For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%
You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.
Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.
I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
I find that astonishing. Think you’d be better off with a new leader and a distinctive Thatcherite economic liberal agenda.
Why do you find that astonishing?
I don't want Labour back in for a second term. I have concerns about Reform (on net Zero anti-dogma, economic policy, and, particularly, Farage's Putin flirting) but that's why I want a deal/partnership.
Think you should be trying to build a strong Conservative Party rather than giving up and hoping Farage will help you defeat Labour.
The only way to defeat Labour is a REF-CON alliance sufficiently strong to hurl Labour into perdition for 3 terms. Bring it on
Don’t be daft. Tories have gone wobbly. They’ve only been out of power for 6 months and they’ve given up.
Labour would not have won in 24 if they had taken this attitude.
Reminds of people who thought the Lib Dem’s were the answer and that their voters were interchangeable with Labour’s. They’re not.
No, you’re just terrified of Reform gaining power
No, he wants Labour to win again.
He's trying to keep Tories in the Tory camp so the vote remains split, and without a deal.
Interests.
Both, I think
Labour will probably win in 28/29, but one day will lose to someone. The question is who.
Personally I prefer a Tory party led by Hunt committed to free trade, sound money, nato and the rule of law rather than a Trumpian lite armchair revolutionary Reform. The Tories were lost the moment Boris said “Fuck Business”.
I just don’t understand why the Tories are giving up on the recipe that gave them success. It’s bizarre. A Tory party led well pursuing a Thatcherite agenda would be a breath of fresh air and defeat Reform.
Boris said "Fuck Business", Rachel actually did it.
The Business NI increase is a folly but nothing, and I mean nothing screwed business like your Brexit, and that was from the f*** business masterminds that are Farage and Johnson.
This is the sort of choreography I'm expecting. The eventual deal will be good for Russia but presentable by Trump as "Putin wanted much more but I faced him down with some big threats like the tough guy I am." I bet you any money that's how it plays out.
I agree that the eventual deal will be good for Russia and bad for Ukraine and the rest of us. But, go back just a few months to pre-Trump times. Did we have any sense at all of the willingness of the west to actually finish and win this 3 year old war? If there was a plan we weren't told what it might be.
Ditto Gaza, SFAICS pre-Trump, no interested parties had any thoughts at all about 'Gaza, the next 20 years' apart from abominations from Israel and Hamas. We have got very used to situations just going on for ever with much misery and no progress.
Which is not to defend Trump the possible fascist. But if there are upsides we must find them.
The key change for me is we now have a US president who does not view Putin's invasion of Ukraine as wrong. The opposite even, he respects it. Everything else flows from that.
As for upsides there is just the one but it is a big one. The killing stops. This is worth something even if you hate the injustice of it, the geopolitical ramifications, and fear for the longer term consequences.
"now have a US president who does not view Putin's invasion of Ukraine as wrong" - evidence for that? Being pragmatic about ending the war is not the same as saying the invasion was justified.
You are maybe giving Trump more leeway that he deserves. I am not sure that he regards the future of Ukraine as something over which to take a clear moral line, perhaps it doesn't touch on his personal interests enough.
But in general, while developments in the gangster oligarchy must be watched, moving at Trump pace is important. which means moving from 'Isn't this plutocratic gangster fascist ghastly' to what policies and actions are in the interests of the UK, the west, Europe, the EU, non USA NATO, our closest international allies and the international order, and to do so quickly.
For Europe as a whole to be seen as a dependent, toothless, declining demilitarised has been won't do.
”Germany is the one country in NATO, that did not follow the stupid Washington consensus and allow their country to be deindustrialized during the ‘70s, ’80s, and ‘90s.
And yet, at the very moment that Putin is more and more powerful, where the Russian army is invading European countries en masse, this is the point at which Germany starts to deindustrialize?”
Wow. Vance is lambasting Thatcherism. Who will be the first Tory to break ranks and declare that he's right and Maggie sucked?
New from 404 Media: anyone can push updates to the http://Doge.gov site. Two sources independently found the issue, one made their own decision to deface the site. "THESE 'EXPERTS' LEFT THEIR DATABASE OPEN."
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
My guess is that he is trying to impose a deal, as for Israel/Hamas.
He is threatening both sides to get them to sign *something*. My guesstimate is a ceasefire in place.
