300 tanks and assault guns and nearly 5,000 combat aircraft.

    Which we might have noticed.

    Urgent Q for Home Office ministers: Has the UK prepared plans for exodus of Americans fleeing Trump 2.0 USA?
    "You have to go south! Find warmer weather!"
    The Day After Sunil Prasannan
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,546
    B-2 Spirits have been in the region. If they have brought these 30,000lb bombs...nowhere in Iran is safe.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0SMoW8AKaE
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,546

    B-2 Spirits have been in the region. If they have brought these 30,000lb bombs...nowhere in Iran is safe.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0SMoW8AKaE

    Reuters saying no US assets used in offensive operations.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,060
    MattW said:

    Correction.

    Earlier I mentioned F15s in Ukrainian service; I meant F16s. Apologies.

    The F15s have two tails, two engines and two air intakes. The F16s have one tail, one engine and one air intake.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,164

    This. 100x this. One of the most stupid political decisions in modern times.



    Ailbhe Rea
    @PronouncedAlva
    ·
    7h
    The worry: Gordon Brown’s first move as Chancellor was to make the Bank of England independent; for Rachel Reeves, it was scrapping help for pensioners with their heating bills.


    https://x.com/PronouncedAlva/status/1849846482217717870

    Meh. It needing doing and we'll be talking about something else by 2029.
    And a lot of voters will have reverted to the blues
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,060

    B-2 Spirits have been in the region. If they have brought these 30,000lb bombs...nowhere in Iran is safe.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0SMoW8AKaE

    Alex Hollings! Yay!
  • Is Badenoch the Keir Starmer of the Tories?

    She's going to get 170 seat majority?
    Exactly, is she?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,546
    Jordan has rescinded its neutrality...fully on Team Israel/USA
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,110
    Fishing said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Sean_F said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Omnium said:

    Sean_F said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Foxy said:

    Omnium said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent some time on the math, so it needs reposting:

    Nigelb said:

    This gives some insight into Putin's mindset (and Russian public opinion, such as it is).
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/22/high-russian-death-toll-fails-shift-opinion-ukraine-war

    Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.

    But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.

    In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.

    They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.

    If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.

    So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
    Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
    Russia very rarely loses wars on the battlefield. Much more often, it loses them on the home front. That has to be Ukraine's grand strategy here too. The Kremlin is overheating its economy because of war efforts and in the short term that will also bring some popularity but there will be a price to pay (literally) as inflation increasingly bites, as it will.

    Obviously, with a Trump presidency, Putin need worry less about Western retaliation to war crimes in terms of support for Ukraine, sanctions and so on, and presumably that's his plan: bomb Ukraine more. But it's not worked so far and people are resilient in such situations.
    And anyway, by the spring offensive it will be a question of which way will President Vance go. (Assuming Putin doesn't have the dirt on him too...CCTV of his sofa?)
    Vance has been even more vocally anti-Ukraine than Trump.
    Whilst there's no great threat to the UK, I'm pretty sure that Putin could invade us after Guy Fawkes night, and seize London. The Russian navy is no great shakes, but ours is almost an absence in force. It wouldn't hold of course - the Russians would have to fall back under a wave of soup thrown by odd people and beardy types clapping them far too firmly on the back. But, you know, just saying.
    No chance. The last Russian naval victory was in the age of sail. Pathetic as our defences are after years of Tory neglect, the Royal Navy and RAF would sink their rustbuckets easily. The Ukranians have swept them from most of the Black Sea with no Navy at all..
    Suppose you string out the RN in a big long line and imagine that each ship can defend say 20 miles of coast - we're still well short. The RAF has some crazily small number of combat aircraft.

    Look, I can't really judge, but it seems quite clear to me that we spend billions on the illusion of having a defence whereas the reality is that we have almost none at all.
    The Russian Navy never had much force projection.

    Their surface navy (the bit that still floats) is covered with big, liquid fueled missiles. Which exposed very nicely when hit, as the Ukrainians demonstrated. Similar reasons to why their tanks throw their turrets…

    Their one carrier is completely broken and can’t sail. And before you start the jokes, we have a carrier at sea. The F-35 on board are generations beyond anything Russian.

    Their sub fleet is out of service.

    Their amphibious landing capability is now next to nil.

    So they can’t get to the U.K., can’t defend themselves on the way here and can’t land anything when they arrive. Aside from that…

    Oh, and you don’t defend the U.K. by creating a picket line round the country (every 20 miles etc). As Nelson pointed out when he was in charge of the Channel Fleet, that’s not how it works
    Ok, so just for the hell of it, what would you suggest would happen if Putin decided to try to seize London? RN sweeping the waves, and nothing more to be said?

    His navy, such as it is, would be sunk in the Skaggerack.
    So a first strike by NATO? Just 10k Russian troops on a holiday cruise and you sink them? I know such scenarios are outlandish and unrealistic, but say it was just a thousand Russian special forces - seize a Scottish airbase, fly in more troops. It wouldn't work - it'd be a horrible defeat for Russia, but the line between it working and not working is very far from where it should be.
    You think there are 10,000 Russian special forces troops still alive and not tied down in trying to keep the Ukrainian invasion going?
    Well I said ' a thousand'.
    This is starting to sound like those comic Internet threads where the Argentina crash land Boeing 747s of troops on the Falklands.

    As demonstrated at Kyiv airport and elsewhere, unsupported and unresupplied “special forces” just turning up are dead meat against even vague resistance.

    Special forces aren’t magic ninjas. They are specialist recon, mostly. With a very small scale ability to undertake heroic, knife-in-your-teeth operations.

    Ok lets step through this

    1. Could Putin find 1k special forces troops?
    2. Cold Putin find some barges or the like with those troops on them to nip into a Scottish port?
    3. Could those troops swiftly find and seize and airport?
    4. Could Putin fly in more troops?
    5. Could the assembled force push south and seize quite a lot of things?

    To all of the above the answer is probably yes.

    Happily

    6. Could this be sustained?

    Is a fairly clear 'no'.

    We are now at The Alien Space Bats version of Operation Sealion.

    The ASBs were invented by the late, great Alison Brooks, an authority on invasion plans for the U.K.

    Their place is to posit/explain insane actions by invaders and the opposition.

    Such as “the Army, RN and Airforce took a three day holiday. Until the Germans got ashore. To be sporting.”
    Ah - the 1914 and 1939 argument. They worked out well.

    In 1939 if the Germans had chosen a very high risk invasion then it's far from clear that they may not have succeeded.

    The idea of Putin attacking the UK is obviously daft, but being blindsided is dafter still. I don't believe for a moment that you imagine that our armed forces are up to the task of defending us. They should be, but they aren't. Much of the shortfall is just horrible budget mismanagement, the rest mostly ghastly management generally, and some element is underfunding.
    Had the Germans launched a seaborne invasion, it would have been a turkey shoot.
    Not quite what Churchill thought though.
    No, he knew very well that the Nazis could not invade, but for political reasons he portrayed the situation otherwise.
    Something you've read, or just your opinion, or both? (You may be right, although my view is that he had a real and well-founded fear. Curious as to your source)
    Read vast amounts over the years. Main info of late from the we have ways podcast - James Holland and Al Murray. Churchill would know full well how strong the navy was.
    The various war cabinet diaries and minutes bear this out.

    I can’t remember who quoted Earl St Vincent - “I do not say they cannot come. I say they cannot come by sea.”
    At heart Hitler was a continentalist. He thought in terms of land warfare in Europe and had no understanding of Britain's sea power, trade links and the power of the empire. He had no plans for invading England. He mainly hoped he wouldn't need to invade. Sea lion doesn't even deserve the term half-baked.
    There is and always was a strand of nonsense about our ww2 history. We stood alone...apart from the empire and rather a lot of help from a not very neutral USA...
    Russia beat Germany - end of story. Even D-Day was a minor skirmish in comparison with any one of many battles on the eastern front. Britain lost.... but was spared the need to revise its identity due to the good fortune of having the allies sort things out.
    Russia lost ... but was spared by the British who had worn down German air power in the Battle of Britain, and were forcing them to keep three dozen divisions in Western Europe and several more in North Africa, without which Hitler would have won in 1941 or mid-1942.

    World War 2 was a team effort on the Allied side. The contribution of each of the three major allies was essential.
    The old saying is that Britain provided the time, Russia the men, and the US the money.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,541
    viewcode said:
    The problem is the previous owner of Twitter was too censorious, whereas Musk is too lax.
  • DumbosaurusDumbosaurus Posts: 794
    edited October 26
    Sorry to talk about political betting, but I accidentally clicked on the next Lib Dem leader market... is there something I'm missing? While obv Daisy Cooper would be a strong favourite if a leadership change occurred now, for her to have last printed 1.25 and 1.32 being around to lay doesn't really make any sense to me at all unless there's a reason to think Davey is standing down any time soon? Is there? The usual assumption that power (in as much as Lib Dem leaders have any) is moreish would suggest this is a very silly price. But maybe I've missed him saying he's standing down shortly or something?
  • Tim_in_RuislipTim_in_Ruislip Posts: 435
    edited October 26
    Sam Harris on Sullivan’s latest dishcast podcast is quite good.

    On the US election.

    Not sure I agree with all of it, for example, I think it is legitimate to make a campaign point on illegal immigration. The way the trump campaign is doing it seems pretty crude, though. Which I think was the main point being made.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,541

    Sam Harris on Sullivan’s latest dishcast podcast is quite good.

    On the US election.

    Not sure I agree with all of it, for example, I think it is legitimate to make a campaign point on illegal immigration. The way the trump campaign is doing it seems pretty crude, though. Which I think was the main point being made.

    If illegal migration had been kept under control over the last 20 years we probably wouldn't have had Trump or Brexit.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,508

    Jordan has rescinded its neutrality...fully on Team Israel/USA

    To their great credit they already played a crucial part in defending Israel during the first Iranian missile attacks.
  • Tim_in_RuislipTim_in_Ruislip Posts: 435
    edited October 26
    Andy_JS said:

    Sam Harris on Sullivan’s latest dishcast podcast is quite good.