I think a ceasefire in place is most likely. That was in effect the position between 2014 and 2022, with a fair number of ceasefire violations.
It is possible for such ceasefire to endure (Korea and China/Taiwan for example) but they are inherently unstable. A ceasefire is different to a lasting peace treaty.
Both sides would re-arm and prepare for the next round. Ukraine would bind itself into the EU economic system, but probably not NATO. Russia would agitate for sanctions to drop.
A ceasefire is fairly likely. But Ukraine is unlikely to concede any of its sovereign territory, and Russia unlikely to abandon its imperial ambitions.
A Korean outcome - with US forces stationed there for decades - is extremely unlikely, IMO. China/Taiwan is anyway a closer comparison, as it has the would be imperial power directly adjacent to its intended conquest, rather than with a tinpot dictatorship buffer in between.
This is the sort of choreography I'm expecting. The eventual deal will be good for Russia but presentable by Trump as "Putin wanted much more but I faced him down with some big threats like the tough guy I am." I bet you any money that's how it plays out.
I agree that the eventual deal will be good for Russia and bad for Ukraine and the rest of us. But, go back just a few months to pre-Trump times. Did we have any sense at all of the willingness of the west to actually finish and win this 3 year old war? If there was a plan we weren't told what it might be.
Ditto Gaza, SFAICS pre-Trump, no interested parties had any thoughts at all about 'Gaza, the next 20 years' apart from abominations from Israel and Hamas. We have got very used to situations just going on for ever with much misery and no progress.
Which is not to defend Trump the possible fascist. But if there are upsides we must find them.
The key change for me is we now have a US president who does not view Putin's invasion of Ukraine as wrong. The opposite even, he respects it. Everything else flows from that.
As for upsides there is just the one but it is a big one. The killing stops. This is worth something even if you hate the injustice of it, the geopolitical ramifications, and fear for the longer term consequences.
"now have a US president who does not view Putin's invasion of Ukraine as wrong" - evidence for that? Being pragmatic about ending the war is not the same as saying the invasion was justified.
The evidence is in how he talks about the war and about Putin. He respects the invasion as a piece of hard power projection by Russia in its own backyard. That's how he sees it primarily.
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
His position depends entirely on the details of the last phonecall he took.
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
My guess is that he is trying to impose a deal, as for Israel/Hamas.
He is threatening both sides to get them to sign *something*. My guesstimate is a ceasefire in place.
I think a ceasefire in place is most likely. That was in effect the position between 2014 and 2022, with a fair number of ceasefire violations.
It is possible for such ceasefire to endure (Korea and China/Taiwan for example) but they are inherently unstable. A ceasefire is different to a lasting peace treaty.
Both sides would re-arm and prepare for the next round. Ukraine would bind itself into the EU economic system, but probably not NATO. Russia would agitate for sanctions to drop.
The inevitable ceasefire violations are the worrying bit, in a world where British troops might be on the ceasefire line.
Overexcited Russian and Ukrainian conscripts exchanging shots becomes problematic if the Russians wound a British soldier, and their unit has “you can defend yourself if fired upon” RoE.
"70pc chance’ Reform and Tories will merge, says Conservative grandee Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh believes odds of a deal being made are ‘very high’"
The problem for this new entity is that Nigel will have to feature as head honcho. Without that I can't envisage many Reform supporters sticking around and so what would be the point? And then, in a few years, when Nigel takes his well-earned retirement, it'll be like Alice Cooper without Alice cooper. I'm not seeing any longevity as a political project here.
I think you are right, and even more fundamentally, there is a general misunderstanding of the political direction overall from the Gammon faction of the Conservative Party, of which Sir Edward is a prime example. Although RefUk has been able to cannibalise money from previous Tory supporters they still lack the national organisation that can win elections and that will remain so unless the Tory organisation defects en masse.
Farage´s closeness to Trump allies RefUk with a US President who is rapidly becoming a hate figure across British politics. Trump is moving fast and breaking things, but his policies, objectively, cannot work and may well trigger violent discontent in the USA, Farage is already tarred with the same brush, and the relatively high RefUK polling may simply be because a lot of people were not paying a whole load of attention but vaguely hear that Labour is bad. Pretty soon anything even vaguely Trumpian will be deeply unpopular and that includes Farage.