    On the US election.

    Not sure I agree with all of it, for example, I think it is legitimate to make a campaign point on illegal immigration. The way the trump campaign is doing it seems pretty crude, though. Which I think was the main point being made.

    If illegal migration had been kept under control over the last 20 years we probably wouldn't have had Trump or Brexit.
    That is an interesting counterfactual.

    I think I broadly agree. However, there were lots of other factors, imo. Eg, Trump’s understanding - and mastery - of the new media environment back in 2008-16, ZIRP, the elite split in the Tory party, etc etc.

    But yes, I think I agree. Without the surge in illegal migration, the last decade of domestic politics on both sides of the Atlantic would have played out differently.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,110
    Andy_JS said:

    Sam Harris on Sullivan’s latest dishcast podcast is quite good.

    On the US election.

    Not sure I agree with all of it, for example, I think it is legitimate to make a campaign point on illegal immigration. The way the trump campaign is doing it seems pretty crude, though. Which I think was the main point being made.

    If illegal migration had been kept under control over the last 20 years we probably wouldn't have had Trump or Brexit.
    In the US, it's not really true though.

    There was no problem with illegal immigration during the Obama years. During that period, southern border crossings reached a 20 year low.

    Then Trump made a big thing of "we're being invaded", southern border crossings actually rose (because now it was no longer a bipartisan issue and people weren't working together for solutions), and then Biden came in and it became a disaster.

    My article on Oppositionalism is here: https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/07/17/the-dangers-of-oppositionalism/
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,228
    In a sake tasting room with £5 to spare

    Could get messy
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,576
    edited October 26
    Nearly three hours long as well.

    That’s going to break the internet today. 1m views in two hours just on Youtube.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,546
    Leon said:

    In a sake tasting room with £5 to spare

    Could get messy

    Flying tonight between Ashgabat and Dubai.

    Could get messy.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,401
    Sean_F said:

    The geopolitical outlook for Britain really hasn’t been this dark since the 1930s.

    Trump, if he wins, is about to surrender Ukraine to the Russians. His policy, if he does not cause an actual trade war, is to undermine the liberal and democratic principles that underpin the Western order.

    The Brics conference is certainly morphing from its slightly arbitrary origins to be a nascent challenge to the dollar hegemony.

    At home, one British elite seem to be giving up on the concept of British power even as the world grows ever more Hobbesian. The other elite see Britain’s future in maintaining hostility with our nearest neighbours.

    Brace.

    You get societies where the elites cease to believe that their State has any reason to exist, like Poland in 1772, Venice in 1797, or France in 1940.

    Perhaps, we have reached that point.
    I think we have. There are plenty of commentators in this space on LBC and Channel4 and several regular posters on here that say they same.

    They only represent up to 15% of the population but they are an influential one.

    Question is whether they can be democratically overriden by everyone else.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,401

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Sean_F said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Omnium said:

    Sean_F said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Foxy said:

    Omnium said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT, but I spent some time on the math, so it needs reposting:

    Nigelb said:

    This gives some insight into Putin's mindset (and Russian public opinion, such as it is).
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/22/high-russian-death-toll-fails-shift-opinion-ukraine-war

    Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.

    But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.

    In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.

    They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.

    If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.

    So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
    Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
    Russia very rarely loses wars on the battlefield. Much more often, it loses them on the home front. That has to be Ukraine's grand strategy here too. The Kremlin is overheating its economy because of war efforts and in the short term that will also bring some popularity but there will be a price to pay (literally) as inflation increasingly bites, as it will.

    Obviously, with a Trump presidency, Putin need worry less about Western retaliation to war crimes in terms of support for Ukraine, sanctions and so on, and presumably that's his plan: bomb Ukraine more. But it's not worked so far and people are resilient in such situations.
    And anyway, by the spring offensive it will be a question of which way will President Vance go. (Assuming Putin doesn't have the dirt on him too...CCTV of his sofa?)
    Vance has been even more vocally anti-Ukraine than Trump.
    Whilst there's no great threat to the UK, I'm pretty sure that Putin could invade us after Guy Fawkes night, and seize London. The Russian navy is no great shakes, but ours is almost an absence in force. It wouldn't hold of course - the Russians would have to fall back under a wave of soup thrown by odd people and beardy types clapping them far too firmly on the back. But, you know, just saying.
    No chance. The last Russian naval victory was in the age of sail. Pathetic as our defences are after years of Tory neglect, the Royal Navy and RAF would sink their rustbuckets easily. The Ukranians have swept them from most of the Black Sea with no Navy at all..
    Suppose you string out the RN in a big long line and imagine that each ship can defend say 20 miles of coast - we're still well short. The RAF has some crazily small number of combat aircraft.

    Look, I can't really judge, but it seems quite clear to me that we spend billions on the illusion of having a defence whereas the reality is that we have almost none at all.
    The Russian Navy never had much force projection.

    Their surface navy (the bit that still floats) is covered with big, liquid fueled missiles. Which exposed very nicely when hit, as the Ukrainians demonstrated. Similar reasons to why their tanks throw their turrets…

    Their one carrier is completely broken and can’t sail. And before you start the jokes, we have a carrier at sea. The F-35 on board are generations beyond anything Russian.

    Their sub fleet is out of service.

    Their amphibious landing capability is now next to nil.

    So they can’t get to the U.K., can’t defend themselves on the way here and can’t land anything when they arrive. Aside from that…

    Oh, and you don’t defend the U.K. by creating a picket line round the country (every 20 miles etc). As Nelson pointed out when he was in charge of the Channel Fleet, that’s not how it works
    Ok, so just for the hell of it, what would you suggest would happen if Putin decided to try to seize London? RN sweeping the waves, and nothing more to be said?

    His navy, such as it is, would be sunk in the Skaggerack.
    So a first strike by NATO? Just 10k Russian troops on a holiday cruise and you sink them? I know such scenarios are outlandish and unrealistic, but say it was just a thousand Russian special forces - seize a Scottish airbase, fly in more troops. It wouldn't work - it'd be a horrible defeat for Russia, but the line between it working and not working is very far from where it should be.
    You think there are 10,000 Russian special forces troops still alive and not tied down in trying to keep the Ukrainian invasion going?
    Well I said ' a thousand'.
    This is starting to sound like those comic Internet threads where the Argentina crash land Boeing 747s of troops on the Falklands.

    As demonstrated at Kyiv airport and elsewhere, unsupported and unresupplied “special forces” just turning up are dead meat against even vague resistance.

    Special forces aren’t magic ninjas. They are specialist recon, mostly. With a very small scale ability to undertake heroic, knife-in-your-teeth operations.

    Ok lets step through this

    1. Could Putin find 1k special forces troops?
    2. Cold Putin find some barges or the like with those troops on them to nip into a Scottish port?
    3. Could those troops swiftly find and seize and airport?
    4. Could Putin fly in more troops?
    5. Could the assembled force push south and seize quite a lot of things?

    To all of the above the answer is probably yes.

    Happily

    6. Could this be sustained?

    Is a fairly clear 'no'.

    We are now at The Alien Space Bats version of Operation Sealion.

    The ASBs were invented by the late, great Alison Brooks, an authority on invasion plans for the U.K.

    Their place is to posit/explain insane actions by invaders and the opposition.

    Such as “the Army, RN and Airforce took a three day holiday. Until the Germans got ashore. To be sporting.”
    Ah - the 1914 and 1939 argument. They worked out well.

    In 1939 if the Germans had chosen a very high risk invasion then it's far from clear that they may not have succeeded.

    The idea of Putin attacking the UK is obviously daft, but being blindsided is dafter still. I don't believe for a moment that you imagine that our armed forces are up to the task of defending us. They should be, but they aren't. Much of the shortfall is just horrible budget mismanagement, the rest mostly ghastly management generally, and some element is underfunding.
    Had the Germans launched a seaborne invasion, it would have been a turkey shoot.
    Not quite what Churchill thought though.
    No, he knew very well that the Nazis could not invade, but for political reasons he portrayed the situation otherwise.
    Something you've read, or just your opinion, or both? (You may be right, although my view is that he had a real and well-founded fear. Curious as to your source)
    Read vast amounts over the years. Main info of late from the we have ways podcast - James Holland and Al Murray. Churchill would know full well how strong the navy was.
    The various war cabinet diaries and minutes bear this out.

    I can’t remember who quoted Earl St Vincent - “I do not say they cannot come. I say they cannot come by sea.”
    At heart Hitler was a continentalist. He thought in terms of land warfare in Europe and had no understanding of Britain's sea power, trade links and the power of the empire. He had no plans for invading England. He mainly hoped he wouldn't need to invade. Sea lion doesn't even deserve the term half-baked.
    There is and always was a strand of nonsense about our ww2 history. We stood alone...apart from the empire and rather a lot of help from a not very neutral USA...
    We stood alone, but with the resources and men of India, Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa and all our Carribean and African colonies. Plus we had the world's biggest navy.

    If we 'stood alone' now just as Blighty we'd probably only have 20-25% of the force we had when we 'stood alone' then.

    The Empire was one hell of an asset.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,401
    A 2% increase on employers NI is going to destroy pay rises, recruitment and job offers for an awful lot of people. It will hit businesses hard.

    In the private sector only, of course. The public sector get a nice opt-out under Starmer's Labour.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,228

    Sean_F said:

    The geopolitical outlook for Britain really hasn’t been this dark since the 1930s.

    Trump, if he wins, is about to surrender Ukraine to the Russians. His policy, if he does not cause an actual trade war, is to undermine the liberal and democratic principles that underpin the Western order.

    The Brics conference is certainly morphing from its slightly arbitrary origins to be a nascent challenge to the dollar hegemony.

    At home, one British elite seem to be giving up on the concept of British power even as the world grows ever more Hobbesian. The other elite see Britain’s future in maintaining hostility with our nearest neighbours.

    Brace.

    You get societies where the elites cease to believe that their State has any reason to exist, like Poland in 1772, Venice in 1797, or France in 1940.

    Perhaps, we have reached that point.
    I think we have. There are plenty of commentators in this space on LBC and Channel4 and several regular posters on here that say they same.

    They only represent up to 15% of the population but they are an influential one.

    Question is whether they can be democratically overriden by everyone else.
    This is why we have to vote hard right next time. The Tories are not enough - unless Jenrick or Badenoch surprise wildly on the upside
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,401
    Sounds like a massive tax rise coming.

    This is going to have very serious consequences.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wrkngvyx4o
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,401
    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    The geopolitical outlook for Britain really hasn’t been this dark since the 1930s.

    Trump, if he wins, is about to surrender Ukraine to the Russians. His policy, if he does not cause an actual trade war, is to undermine the liberal and democratic principles that underpin the Western order.

    The Brics conference is certainly morphing from its slightly arbitrary origins to be a nascent challenge to the dollar hegemony.

    At home, one British elite seem to be giving up on the concept of British power even as the world grows ever more Hobbesian. The other elite see Britain’s future in maintaining hostility with our nearest neighbours.

    Brace.

    You get societies where the elites cease to believe that their State has any reason to exist, like Poland in 1772, Venice in 1797, or France in 1940.

    Perhaps, we have reached that point.
    I think we have. There are plenty of commentators in this space on LBC and Channel4 and several regular posters on here that say they same.

    They only represent up to 15% of the population but they are an influential one.

    Question is whether they can be democratically overriden by everyone else.
    This is why we have to vote hard right next time. The Tories are not enough - unless Jenrick or Badenoch surprise wildly on the upside
    We will have to vote for whoever is most likely to defeat Labour, and the cucks of politics - the Liberal Democrats - who lap all this stuff up.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,775
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: not sure when the pre-qualifying tosh will be up, likely won't have a tip. I'm busy this evening so won't be able to watch FP3 and post after that.

    Mr. Royale, you are quite wrong to say a massive tax rise is coming. It's coming for the private sector. The public sector will be somewhere between unaffected and enjoying their latest union-delivered pay rise.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,401

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: not sure when the pre-qualifying tosh will be up, likely won't have a tip. I'm busy this evening so won't be able to watch FP3 and post after that.

    Mr. Royale, you are quite wrong to say a massive tax rise is coming. It's coming for the private sector. The public sector will be somewhere between unaffected and enjoying their latest union-delivered pay rise.

    Here's my prediction: that extra £20bn a year for the NHS just disappears, and we see virtually nothing for it.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,198
    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    The geopolitical outlook for Britain really hasn’t been this dark since the 1930s.

    Trump, if he wins, is about to surrender Ukraine to the Russians. His policy, if he does not cause an actual trade war, is to undermine the liberal and democratic principles that underpin the Western order.

    The Brics conference is certainly morphing from its slightly arbitrary origins to be a nascent challenge to the dollar hegemony.

    At home, one British elite seem to be giving up on the concept of British power even as the world grows ever more Hobbesian. The other elite see Britain’s future in maintaining hostility with our nearest neighbours.

    Brace.

    You get societies where the elites cease to believe that their State has any reason to exist, like Poland in 1772, Venice in 1797, or France in 1940.

    Perhaps, we have reached that point.
    I think we have. There are plenty of commentators in this space on LBC and Channel4 and several regular posters on here that say they same.

    They only represent up to 15% of the population but they are an influential one.

    Question is whether they can be democratically overriden by everyone else.
    This is why we have to vote hard right next time. The Tories are not enough - unless Jenrick or Badenoch surprise wildly on the upside
    Who’s the “we”? You and Tommy Lots of Names?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,350
    Brook and Stokes both out cheaply with England still behind.

    I blame @Sandpit for his comments yesterday.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,228

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    The geopolitical outlook for Britain really hasn’t been this dark since the 1930s.

    Trump, if he wins, is about to surrender Ukraine to the Russians. His policy, if he does not cause an actual trade war, is to undermine the liberal and democratic principles that underpin the Western order.

    The Brics conference is certainly morphing from its slightly arbitrary origins to be a nascent challenge to the dollar hegemony.

    At home, one British elite seem to be giving up on the concept of British power even as the world grows ever more Hobbesian. The other elite see Britain’s future in maintaining hostility with our nearest neighbours.

    Brace.

    You get societies where the elites cease to believe that their State has any reason to exist, like Poland in 1772, Venice in 1797, or France in 1940.

    Perhaps, we have reached that point.
    I think we have. There are plenty of commentators in this space on LBC and Channel4 and several regular posters on here that say they same.

    They only represent up to 15% of the population but they are an influential one.

    Question is whether they can be democratically overriden by everyone else.
    This is why we have to vote hard right next time. The Tories are not enough - unless Jenrick or Badenoch surprise wildly on the upside
    Who’s the “we”? You and Tommy Lots of Names?
    WE
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,344
    edited October 26

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: not sure when the pre-qualifying tosh will be up, likely won't have a tip. I'm busy this evening so won't be able to watch FP3 and post after that.

    Mr. Royale, you are quite wrong to say a massive tax rise is coming. It's coming for the private sector. The public sector will be somewhere between unaffected and enjoying their latest union-delivered pay rise.

    Here's my prediction: that extra £20bn a year for the NHS just disappears, and we see virtually nothing for it.
    It will go on pay rises.

    Both the Conservatives and Labour see their role as redistribution of income from the average voter to their own clients.

    One can assume that Reeves has given up on trying to boost growth.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,228
    I just had a superb skewer of Hida beef, some wasabi squid, nine cups of sake, sesame crackers, plum rice, horse chestnut crisps, mochi balls in soy, clear mushroom broth, and a cup of vintage miso soup and these are all snacks before lunch

    How do the Japanese stay thin?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,228

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: not sure when the pre-qualifying tosh will be up, likely won't have a tip. I'm busy this evening so won't be able to watch FP3 and post after that.

    Mr. Royale, you are quite wrong to say a massive tax rise is coming. It's coming for the private sector. The public sector will be somewhere between unaffected and enjoying their latest union-delivered pay rise.

    Here's my prediction: that extra £20bn a year for the NHS just disappears, and we see virtually nothing for it.
    You are absolutely right of course

    Labour has no clues what to do. No idea for fixing anything. No strategy or plans. It has done zero thinking during opposition and Lammy, Starmer and Reeves all look like terrified mediocrities who have been accidentally promoted way above their abilities

    In this context, all they can do is grab whatever freebies they can get while they’re still in office (as we see) and maybe chuck money at the client vote in the vague hope that might be enough to see them into a 2nd term (it won’t)

    I firmly believe this will become the most unpopular government in postwar British history
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,344
    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    The geopolitical outlook for Britain really hasn’t been this dark since the 1930s.

    Trump, if he wins, is about to surrender Ukraine to the Russians. His policy, if he does not cause an actual trade war, is to undermine the liberal and democratic principles that underpin the Western order.

    The Brics conference is certainly morphing from its slightly arbitrary origins to be a nascent challenge to the dollar hegemony.

    At home, one British elite seem to be giving up on the concept of British power even as the world grows ever more Hobbesian. The other elite see Britain’s future in maintaining hostility with our nearest neighbours.

    Brace.

    You get societies where the elites cease to believe that their State has any reason to exist, like Poland in 1772, Venice in 1797, or France in 1940.

    Perhaps, we have reached that point.
    I think we have. There are plenty of commentators in this space on LBC and Channel4 and several regular posters on here that say they same.

    They only represent up to 15% of the population but they are an influential one.

    Question is whether they can be democratically overriden by everyone else.
    This is why we have to vote hard right next time. The Tories are not enough - unless Jenrick or Badenoch surprise wildly on the upside
    Vote for whichever candidate (Conservative or Reform), is best placed to defeat Labour, IMHO.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,344
    Leon said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: not sure when the pre-qualifying tosh will be up, likely won't have a tip. I'm busy this evening so won't be able to watch FP3 and post after that.

    Mr. Royale, you are quite wrong to say a massive tax rise is coming. It's coming for the private sector. The public sector will be somewhere between unaffected and enjoying their latest union-delivered pay rise.

    Here's my prediction: that extra £20bn a year for the NHS just disappears, and we see virtually nothing for it.
    You are absolutely right of course

    Labour has no clues what to do. No idea for fixing anything. No strategy or plans. It has done zero thinking during opposition and Lammy, Starmer and Reeves all look like terrified mediocrities who have been accidentally promoted way above their abilities

    In this context, all they can do is grab whatever freebies they can get while they’re still in office (as we see) and maybe chuck money at the client vote in the vague hope that might be enough to see them into a 2nd term (it won’t)

    I firmly believe this will become the most unpopular government in postwar British history
    By mid-term, I’d expect them to be polling somewhere in the teens.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,747
    Leon said:

    I just had a superb skewer of Hida beef, some wasabi squid, nine cups of sake, sesame crackers, plum rice, horse chestnut crisps, mochi balls in soy, clear mushroom broth, and a cup of vintage miso soup and these are all snacks before lunch

    How do the Japanese stay thin?

    None of that is bread made from glyphosate dedicated wheat
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,228
    edited October 26
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: not sure when the pre-qualifying tosh will be up, likely won't have a tip. I'm busy this evening so won't be able to watch FP3 and post after that.

    Mr. Royale, you are quite wrong to say a massive tax rise is coming. It's coming for the private sector. The public sector will be somewhere between unaffected and enjoying their latest union-delivered pay rise.

    Here's my prediction: that extra £20bn a year for the NHS just disappears, and we see virtually nothing for it.
    You are absolutely right of course

    Labour has no clues what to do. No idea for fixing anything. No strategy or plans. It has done zero thinking during opposition and Lammy, Starmer and Reeves all look like terrified mediocrities who have been accidentally promoted way above their abilities

    In this context, all they can do is grab whatever freebies they can get while they’re still in office (as we see) and maybe chuck money at the client vote in the vague hope that might be enough to see them into a 2nd term (it won’t)

    I firmly believe this will become the most unpopular government in postwar British history
    By mid-term, I’d expect them to be polling somewhere in the teens.
    Yes, unless some black swan like a war or a rapid tech revolution rescues them, I expect the same

    The cupboard of Labour ideas is bare, except for some old tins of really bad ideas
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,401
    Sean_F said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: not sure when the pre-qualifying tosh will be up, likely won't have a tip. I'm busy this evening so won't be able to watch FP3 and post after that.