Brexit is actually becoming even more unpopular and again Farage is associated. The question for the Tories is how can they escape the right wing nutters and recover a broad range of support? Not easy, and Ed Davey is going to benefit in the May locals, though not to the extent he might have, given the cancellation of several key contests.
As you say, being too focussed on Farage will weaken the Tories, not strengthen them.
Fair points all. But of course, if, which is possible, Reform remains a really serious player and the Tories look less serious, then money and talent (!) will move there and change things, providing a new tier of leadership post Farage.
(The same will, other things being equal, occur post Trump. Money and power are their own recruiting sergeants.)
"70pc chance’ Reform and Tories will merge, says Conservative grandee Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh believes odds of a deal being made are ‘very high’"
The problem for this new entity is that Nigel will have to feature as head honcho. Without that I can't envisage many Reform supporters sticking around and so what would be the point? And then, in a few years, when Nigel takes his well-earned retirement, it'll be like Alice Cooper without Alice cooper. I'm not seeing any longevity as a political project here.
I think you are right, and even more fundamentally, there is a general misunderstanding of the political direction overall from the Gammon faction of the Conservative Party, of which Sir Edward is a prime example. Although RefUk has been able to cannibalise money from previous Tory supporters they still lack the national organisation that can win elections and that will remain so unless the Tory organisation defects en masse.
Farage´s closeness to Trump allies RefUk with a US President who is rapidly becoming a hate figure across British politics. Trump is moving fast and breaking things, but his policies, objectively, cannot work and may well trigger violent discontent in the USA, Farage is already tarred with the same brush, and the relatively high RefUK polling may simply be because a lot of people were not paying a whole load of attention but vaguely hear that Labour is bad. Pretty soon anything even vaguely Trumpian will be deeply unpopular and that includes Farage.
Brexit is actually becoming even more unpopular and again Farage is associated. The question for the Tories is how can they escape the right wing nutters and recover a broad range of support? Not easy, and Ed Davey is going to benefit in the May locals, though not to the extent he might have, given the cancellation of several key contests.
As you say, being too focussed on Farage will weaken the Tories, not strengthen them.
"70pc chance’ Reform and Tories will merge, says Conservative grandee Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh believes odds of a deal being made are ‘very high’"
The problem for this new entity is that Nigel will have to feature as head honcho. Without that I can't envisage many Reform supporters sticking around and so what would be the point? And then, in a few years, when Nigel takes his well-earned retirement, it'll be like Alice Cooper without Alice cooper. I'm not seeing any longevity as a political project here.
I think you are right, and even more fundamentally, there is a general misunderstanding of the political direction overall from the Gammon faction of the Conservative Party, of which Sir Edward is a prime example. Although RefUk has been able to cannibalise money from previous Tory supporters they still lack the national organisation that can win elections and that will remain so unless the Tory organisation defects en masse.
Farage´s closeness to Trump allies RefUk with a US President who is rapidly becoming a hate figure across British politics. Trump is moving fast and breaking things, but his policies, objectively, cannot work and may well trigger violent discontent in the USA, Farage is already tarred with the same brush, and the relatively high RefUK polling may simply be because a lot of people were not paying a whole load of attention but vaguely hear that Labour is bad. Pretty soon anything even vaguely Trumpian will be deeply unpopular and that includes Farage.
Brexit is actually becoming even more unpopular and again Farage is associated. The question for the Tories is how can they escape the right wing nutters and recover a broad range of support? Not easy, and Ed Davey is going to benefit in the May locals, though not to the extent he might have, given the cancellation of several key contests.
As you say, being too focussed on Farage will weaken the Tories, not strengthen them.
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
My guess is that he is trying to impose a deal, as for Israel/Hamas.
He is threatening both sides to get them to sign *something*. My guesstimate is a ceasefire in place.
I think a ceasefire in place is most likely. That was in effect the position between 2014 and 2022, with a fair number of ceasefire violations.
It is possible for such ceasefire to endure (Korea and China/Taiwan for example) but they are inherently unstable. A ceasefire is different to a lasting peace treaty.
Both sides would re-arm and prepare for the next round. Ukraine would bind itself into the EU economic system, but probably not NATO. Russia would agitate for sanctions to drop.
The inevitable ceasefire violations are the worrying bit, in a world where British troops might be on the ceasefire line.