    Mr. Royale, you are quite wrong to say a massive tax rise is coming. It's coming for the private sector. The public sector will be somewhere between unaffected and enjoying their latest union-delivered pay rise.

    Here's my prediction: that extra £20bn a year for the NHS just disappears, and we see virtually nothing for it.
    It will go on pay rises.

    Both the Conservatives and Labour see their role as redistribution of income from the average voter to their own clients.

    One can assume that Reeves has given up on trying to boost growth.
    It will go on pay rises, internal inflation and avoiding meaningful productivity reforms.

    I think Reeves believed her own propaganda and expected growth to happen just by virtue of Labour being in office, rather than the Conservatives.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,576
    ydoethur said:

    Brook and Stokes both out cheaply with England still behind.

    I blame @Sandpit for his comments yesterday.

    At least we’re now back in front again.

    I called it spot on, that England lost the match yesterday by letting far too many runs go for the last three wickets.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,401
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    The geopolitical outlook for Britain really hasn’t been this dark since the 1930s.

    Trump, if he wins, is about to surrender Ukraine to the Russians. His policy, if he does not cause an actual trade war, is to undermine the liberal and democratic principles that underpin the Western order.

    The Brics conference is certainly morphing from its slightly arbitrary origins to be a nascent challenge to the dollar hegemony.

    At home, one British elite seem to be giving up on the concept of British power even as the world grows ever more Hobbesian. The other elite see Britain’s future in maintaining hostility with our nearest neighbours.

    Brace.

    You get societies where the elites cease to believe that their State has any reason to exist, like Poland in 1772, Venice in 1797, or France in 1940.

    Perhaps, we have reached that point.
    I think we have. There are plenty of commentators in this space on LBC and Channel4 and several regular posters on here that say they same.

    They only represent up to 15% of the population but they are an influential one.

    Question is whether they can be democratically overriden by everyone else.
    This is why we have to vote hard right next time. The Tories are not enough - unless Jenrick or Badenoch surprise wildly on the upside
    Vote for whichever candidate (Conservative or Reform), is best placed to defeat Labour, IMHO.
    The Lib Dems need to be squeezed too.

    They are fully on board with all this crap and, in fact, sometimes want to go further.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,401
    Leon said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: not sure when the pre-qualifying tosh will be up, likely won't have a tip. I'm busy this evening so won't be able to watch FP3 and post after that.

    Mr. Royale, you are quite wrong to say a massive tax rise is coming. It's coming for the private sector. The public sector will be somewhere between unaffected and enjoying their latest union-delivered pay rise.

    Here's my prediction: that extra £20bn a year for the NHS just disappears, and we see virtually nothing for it.
    You are absolutely right of course

    Labour has no clues what to do. No idea for fixing anything. No strategy or plans. It has done zero thinking during opposition and Lammy, Starmer and Reeves all look like terrified mediocrities who have been accidentally promoted way above their abilities

    In this context, all they can do is grab whatever freebies they can get while they’re still in office (as we see) and maybe chuck money at the client vote in the vague hope that might be enough to see them into a 2nd term (it won’t)

    I firmly believe this will become the most unpopular government in postwar British history
    I agree. Their only hope is that interest rates coming off the boil next year, and the return of a little bit more growth, helps them somewhat.

    However, I think their problem is more political and once the die is cast - as it rapidly is being now - they won't be able to recover.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,228

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    The geopolitical outlook for Britain really hasn’t been this dark since the 1930s.

    Trump, if he wins, is about to surrender Ukraine to the Russians. His policy, if he does not cause an actual trade war, is to undermine the liberal and democratic principles that underpin the Western order.

    The Brics conference is certainly morphing from its slightly arbitrary origins to be a nascent challenge to the dollar hegemony.

    At home, one British elite seem to be giving up on the concept of British power even as the world grows ever more Hobbesian. The other elite see Britain’s future in maintaining hostility with our nearest neighbours.

    Brace.

    You get societies where the elites cease to believe that their State has any reason to exist, like Poland in 1772, Venice in 1797, or France in 1940.

    Perhaps, we have reached that point.
    I think we have. There are plenty of commentators in this space on LBC and Channel4 and several regular posters on here that say they same.

    They only represent up to 15% of the population but they are an influential one.

    Question is whether they can be democratically overriden by everyone else.
    This is why we have to vote hard right next time. The Tories are not enough - unless Jenrick or Badenoch surprise wildly on the upside
    Vote for whichever candidate (Conservative or Reform), is best placed to defeat Labour, IMHO.
    The Lib Dems need to be squeezed too.

    They are fully on board with all this crap and, in fact, sometimes want to go further.
    Reality is coming to fuck them all in the arse

  • TazTaz Posts: 14,361

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: not sure when the pre-qualifying tosh will be up, likely won't have a tip. I'm busy this evening so won't be able to watch FP3 and post after that.

    Mr. Royale, you are quite wrong to say a massive tax rise is coming. It's coming for the private sector. The public sector will be somewhere between unaffected and enjoying their latest union-delivered pay rise.

    Here's my prediction: that extra £20bn a year for the NHS just disappears, and we see virtually nothing for it.
    Of course. 5e NHS is a vast money pit. Bout time we stopped treating it as a national religion.

    Andrew Neil on labours contradiction. It needs growth and the private sector to drive it but is attacking the private sector.

    https://x.com/afneil/status/1850045792746168457?s=61
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,350
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Brook and Stokes both out cheaply with England still behind.

    I blame @Sandpit for his comments yesterday.

    At least we’re now back in front again.

    I called it spot on, that England lost the match yesterday by letting far too many runs go for the last three wickets.
    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5001740#Comment_5001740

    (We need something similar, but we're not going to get it.)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,350
    Leon said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: not sure when the pre-qualifying tosh will be up, likely won't have a tip. I'm busy this evening so won't be able to watch FP3 and post after that.

    Mr. Royale, you are quite wrong to say a massive tax rise is coming. It's coming for the private sector. The public sector will be somewhere between unaffected and enjoying their latest union-delivered pay rise.

    Here's my prediction: that extra £20bn a year for the NHS just disappears, and we see virtually nothing for it.
    You are absolutely right of course

    Labour has no clues what to do. No idea for fixing anything. No strategy or plans. It has done zero thinking during opposition and Lammy, Starmer and Reeves all look like terrified mediocrities who have been accidentally promoted way above their abilities

    In this context, all they can do is grab whatever freebies they can get while they’re still in office (as we see) and maybe chuck money at the client vote in the vague hope that might be enough to see them into a 2nd term (it won’t)

    I firmly believe this will become the most unpopular government in postwar British history
    Those words imply you think only very stupid people would have voted Labour.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,361

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    The geopolitical outlook for Britain really hasn’t been this dark since the 1930s.

    Trump, if he wins, is about to surrender Ukraine to the Russians. His policy, if he does not cause an actual trade war, is to undermine the liberal and democratic principles that underpin the Western order.

    The Brics conference is certainly morphing from its slightly arbitrary origins to be a nascent challenge to the dollar hegemony.

    At home, one British elite seem to be giving up on the concept of British power even as the world grows ever more Hobbesian. The other elite see Britain’s future in maintaining hostility with our nearest neighbours.

    Brace.

    You get societies where the elites cease to believe that their State has any reason to exist, like Poland in 1772, Venice in 1797, or France in 1940.

    Perhaps, we have reached that point.
    I think we have. There are plenty of commentators in this space on LBC and Channel4 and several regular posters on here that say they same.

    They only represent up to 15% of the population but they are an influential one.

    Question is whether they can be democratically overriden by everyone else.
    This is why we have to vote hard right next time. The Tories are not enough - unless Jenrick or Badenoch surprise wildly on the upside
    Vote for whichever candidate (Conservative or Reform), is best placed to defeat Labour, IMHO.
    The Lib Dems need to be squeezed too.

    They are fully on board with all this crap and, in fact, sometimes want to go further.
    The Lib Dems are useless. All things to all men. Just like The Greens. Of all the parties the Lib Dems are the ones I really have little time for.

    But for you on the right he reason we are here is no love for labour from the people but you’re own party was so ruddy useless last time out.

    The tax increases to fund rNHS will be popular as people like tax increases they don’t have to pay. However longer term they will be a drag on private sector growth and wages.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,032

    Trump claiming that Harris has allowed "the largest border invasion in the history of the world".

    Now, excuse me Donald, you are dissing those Nazi generals you so admire. Those who undertook Operation Barbarossa. Unless at the Mexican border, the invaders have turned up with more than 190 divisions and 4 air fleets (Luftflotten) including 5,500,000 officers and men, more than 47,000 field guns and mortars, 4,300 tanks and assault guns and nearly 5,000 combat aircraft.

    Which we might have noticed.

    I can't stand Trump myself, but I do love silly statistical pedantry. Under Biden, the number of border crossings intercepted has been about 7,000,000, 1,500,000 more than the Nazi invasion you cite.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-20/illegal-us-border-crossings-aren-t-really-breaking-records

    That doesn't include those who made it, and also doesn't allow for 2024 as numbers aren't in yet, repeat offenders, thought to be about a quarter of the total, so the numbers aren't quite comparable. But Trump could certainly argue his point if he had to.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,775
    Mr. Royale, if Labour hike fuel duty then inflation will be more than an internal problem.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,350
    Now Joe Root joins the procession.

    This is embarrassing.

    New Zealand are going to be all over us.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,110
    Fishing said:

    Trump claiming that Harris has allowed "the largest border invasion in the history of the world".

    Now, excuse me Donald, you are dissing those Nazi generals you so admire. Those who undertook Operation Barbarossa. Unless at the Mexican border, the invaders have turned up with more than 190 divisions and 4 air fleets (Luftflotten) including 5,500,000 officers and men, more than 47,000 field guns and mortars, 4,300 tanks and assault guns and nearly 5,000 combat aircraft.

    Which we might have noticed.

    I can't stand Trump myself, but I do love silly statistical pedantry. Under Biden, the number of border crossings intercepted has been about 7,000,000, 1,500,000 more than the Nazi invasion you cite.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-20/illegal-us-border-crossings-aren-t-really-breaking-records

    That doesn't include those who made it, and also doesn't allow for 2024 as numbers aren't in yet, repeat offenders, thought to be about a quarter of the total, so the numbers aren't quite comparable. But Trump could certainly argue his point if he had to.
    I clicked on your link and the headline was "Illegal US Border Crossings Aren’t Really Breaking Records"
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,344
    Taz said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    The geopolitical outlook for Britain really hasn’t been this dark since the 1930s.

    Trump, if he wins, is about to surrender Ukraine to the Russians. His policy, if he does not cause an actual trade war, is to undermine the liberal and democratic principles that underpin the Western order.

    The Brics conference is certainly morphing from its slightly arbitrary origins to be a nascent challenge to the dollar hegemony.

    At home, one British elite seem to be giving up on the concept of British power even as the world grows ever more Hobbesian. The other elite see Britain’s future in maintaining hostility with our nearest neighbours.

    Brace.

    You get societies where the elites cease to believe that their State has any reason to exist, like Poland in 1772, Venice in 1797, or France in 1940.

    Perhaps, we have reached that point.
    I think we have. There are plenty of commentators in this space on LBC and Channel4 and several regular posters on here that say they same.

    They only represent up to 15% of the population but they are an influential one.

    Question is whether they can be democratically overriden by everyone else.
    This is why we have to vote hard right next time. The Tories are not enough - unless Jenrick or Badenoch surprise wildly on the upside
    Vote for whichever candidate (Conservative or Reform), is best placed to defeat Labour, IMHO.
    The Lib Dems need to be squeezed too.

    They are fully on board with all this crap and, in fact, sometimes want to go further.
    The Lib Dems are useless. All things to all men. Just like The Greens. Of all the parties the Lib Dems are the ones I really have little time for.

    But for you on the right he reason we are here is no love for labour from the people but you’re own party was so ruddy useless last time out.

    The tax increases to fund rNHS will be popular as people like tax increases they don’t have to pay. However longer term they will be a drag on private sector growth and wages.
    The previous government was a disgraceful mess of incompetence and corruption. It's looking as if this one is no better.
  • Sounds like a massive tax rise coming.

    This is going to have very serious consequences.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wrkngvyx4o

    They seem to be under the deluded impression that you can add £20billion to the private sector payroll and it won’t have knock on consequences. That it will just mean a bit less profits or some such thing.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,546

    Sounds like a massive tax rise coming.

    This is going to have very serious consequences.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wrkngvyx4o

    They seem to be under the deluded impression that you can add £20billion to the private sector payroll and it won’t have knock on consequences. That it will just mean a bit less profits or some such thing.
    Labour's decades-long broken business model on full display again.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,032
    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Trump claiming that Harris has allowed "the largest border invasion in the history of the world".

    Now, excuse me Donald, you are dissing those Nazi generals you so admire. Those who undertook Operation Barbarossa. Unless at the Mexican border, the invaders have turned up with more than 190 divisions and 4 air fleets (Luftflotten) including 5,500,000 officers and men, more than 47,000 field guns and mortars, 4,300 tanks and assault guns and nearly 5,000 combat aircraft.

    Which we might have noticed.

    I can't stand Trump myself, but I do love silly statistical pedantry. Under Biden, the number of border crossings intercepted has been about 7,000,000, 1,500,000 more than the Nazi invasion you cite.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-20/illegal-us-border-crossings-aren-t-really-breaking-records

    That doesn't include those who made it, and also doesn't allow for 2024 as numbers aren't in yet, repeat offenders, thought to be about a quarter of the total, so the numbers aren't quite comparable. But Trump could certainly argue his point if he had to.
    I clicked on your link and the headline was "Illegal US Border Crossings Aren’t Really Breaking Records"
    Indeed. Perhaps you should read the rest of the article though.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,576

    Sounds like a massive tax rise coming.

    This is going to have very serious consequences.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wrkngvyx4o

    They seem to be under the deluded impression that you can add £20billion to the private sector payroll and it won’t have knock on consequences. That it will just mean a bit less profits or some such thing.
    Even worse is the impression that those targeted for tax rises will simply pay up, and not change behaviours, make different employment or investment decisions.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,775
    Mr. Sandpit, it's a very special understanding of the world.

    If I were doing better in terms of writing (still looking) I'd be able to work from anywhere. A friend of mine from North Macedonia is a digital nomad in Spain right now.

    And that's before we get to those on high salaries.
  • Andy_JS said:

    viewcode said:
    The problem is the previous owner of Twitter was too censorious, whereas Musk is too lax.
    I think the more important thing about how social media works, is not so much how directly censorious it is or isn’t, but on how it manipulates. I was listening to the Balls/Osborne podcast and they touched on how Musk using his own twitter handle to boost Trump was, in their mind the same as the previous use of the algorithm by places like google, Facebook and twitter to boost particular candidates and views, and to dampen stories at the behest of the state.
    It seemed a fundamental misunderstanding. Has musk and current twitter manipulated twitter to make it pro trump, or have they just removed the algorithm that was doing it the other way?
    Musk did, when he talked of taking over say they were going to make the algorithms open to scrutiny, has that happened?
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,639

    Sounds like a massive tax rise coming.

    This is going to have very serious consequences.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wrkngvyx4o

    They seem to be under the deluded impression that you can add £20billion to the private sector payroll and it won’t have knock on consequences. That it will just mean a bit less profits or some such thing.
    The NI rise is virtually confirmed now. It is Labour's version of the Health and Social Care Levy which CON nearly introduced in 2021 and is the equivalent of 'Rachel's Redistribution Revenue' which I have posted about on here previously.

    We shall also have room for the following as well: CGT up to 28%, IHT taper increased to 10 years and technical increases due to change in exemptions, fuel duty increase, air passenger duty increase, extra tax on gambling and of course threshold freeze extended to 2030.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,361
    Sean_F said:

    Taz said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    The geopolitical outlook for Britain really hasn’t been this dark since the 1930s.

    Trump, if he wins, is about to surrender Ukraine to the Russians. His policy, if he does not cause an actual trade war, is to undermine the liberal and democratic principles that underpin the Western order.

    The Brics conference is certainly morphing from its slightly arbitrary origins to be a nascent challenge to the dollar hegemony.

    At home, one British elite seem to be giving up on the concept of British power even as the world grows ever more Hobbesian. The other elite see Britain’s future in maintaining hostility with our nearest neighbours.

    Brace.

    You get societies where the elites cease to believe that their State has any reason to exist, like Poland in 1772, Venice in 1797, or France in 1940.

    Perhaps, we have reached that point.
    I think we have. There are plenty of commentators in this space on LBC and Channel4 and several regular posters on here that say they same.

    They only represent up to 15% of the population but they are an influential one.

    Question is whether they can be democratically overriden by everyone else.
    This is why we have to vote hard right next time. The Tories are not enough - unless Jenrick or Badenoch surprise wildly on the upside
    Vote for whichever candidate (Conservative or Reform), is best placed to defeat Labour, IMHO.
    The Lib Dems need to be squeezed too.

    They are fully on board with all this crap and, in fact, sometimes want to go further.
    The Lib Dems are useless. All things to all men. Just like The Greens. Of all the parties the Lib Dems are the ones I really have little time for.

    But for you on the right he reason we are here is no love for labour from the people but you’re own party was so ruddy useless last time out.

    The tax increases to fund rNHS will be popular as people like tax increases they don’t have to pay. However longer term they will be a drag on private sector growth and wages.
    The previous government was a disgraceful mess of incompetence and corruption. It's looking as if this one is no better.
    Yes, it’s Continuity Sunak I’m afraid.

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    I really feel mugged off by labour, I totally bought the government in waiting schtick.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,228
    I just noticed something off about this quaint little Japanese town I’m in. It’s eerily quiet for a town of its size

    And lots of houses seem - on inspection - to be empty. They are well maintained so it’s not easy to see at first glance - but if you check - empty

    Then I googled the demographics


    1970 40,965 —
    1980 36,100 −11.9%
    1990 32,690 −9.4%
    2000 30,421 −6.9%
    2010 26,732 −12.1%
    2020 22,538 −15.7%

    Extraordinary
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,032
    edited October 26
    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Trump claiming that Harris has allowed "the largest border invasion in the history of the world".

    Now, excuse me Donald, you are dissing those Nazi generals you so admire. Those who undertook Operation Barbarossa. Unless at the Mexican border, the invaders have turned up with more than 190 divisions and 4 air fleets (Luftflotten) including 5,500,000 officers and men, more than 47,000 field guns and mortars, 4,300 tanks and assault guns and nearly 5,000 combat aircraft.

    Which we might have noticed.

    I can't stand Trump myself, but I do love silly statistical pedantry. Under Biden, the number of border crossings intercepted has been about 7,000,000, 1,500,000 more than the Nazi invasion you cite.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-20/illegal-us-border-crossings-aren-t-really-breaking-records

    That doesn't include those who made it, and also doesn't allow for 2024 as numbers aren't in yet, repeat offenders, thought to be about a quarter of the total, so the numbers aren't quite comparable. But Trump could certainly argue his point if he had to.
    I clicked on your link and the headline was "Illegal US Border Crossings Aren’t Really Breaking Records"
    Basically, the article only reaches its conclusion by adding made-up estimates of the numbers who might not have been caught when enforcement was less stringent.