Overexcited Russian and Ukrainian conscripts exchanging shots becomes problematic if the Russians wound a British soldier, and their unit has “you can defend yourself if fired upon” RoE.
Turkey has the right approach in this situation as seen in Syria. Russian plane enters your airspace? Shoot it down.
PARIS—Vice President JD Vance said Thursday that the U.S. would hit Moscow with sanctions and potentially military action if Russian President Vladimir Putin won’t agree to a peace deal with Ukraine that guarantees Kyiv’s long-term independence.
Vance said the option of sending U.S. troops to Ukraine if Moscow failed to negotiate in good faith remained “on the table,” striking a far tougher tone than did Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who on Wednesday suggested the U.S. wouldn’t commit forces.
“There are economic tools of leverage, there are of course military tools of leverage” the U.S. could use against Putin, Vance said.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal hours after President Trump said he would start negotiating with Putin to end the war in Ukraine, Vance said: “I think there is a deal that is going to come out of this that’s going to shock a lot of people.”
The vice president’s remarks, coming a day before a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, offered the Trump administration’s strongest-yet support for Kyiv in the face of Russian demands that it disarm and replace the current government.
“The president is not going to go in this with blinders on,” Vance said. “He’s going to say, ‘Everything is on the table, let’s make a deal.’”
Vance’s demand, guaranteeing Kyiv’s long-term independence, is pretty minimal. I note that wording involves no guarantees around Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Russia was always planning a rump puppet Ukrainian state in the west of the country, weren’t they? So Vance is demanding something that was in Putin’s initial war aims.
This is the sort of choreography I'm expecting. The eventual deal will be good for Russia but presentable by Trump as "Putin wanted much more but I faced him down with some big threats like the tough guy I am." I bet you any money that's how it plays out.
I agree that the eventual deal will be good for Russia and bad for Ukraine and the rest of us. But, go back just a few months to pre-Trump times. Did we have any sense at all of the willingness of the west to actually finish and win this 3 year old war? If there was a plan we weren't told what it might be.
Ditto Gaza, SFAICS pre-Trump, no interested parties had any thoughts at all about 'Gaza, the next 20 years' apart from abominations from Israel and Hamas. We have got very used to situations just going on for ever with much misery and no progress.
Which is not to defend Trump the possible fascist. But if there are upsides we must find them.
The key change for me is we now have a US president who does not view Putin's invasion of Ukraine as wrong. The opposite even, he respects it. Everything else flows from that.
As for upsides there is just the one but it is a big one. The killing stops. This is worth something even if you hate the injustice of it, the geopolitical ramifications, and fear for the longer term consequences.
"now have a US president who does not view Putin's invasion of Ukraine as wrong" - evidence for that? Being pragmatic about ending the war is not the same as saying the invasion was justified.
The evidence is in how he talks about the war and about Putin. He respects the invasion as a piece of hard power projection by Russia in its own backyard. That's how he sees it primarily.
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
His position depends entirely on the details of the last phonecall he took.
Two posts, back to back. One asserts that has a fixed view and its all about power projection. The next says that Trump is an American version of the Johnson supermarket trolley, parroting the last thing he heard.
Well folks, which is it? Do you not think that some who rather dislike Trump (and thats all right thinking people) overthink what goes on in his head? And are likely to attribute stuff because they don't like him?
What was Biden (or Harris) going to do to actually end the war in Ukraine?
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
My guess is that he is trying to impose a deal, as for Israel/Hamas.
He is threatening both sides to get them to sign *something*. My guesstimate is a ceasefire in place.
I think a ceasefire in place is most likely. That was in effect the position between 2014 and 2022, with a fair number of ceasefire violations.
It is possible for such ceasefire to endure (Korea and China/Taiwan for example) but they are inherently unstable. A ceasefire is different to a lasting peace treaty.
Both sides would re-arm and prepare for the next round. Ukraine would bind itself into the EU economic system, but probably not NATO. Russia would agitate for sanctions to drop.
Isn't EU membership for Ukraine one thing that has FA to do with Trump and his crew? Haven't heard much about it in the current clusterfcuk.
"70pc chance’ Reform and Tories will merge, says Conservative grandee Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh believes odds of a deal being made are ‘very high’"
The problem for this new entity is that Nigel will have to feature as head honcho. Without that I can't envisage many Reform supporters sticking around and so what would be the point? And then, in a few years, when Nigel takes his well-earned retirement, it'll be like Alice Cooper without Alice cooper. I'm not seeing any longevity as a political project here.