    As I say, the numbers aren't comparable, but the illegal immigration under Biden is certainly comparable to, and arguably larger than, Barbarossa. And that's just counting border crossings, whereas lots of illegals simply fly in and overstay.

    If Harris loses in ten days, there will I think be four causes. One is that she's just not a very good candidate who was annointed after her boss's senility couldn't be concealed any more, while American tradition usually demands a more public process. The second is Afghanistan, which shredded Biden's credibility with 10-15% of the electorate, and from which he never really recovered. The third is the great inflation, which Biden's pandemic spending and industrial policies have done so much to stoke. And the fourth is the anarchy on the southern border, which puts even our small boats problem into perspective.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,796
    Sandpit said:

    Sounds like a massive tax rise coming.

    This is going to have very serious consequences.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wrkngvyx4o

    They seem to be under the deluded impression that you can add £20billion to the private sector payroll and it won’t have knock on consequences. That it will just mean a bit less profits or some such thing.
    Even worse is the impression that those targeted for tax rises will simply pay up, and not change behaviours, make different employment or investment decisions.
    That's really the key point. They simply assume that the goose is trapped and has no choice but to wait to be plucked.

    In the real world they find that removing non dom status costs this country and government money; that at the margins some private schools will close and more children will need to be educated at public expense rather than privately and that people are reluctant to continue working simply so that they can be fleeced by the government.

    Employers NI is a pernicious tax that discourages taking on more workers. It makes investment here less profitable. It discourages entrepreneurs who might otherwise set up companies and pay themselves through that. There are other countries with even higher pay roll related taxes but you need to look at the overall package.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,228
    On top of the incredible population decline, the only people left seem to be old
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,639

    Mr. Royale, if Labour hike fuel duty then inflation will be more than an internal problem.

    Labour increase fuel duty> inflation increases> interest rates stay higher for longer> mortgages remain expensive (by historical standards)

    Well done Labour!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,546
    Fishing said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Trump claiming that Harris has allowed "the largest border invasion in the history of the world".

    Now, excuse me Donald, you are dissing those Nazi generals you so admire. Those who undertook Operation Barbarossa. Unless at the Mexican border, the invaders have turned up with more than 190 divisions and 4 air fleets (Luftflotten) including 5,500,000 officers and men, more than 47,000 field guns and mortars, 4,300 tanks and assault guns and nearly 5,000 combat aircraft.

    Which we might have noticed.

    I can't stand Trump myself, but I do love silly statistical pedantry. Under Biden, the number of border crossings intercepted has been about 7,000,000, 1,500,000 more than the Nazi invasion you cite.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-20/illegal-us-border-crossings-aren-t-really-breaking-records

    That doesn't include those who made it, and also doesn't allow for 2024 as numbers aren't in yet, repeat offenders, thought to be about a quarter of the total, so the numbers aren't quite comparable. But Trump could certainly argue his point if he had to.
    I clicked on your link and the headline was "Illegal US Border Crossings Aren’t Really Breaking Records"
    Basically, the article only reaches its conclusion by adding made-up estimates of the numbers who might not have been caught when enforcement was less stringent.

    As I say, the numbers aren't comparable, but the illegal immigration under Biden is certainly comparable to, and arguably larger than, Barbarossa. And that's just counting border crossings, whereas lots of illegals simply fly in and overstay.

    If Harris loses in ten days, there will I think be four causes. One is that she's just not a very good candidate who was annointed after her boss's senility couldn't be concealed any more, while American tradition usually demands a more public process. The second is Afghanistan, which shredded Biden's credibility with 10-15% of the electorate, and from which he never really recovered. The third is the great inflation, which Biden's pandemic spending and industrial policies have done so much to stoke. And the fourth is the anarchy on the southern border, which puts even our small boats problem into perspective.
    And the fifth is the fact the Republican party is willing to cheat and lie its candidate to victory, supported by some very rich techbros who may well be taking orders from outside the USA. None of these have the interests of the average working person at heart; only their own personal enrichment and power.
  • Sounds like a massive tax rise coming.

    This is going to have very serious consequences.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wrkngvyx4o

    They seem to be under the deluded impression that you can add £20billion to the private sector payroll and it won’t have knock on consequences. That it will just mean a bit less profits or some such thing.
    The NI rise is virtually confirmed now. It is Labour's version of the Health and Social Care Levy which CON nearly introduced in 2021 and is the equivalent of 'Rachel's Redistribution Revenue' which I have posted about on here previously.

    We shall also have room for the following as well: CGT up to 28%, IHT taper increased to 10 years and technical increases due to change in exemptions, fuel duty increase, air passenger duty increase, extra tax on gambling and of course threshold freeze extended to 2030.
    A skilled opposition is going to be needed to say why it is bad. As mentioned, the increase in spending on the nhs might be welcomed for a tax that it doesn’t look like you’ll pay. The freezing of thresholds will bite, state pensioners are going to get dragged into paying tax quite soon, and part time workers getting free school meals.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,639
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Brook and Stokes both out cheaply with England still behind.

    I blame @Sandpit for his comments yesterday.

    At least we’re now back in front again.

    I called it spot on, that England lost the match yesterday by letting far too many runs go for the last three wickets.
    Our consistent inability to be able to wrap up the tail has been around for years and costs us so many Test matches
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,796
    Leon said:

    On top of the incredible population decline, the only people left seem to be old

    Which means that this is a trend that is not ending soon. If the Japanese want to have a country worthy of the name they are going to have to review their position and attitudes towards immigration.
  • Mr. Royale, if Labour hike fuel duty then inflation will be more than an internal problem.

    Fuel duty has been frozen since 2011 and I think still has a temporary cut in place that isn’t properly budgeted. With fuel prices at the pump being 30p less a litre than they were a while ago, the government could easily get away with adding 15p plus and barely a murmur.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,401
    Taz said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    The geopolitical outlook for Britain really hasn’t been this dark since the 1930s.

    Trump, if he wins, is about to surrender Ukraine to the Russians. His policy, if he does not cause an actual trade war, is to undermine the liberal and democratic principles that underpin the Western order.

    The Brics conference is certainly morphing from its slightly arbitrary origins to be a nascent challenge to the dollar hegemony.

    At home, one British elite seem to be giving up on the concept of British power even as the world grows ever more Hobbesian. The other elite see Britain’s future in maintaining hostility with our nearest neighbours.

    Brace.

    You get societies where the elites cease to believe that their State has any reason to exist, like Poland in 1772, Venice in 1797, or France in 1940.

    Perhaps, we have reached that point.
    I think we have. There are plenty of commentators in this space on LBC and Channel4 and several regular posters on here that say they same.

    They only represent up to 15% of the population but they are an influential one.

    Question is whether they can be democratically overriden by everyone else.
    This is why we have to vote hard right next time. The Tories are not enough - unless Jenrick or Badenoch surprise wildly on the upside
    Vote for whichever candidate (Conservative or Reform), is best placed to defeat Labour, IMHO.
    The Lib Dems need to be squeezed too.

    They are fully on board with all this crap and, in fact, sometimes want to go further.
    The Lib Dems are useless. All things to all men. Just like The Greens. Of all the parties the Lib Dems are the ones I really have little time for.

    But for you on the right he reason we are here is no love for labour from the people but you’re own party was so ruddy useless last time out.

    The tax increases to fund rNHS will be popular as people like tax increases they don’t have to pay. However longer term they will be a drag on private sector growth and wages.
    I'm not sure actually. I'm pretty sure this was the reason cancelled a 2% pay rise for all staff at the last minute - because some of the senior partners are close to the Labour Party and got a tip off of what was coming.

    I think it will quickly start to directly affect pay.
  • WildernessPt2WildernessPt2 Posts: 715
    edited October 26
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    On top of the incredible population decline, the only people left seem to be old

    Which means that this is a trend that is not ending soon. If the Japanese want to have a country worthy of the name they are going to have to review their position and attitudes towards immigration.
    I would rather have an old and decrepit country than the one we have been turning ourselves into. Japan has options to open its doors to its cousins along the pacific rim, they would be mad to extend that to much more foreign places. Not all cultures are equal or even approaching a net benefit.
  • NEW THREAD

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,401
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sounds like a massive tax rise coming.

    This is going to have very serious consequences.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wrkngvyx4o

    They seem to be under the deluded impression that you can add £20billion to the private sector payroll and it won’t have knock on consequences. That it will just mean a bit less profits or some such thing.
    Even worse is the impression that those targeted for tax rises will simply pay up, and not change behaviours, make different employment or investment decisions.
    That's really the key point. They simply assume that the goose is trapped and has no choice but to wait to be plucked.

    In the real world they find that removing non dom status costs this country and government money; that at the margins some private schools will close and more children will need to be educated at public expense rather than privately and that people are reluctant to continue working simply so that they can be fleeced by the government.

    Employers NI is a pernicious tax that discourages taking on more workers. It makes investment here less profitable. It discourages entrepreneurs who might otherwise set up companies and pay themselves through that. There are other countries with even higher pay roll related taxes but you need to look at the overall package.
    That's the Labour Party.

    It's why I don't vote for them.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,401
    Sean_F said:

    Taz said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    The geopolitical outlook for Britain really hasn’t been this dark since the 1930s.

    Trump, if he wins, is about to surrender Ukraine to the Russians. His policy, if he does not cause an actual trade war, is to undermine the liberal and democratic principles that underpin the Western order.

    The Brics conference is certainly morphing from its slightly arbitrary origins to be a nascent challenge to the dollar hegemony.

    At home, one British elite seem to be giving up on the concept of British power even as the world grows ever more Hobbesian. The other elite see Britain’s future in maintaining hostility with our nearest neighbours.

    Brace.

    You get societies where the elites cease to believe that their State has any reason to exist, like Poland in 1772, Venice in 1797, or France in 1940.

    Perhaps, we have reached that point.
    I think we have. There are plenty of commentators in this space on LBC and Channel4 and several regular posters on here that say they same.

    They only represent up to 15% of the population but they are an influential one.

    Question is whether they can be democratically overriden by everyone else.
    This is why we have to vote hard right next time. The Tories are not enough - unless Jenrick or Badenoch surprise wildly on the upside
    Vote for whichever candidate (Conservative or Reform), is best placed to defeat Labour, IMHO.
    The Lib Dems need to be squeezed too.

    They are fully on board with all this crap and, in fact, sometimes want to go further.
    The Lib Dems are useless. All things to all men. Just like The Greens. Of all the parties the Lib Dems are the ones I really have little time for.

    But for you on the right he reason we are here is no love for labour from the people but you’re own party was so ruddy useless last time out.

    The tax increases to fund rNHS will be popular as people like tax increases they don’t have to pay. However longer term they will be a drag on private sector growth and wages.
    The previous government was a disgraceful mess of incompetence and corruption. It's looking as if this one is no better.
    Actually, this one is worse.

    The last government overfunded pensioners and underfunded defence and capital investment but I trusted it with the macroeconomics, foreign policy, and to start to bring tax down in time.

    With this one I absolutely don't.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,350
    Fishing said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Trump claiming that Harris has allowed "the largest border invasion in the history of the world".

    Now, excuse me Donald, you are dissing those Nazi generals you so admire. Those who undertook Operation Barbarossa. Unless at the Mexican border, the invaders have turned up with more than 190 divisions and 4 air fleets (Luftflotten) including 5,500,000 officers and men, more than 47,000 field guns and mortars, 4,300 tanks and assault guns and nearly 5,000 combat aircraft.

    Which we might have noticed.

    I can't stand Trump myself, but I do love silly statistical pedantry. Under Biden, the number of border crossings intercepted has been about 7,000,000, 1,500,000 more than the Nazi invasion you cite.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-20/illegal-us-border-crossings-aren-t-really-breaking-records

    That doesn't include those who made it, and also doesn't allow for 2024 as numbers aren't in yet, repeat offenders, thought to be about a quarter of the total, so the numbers aren't quite comparable. But Trump could certainly argue his point if he had to.
    I clicked on your link and the headline was "Illegal US Border Crossings Aren’t Really Breaking Records"
    Basically, the article only reaches its conclusion by adding made-up estimates of the numbers who might not have been caught when enforcement was less stringent.

    As I say, the numbers aren't comparable, but the illegal immigration under Biden is certainly comparable to, and arguably larger than, Barbarossa. And that's just counting border crossings, whereas lots of illegals simply fly in and overstay.

    If Harris loses in ten days, there will I think be four causes. One is that she's just not a very good candidate who was annointed after her boss's senility couldn't be concealed any more, while American tradition usually demands a more public process. The second is Afghanistan, which shredded Biden's credibility with 10-15% of the electorate, and from which he never really recovered. The third is the great inflation, which Biden's pandemic spending and industrial policies have done so much to stoke. And the fourth is the anarchy on the southern border, which puts even our small boats problem into perspective.
    Which sounds superficially persuasive, but must be wrong for four reasons:

    1) People thought that about Biden, but Trump is clearly a lot further down the path of decay than Biden and he's not out of the running yet.
    2) That was Trump's plan, not Biden's
    3) Trump is planning to supercharge inflation with vast tariffs
    4) Aaaand *checks notes* yep, it was under Trump that the chaos on the southern border kicked off as people realised the US government was in such disarray that getting across was pretty easy.

    So we have to look elsewhere for the causes of Trump's win, if there is one.

    One, I would suggest, is his manipulation of the media and especially social media through Musk. This has led to the playing up of conspiracy theories he spouts and the downplaying of actual content demonstrating he's talking sheer lunacy. But the traditional press and broadcast media is far too lax about that too. Imagine what they would have said if Biden had babbled nonsense about sharks, or Jesus counting votes, or electric batteries, or cows for ten minutes solid. Yet Trump does it all the time and it's seen as normal. A second is fraud. He and his acolytes are not only buying votes - quite openly in some cases - but are deliberately rigging elections to try and win (North Carolina, Georgia and Nebraska, anyone)? Many of them haven't worked but the fact they have even been attempted shows where this is going. Plus the push polls (again, amplified by the media) are trying to build a narrative that Trump is ahead when he isn't. This may not be smart politics - better to tell people you're behind if you want them to vote for you - but is smart lawfare.

    And, of course, the third is the collapse of the American judicial system, which with the help of several blatantly criminal judges and others who are too frightened to really put the hammer down (with good reason I'm afraid) means although he's been convicted of several crimes he's been punished for precisely none of them so far.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,913
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    The geopolitical outlook for Britain really hasn’t been this dark since the 1930s.

    Trump, if he wins, is about to surrender Ukraine to the Russians. His policy, if he does not cause an actual trade war, is to undermine the liberal and democratic principles that underpin the Western order.

    The Brics conference is certainly morphing from its slightly arbitrary origins to be a nascent challenge to the dollar hegemony.

    At home, one British elite seem to be giving up on the concept of British power even as the world grows ever more Hobbesian. The other elite see Britain’s future in maintaining hostility with our nearest neighbours.

    Brace.

    You get societies where the elites cease to believe that their State has any reason to exist, like Poland in 1772, Venice in 1797, or France in 1940.

    Perhaps, we have reached that point.
    I think we have. There are plenty of commentators in this space on LBC and Channel4 and several regular posters on here that say they same.

    They only represent up to 15% of the population but they are an influential one.

    Question is whether they can be democratically overriden by everyone else.
    This is why we have to vote hard right next time. The Tories are not enough - unless Jenrick or Badenoch surprise wildly on the upside
    Vote for whichever candidate (Conservative or Reform), is best placed to defeat Labour, IMHO.
    In the recent General Election, voters applied that thinking to the Conservative party. Do you really think that Labour at the nest GE will be as unpopular as the Tories were a few months ago?
    Isn't it more likely that they will win against a divided Tory/Reform opposition?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,401
    The other point is that if NI employers is going to raise £20bn then either the £22bn "black hole" was a fiction, and that's the only tax rise, or they are planning far greater rises on top.

    My guess is it's the latter as that one has been hypothecated solely for the NHS, not to fill in their self-dug hole, so up to a further £20bn or so of tax rises are due on top.

    Brace.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,361

    Mr. Royale, if Labour hike fuel duty then inflation will be more than an internal problem.

    They will hike fuel duty, it’s by how much that is the issue.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,813

    Sounds like a massive tax rise coming.

    This is going to have very serious consequences.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wrkngvyx4o

    They seem to be under the deluded impression that you can add £20billion to the private sector payroll and it won’t have knock on consequences. That it will just mean a bit less profits or some such thing.
    Well, it’s sleight of hand (Labour have always been rather addicted to this). The message will be that they’ve protected workers by going after employers. And I fully expect them to use some kind of language like trying to “persuade” employers not to pass on the tax rises to their employees. It then becomes the fault of big bad business, not the government.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,344

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    The geopolitical outlook for Britain really hasn’t been this dark since the 1930s.

    Trump, if he wins, is about to surrender Ukraine to the Russians. His policy, if he does not cause an actual trade war, is to undermine the liberal and democratic principles that underpin the Western order.

    The Brics conference is certainly morphing from its slightly arbitrary origins to be a nascent challenge to the dollar hegemony.

    At home, one British elite seem to be giving up on the concept of British power even as the world grows ever more Hobbesian. The other elite see Britain’s future in maintaining hostility with our nearest neighbours.

    Brace.

    You get societies where the elites cease to believe that their State has any reason to exist, like Poland in 1772, Venice in 1797, or France in 1940.

    Perhaps, we have reached that point.
    I think we have. There are plenty of commentators in this space on LBC and Channel4 and several regular posters on here that say they same.

    They only represent up to 15% of the population but they are an influential one.

    Question is whether they can be democratically overriden by everyone else.
    This is why we have to vote hard right next time. The Tories are not enough - unless Jenrick or Badenoch surprise wildly on the upside
    Vote for whichever candidate (Conservative or Reform), is best placed to defeat Labour, IMHO.
    In the recent General Election, voters applied that thinking to the Conservative party. Do you really think that Labour at the nest GE will be as unpopular as the Tories were a few months ago?
    Isn't it more likely that they will win against a divided Tory/Reform opposition?
    I think that by mid term, the government will be *more* unpopular than the Conservatives were in July.

    I would expect some swing back in the run up to the election, but I don’t know how much.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,206
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: not sure when the pre-qualifying tosh will be up, likely won't have a tip. I'm busy this evening so won't be able to watch FP3 and post after that.

    Mr. Royale, you are quite wrong to say a massive tax rise is coming. It's coming for the private sector. The public sector will be somewhere between unaffected and enjoying their latest union-delivered pay rise.

    Here's my prediction: that extra £20bn a year for the NHS just disappears, and we see virtually nothing for it.
    You are absolutely right of course

    Labour has no clues what to do. No idea for fixing anything. No strategy or plans. It has done zero thinking during opposition and Lammy, Starmer and Reeves all look like terrified mediocrities who have been accidentally promoted way above their abilities

    In this context, all they can do is grab whatever freebies they can get while they’re still in office (as we see) and maybe chuck money at the client vote in the vague hope that might be enough to see them into a 2nd term (it won’t)

    I firmly believe this will become the most unpopular government in postwar British history
    Those words imply you think only very stupid people would have voted Labour.
    Labour has always been the party which thinks a large chunk of it's voters are stupid - hence the sneering Emily Thornbury types.
    I would assume that the 33% they got this time round is mainly their client vote (public sector employees and dole scroungers), plus the most stupid members of the WWC (who are about to be shafted particularly badly - it's working class voters who will be hit hardest by Reeves trashing the jobs market).

    I could just about tolerate a massive tax rise if the intention was to try and fix the deficit - but this idiot is going to spunk the lot on the NHS without any meaningful attempt at reform (so no meaningful results - she might as well heap the cash up and burn it), plus she is also going to borrow even more money for "investment" (I.e. wasting money on stuff we neither want nor need).