I think you are right, and even more fundamentally, there is a general misunderstanding of the political direction overall from the Gammon faction of the Conservative Party, of which Sir Edward is a prime example. Although RefUk has been able to cannibalise money from previous Tory supporters they still lack the national organisation that can win elections and that will remain so unless the Tory organisation defects en masse.
Farage´s closeness to Trump allies RefUk with a US President who is rapidly becoming a hate figure across British politics. Trump is moving fast and breaking things, but his policies, objectively, cannot work and may well trigger violent discontent in the USA, Farage is already tarred with the same brush, and the relatively high RefUK polling may simply be because a lot of people were not paying a whole load of attention but vaguely hear that Labour is bad. Pretty soon anything even vaguely Trumpian will be deeply unpopular and that includes Farage.
Brexit is actually becoming even more unpopular and again Farage is associated. The question for the Tories is how can they escape the right wing nutters and recover a broad range of support? Not easy, and Ed Davey is going to benefit in the May locals, though not to the extent he might have, given the cancellation of several key contests.
As you say, being too focussed on Farage will weaken the Tories, not strengthen them.
Polling 31 Jan-3 Feb, and a lot has happened since then.
Still, it’s to be expected and I reckon it will continue. Trump forces everyone on the right of politics to choose a side. They’ll take their cue from the noises coming out of Reform and the Tories, which are generally warm.
The Conservatives lost over 60 seats to the LibDems, including 6 here in leafy Surrey (12,000 majority in my constituency). I’m struggling to see how a pact with Reform will entice those defectors back into the blue fold.
My parents are both deceased but while they were alive not too long ago both illustrate why you can't just add the C and Ref totals together.
My mother was a traditional conservative who was eventually lost to the LDs and the sort the Tories need to be winning back in places like Surrey. She could be persuaded to vote for Cameron, or May (who was very like her in fact) but no way would she have voted for Johnson. She never expressed negative views on anyone - but her opinion on Farage was clear and if there was a pact between Con and Ref you can be sure her vote would stay solidly LD.
My father on the other hand was a Never Tory and would happily vote for Farage as a 'NOTA' party 'to shake everything up'. But he would never support the Tories, so again a pact would probably also put him back in the LD camp (or Green).
So how do you retain the small and large C Conservatives (and attract recent LD and Lab defectors) who think Farage is a dangerous arse, and also the Never Tories who just want to send a two-fingered message to the rich and powerful, at the same time?
The basic fact of the above it is more likely the next Conservative government will be in a hung parliament and coalition or confidence and supply deal with Reform than a Conservative majority, even if there is no Tory and Reform merger.
The Remain Tory to LD seats at the last GE are largely lost post Brexit to the Tories, they only mostly held their nose and voted Conservative in 2019 to keep out Corbyn. They are anti Labour and anti Brexit but then so are the LDs and oppose many Labour policies now too. If the LDs propped up a Labour minority government though after the next GE that might put some of them in play again for the Conservatives, especially the more rural ones
I agree with your analysis, but do you think a formal pact with Ref is the best way to get some sort of a Conservative minority, or not? I know you look closely at the polls, and have a reasonable feeling of Tory member views. Would the potential votes lost by a formal pact be more than outweighed by the advantages under FPTP of not splitting the vote, in areas that are mostly C/Ref v Labour fights? (You seem to have written off the LD seats for the time being).
On the latest Electoral Calculus forecast the Tories and Reform would get 307 seats combined anyway even with no pact at all and be just a whisker from forming a government with Kemi on 5 more seats than Farage
For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%
You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.
Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.
I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
So despite thinking defence vs Russia existential to the UK, backing Farage who has zero interest in standing up to Putin, let alone working with our neighbours to create a sufficient deterrent.
You'll have to do much better than just shout "PUTIN!" every time you encounter someone interested in blocking Labour out of power.
The current government is doing nothing about our defences, paying to give our territory away and has signed up to reparations.
I won't take any lectures on UK foreign policy from the Labour Party.
"I won't take any lectures.." is a lazy answer beloved of politicians (Starmer included), who are unable to articulate a convincing reply. You can pretty well discount the opinion of anyone resorting to it.