    These fools are actually worse than Gordon Brown, and he was a dangerous moron who did loads of damage to the country.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,615

    The other point is that if NI employers is going to raise £20bn then either the £22bn "black hole" was a fiction, and that's the only tax rise, or they are planning far greater rises on top.

    My guess is it's the latter as that one has been hypothecated solely for the NHS, not to fill in their self-dug hole, so up to a further £20bn or so of tax rises are due on top.

    Brace.

    The massive financial hole the Tories left is not fiction, with an £80 billion pound deficit for the first 6 months of the year, nor is the decrepit state of public services across the board. We have submarines that are all in port, prisons where cell doors fall off, universities and councils going bankrupt and a moribund NHS with increasingly outdated facilities.

    The Tories ran the country into the ground and that's why they got their worst electoral hammering for 200 years just a few months ago.

    I did not vote Labour, but the country did vote for change and that needs to happen. We can't go on like we did.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,206

    Fishing said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Fishing said:

    Trump claiming that Harris has allowed "the largest border invasion in the history of the world".

    Now, excuse me Donald, you are dissing those Nazi generals you so admire. Those who undertook Operation Barbarossa. Unless at the Mexican border, the invaders have turned up with more than 190 divisions and 4 air fleets (Luftflotten) including 5,500,000 officers and men, more than 47,000 field guns and mortars, 4,300 tanks and assault guns and nearly 5,000 combat aircraft.

    Which we might have noticed.

    I can't stand Trump myself, but I do love silly statistical pedantry. Under Biden, the number of border crossings intercepted has been about 7,000,000, 1,500,000 more than the Nazi invasion you cite.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-20/illegal-us-border-crossings-aren-t-really-breaking-records

    That doesn't include those who made it, and also doesn't allow for 2024 as numbers aren't in yet, repeat offenders, thought to be about a quarter of the total, so the numbers aren't quite comparable. But Trump could certainly argue his point if he had to.
    I clicked on your link and the headline was "Illegal US Border Crossings Aren’t Really Breaking Records"
    Basically, the article only reaches its conclusion by adding made-up estimates of the numbers who might not have been caught when enforcement was less stringent.

    As I say, the numbers aren't comparable, but the illegal immigration under Biden is certainly comparable to, and arguably larger than, Barbarossa. And that's just counting border crossings, whereas lots of illegals simply fly in and overstay.

    If Harris loses in ten days, there will I think be four causes. One is that she's just not a very good candidate who was annointed after her boss's senility couldn't be concealed any more, while American tradition usually demands a more public process. The second is Afghanistan, which shredded Biden's credibility with 10-15% of the electorate, and from which he never really recovered. The third is the great inflation, which Biden's pandemic spending and industrial policies have done so much to stoke. And the fourth is the anarchy on the southern border, which puts even our small boats problem into perspective.
    And the fifth is the fact the Republican party is willing to cheat and lie its candidate to victory, supported by some very rich techbros who may well be taking orders from outside the USA. None of these have the interests of the average working person at heart; only their own personal enrichment and power.
    The trouble with US politics is that both sides have decided lying and cheating works (probably because it does).

    That said, both sides are at it to such an extent that it probably doesn't give either side much of an advantage.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,615
    theProle said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: not sure when the pre-qualifying tosh will be up, likely won't have a tip. I'm busy this evening so won't be able to watch FP3 and post after that.

    Mr. Royale, you are quite wrong to say a massive tax rise is coming. It's coming for the private sector. The public sector will be somewhere between unaffected and enjoying their latest union-delivered pay rise.

    Here's my prediction: that extra £20bn a year for the NHS just disappears, and we see virtually nothing for it.
    You are absolutely right of course

    Labour has no clues what to do. No idea for fixing anything. No strategy or plans. It has done zero thinking during opposition and Lammy, Starmer and Reeves all look like terrified mediocrities who have been accidentally promoted way above their abilities

    In this context, all they can do is grab whatever freebies they can get while they’re still in office (as we see) and maybe chuck money at the client vote in the vague hope that might be enough to see them into a 2nd term (it won’t)

    I firmly believe this will become the most unpopular government in postwar British history
    Those words imply you think only very stupid people would have voted Labour.
    Labour has always been the party which thinks a large chunk of it's voters are stupid - hence the sneering Emily Thornbury types.
    I would assume that the 33% they got this time round is mainly their client vote (public sector employees and dole scroungers), plus the most stupid members of the WWC (who are about to be shafted particularly badly - it's working class voters who will be hit hardest by Reeves trashing the jobs market).

    I could just about tolerate a massive tax rise if the intention was to try and fix the deficit - but this idiot is going to spunk the lot on the NHS without any meaningful attempt at reform (so no meaningful results - she might as well heap the cash up and burn it), plus she is also going to borrow even more money for "investment" (I.e. wasting money on stuff we neither want nor need).

    These fools are actually worse than Gordon Brown, and he was a dangerous moron who did loads of damage to the country.
    Nope. It was working age people of all social classes that voted Labour and LD to evict the Tories. It's worth noting that Reform voters are quite to the left on economic issues too, even if the leadership is not.

    It was the pluto-gerontocracy that voted Tory.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,401
    Foxy said:

    The other point is that if NI employers is going to raise £20bn then either the £22bn "black hole" was a fiction, and that's the only tax rise, or they are planning far greater rises on top.

    My guess is it's the latter as that one has been hypothecated solely for the NHS, not to fill in their self-dug hole, so up to a further £20bn or so of tax rises are due on top.

    Brace.

    The massive financial hole the Tories left is not fiction, with an £80 billion pound deficit for the first 6 months of the year, nor is the decrepit state of public services across the board. We have submarines that are all in port, prisons where cell doors fall off, universities and councils going bankrupt and a moribund NHS with increasingly outdated facilities.

    The Tories ran the country into the ground and that's why they got their worst electoral hammering for 200 years just a few months ago.

    I did not vote Labour, but the country did vote for change and that needs to happen. We can't go on like we did.
    It is a fiction, and the rest of your post is blather and windy spin lines.

    And you got change all right: to an even shitter government that hates Britain, actively works against our interests, wants to savour all the fruits of office it can, serves only its own client base (including you) and wants to tax us into stagnation and decline.

    Well done.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,349
    Taz said:

    Mr. Royale, if Labour hike fuel duty then inflation will be more than an internal problem.

    They will hike fuel duty, it’s by how much that is the issue.
    The thing about fuel duty is that a large increase in fuel duty was already in the budget plan - written by J Hunt - and is necessary to meet the fiscal rule of balancing the books, eventually.

    So increasing fuel duty is the default position. It doesn't raise money in the budget to spend it anywhere else. Worth remembering that the Tories had already increased taxes by a lot, in part to pay for the pandemic, and in part because they had mismanaged the economy to a great extent.

    Employers NI might not be the optimal tax to increase, but I'd rather Reeves was living in the real world and recognised that if she wants to spend on things she needs to increase taxes to pay for it. Some of the recent messaging has been more worrying - that they were going to simply borrow more.

    Obviously Britain needs more business investment, and we'll see what other measures there are to encourage that.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,808

    Taz said:

    Mr. Royale, if Labour hike fuel duty then inflation will be more than an internal problem.

    They will hike fuel duty, it’s by how much that is the issue.
    The thing about fuel duty is that a large increase in fuel duty was already in the budget plan - written by J Hunt - and is necessary to meet the fiscal rule of balancing the books, eventually.

    So increasing fuel duty is the default position. It doesn't raise money in the budget to spend it anywhere else. Worth remembering that the Tories had already increased taxes by a lot, in part to pay for the pandemic, and in part because they had mismanaged the economy to a great extent.

    Employers NI might not be the optimal tax to increase, but I'd rather Reeves was living in the real world and recognised that if she wants to spend on things she needs to increase taxes to pay for it. Some of the recent messaging has been more worrying - that they were going to simply borrow more.

    Obviously Britain needs more business investment, and we'll see what other measures there are to encourage that.
    Also shows that those complaining about the budget rules changing are guilty of another of Malmesbury's law of pointless rules. Chancellors have not been following the rules anyway but just producing forecasts of things they have no intention of doing, but tick the right boxes like increasing fuel duty every year regardless of fuel inflation.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,808
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    The geopolitical outlook for Britain really hasn’t been this dark since the 1930s.

    Trump, if he wins, is about to surrender Ukraine to the Russians. His policy, if he does not cause an actual trade war, is to undermine the liberal and democratic principles that underpin the Western order.

    The Brics conference is certainly morphing from its slightly arbitrary origins to be a nascent challenge to the dollar hegemony.

    At home, one British elite seem to be giving up on the concept of British power even as the world grows ever more Hobbesian. The other elite see Britain’s future in maintaining hostility with our nearest neighbours.

    Brace.

    You get societies where the elites cease to believe that their State has any reason to exist, like Poland in 1772, Venice in 1797, or France in 1940.

    Perhaps, we have reached that point.
    I think we have. There are plenty of commentators in this space on LBC and Channel4 and several regular posters on here that say they same.

    They only represent up to 15% of the population but they are an influential one.

    Question is whether they can be democratically overriden by everyone else.
    This is why we have to vote hard right next time. The Tories are not enough - unless Jenrick or Badenoch surprise wildly on the upside
    Vote for whichever candidate (Conservative or Reform), is best placed to defeat Labour, IMHO.
    In the recent General Election, voters applied that thinking to the Conservative party. Do you really think that Labour at the nest GE will be as unpopular as the Tories were a few months ago?
    Isn't it more likely that they will win against a divided Tory/Reform opposition?
    I think that by mid term, the government will be *more* unpopular than the Conservatives were in July.

    I would expect some swing back in the run up to the election, but I don’t know how much.
    Governments dipping in popularity at the start and regaining swing back towards the end used to be considered sensible government strategy until the fantasists obssessing over poll numbers took over.

    I'm not going to agree with all the Labour decisions but glad they are willing to make some choices that piss people off now rather than pretending we can do everything (which eventually pisses everyone off).

    If it works they will get re-elected, if it fails they will get kicked out. As it should be.
This discussion has been closed.