I'll take that with a pinch of salt coming from a man who's dropped the f-bomb this morning on people he politically disagrees with.
Casino you have dropped the f-repeatedly before regarding the EU and Brexit and the like. It feels rather hypocritical that you are suddenly high and mighty.
Oh yeah, and worse. And I've had some really dark times in recent years too - this is why I quit my job at the end of January.
But, I can call out hypocrisy when I see it too.
Sorry to hear that
Remember “Life is a Rollercoaster” - as so wisely sung by Ronan Keating
"70pc chance’ Reform and Tories will merge, says Conservative grandee Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh believes odds of a deal being made are ‘very high’"
It would certainly be lesser than the sum of its parts.
Not least there are it seems considerably more Reform members than Tory, so a merger means Farage as leader.
I would expect 20-30 MP defections, to Independent or LD, but possibly forming their own One Nation party.
And a fair number of Reform voters would spit the dummy too.
The Tories are about 50 seats ahead of the LibDems. If a significant number of Tories defected to the LibDems we'd only be a by-election gain or two from the LibDems becoming the Official Opposition. And then the Tory fat would really be in the fire.
Not happening, on the latest forecast the Tories will gain 35 seats and LDs lose 10 seats
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
My guess is that he is trying to impose a deal, as for Israel/Hamas.
He is threatening both sides to get them to sign *something*. My guesstimate is a ceasefire in place.
I think a ceasefire in place is most likely. That was in effect the position between 2014 and 2022, with a fair number of ceasefire violations.
It is possible for such ceasefire to endure (Korea and China/Taiwan for example) but they are inherently unstable. A ceasefire is different to a lasting peace treaty.
Both sides would re-arm and prepare for the next round. Ukraine would bind itself into the EU economic system, but probably not NATO. Russia would agitate for sanctions to drop.
A ceasefire is fairly likely. But Ukraine is unlikely to concede any of its sovereign territory, and Russia unlikely to abandon its imperial ambitions.
A Korean outcome - with US forces stationed there for decades - is extremely unlikely, IMO. China/Taiwan is anyway a closer comparison, as it has the would be imperial power directly adjacent to its intended conquest, rather than with a tinpot dictatorship buffer in between.
Ukraine might concede territory in a proper peace deal if it were given a credible security guarantee for the (smaller) sovereign state remaining. But such a guarantee is not really possible without America and America isn't up for it. So based on where the sides of the box are there's not much room in there.
For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%
You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.
Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.
I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
I find that astonishing. Think you’d be better off with a new leader and a distinctive Thatcherite economic liberal agenda.
Why do you find that astonishing?
I don't want Labour back in for a second term. I have concerns about Reform (on net Zero anti-dogma, economic policy, and, particularly, Farage's Putin flirting) but that's why I want a deal/partnership.
Think you should be trying to build a strong Conservative Party rather than giving up and hoping Farage will help you defeat Labour.
The only way to defeat Labour is a REF-CON alliance sufficiently strong to hurl Labour into perdition for 3 terms. Bring it on
Don’t be daft. Tories have gone wobbly. They’ve only been out of power for 6 months and they’ve given up.
Labour would not have won in 24 if they had taken this attitude.
Reminds of people who thought the Lib Dem’s were the answer and that their voters were interchangeable with Labour’s. They’re not.
No, you’re just terrified of Reform gaining power
No, he wants Labour to win again.
He's trying to keep Tories in the Tory camp so the vote remains split, and without a deal.
Interests.
Both, I think
Labour will probably win in 28/29, but one day will lose to someone. The question is who.
Personally I prefer a Tory party led by Hunt committed to free trade, sound money, nato and the rule of law rather than a Trumpian lite armchair revolutionary Reform. The Tories were lost the moment Boris said “Fuck Business”.
I just don’t understand why the Tories are giving up on the recipe that gave them success. It’s bizarre. A Tory party led well pursuing a Thatcherite agenda would be a breath of fresh air and defeat Reform.
Boris said "Fuck Business", Rachel actually did it.
The Business NI increase is a folly but nothing, and I mean nothing screwed business like your Brexit, and that was from the f*** business masterminds that are Farage and Johnson.
The employer NI is a disaster but I think Labour will be thankful that they did do it early.
Trump is going to provide very good reasons for a Labour to increase income tax by x% in a way that it’s going to be hard to argue against.
This is the sort of choreography I'm expecting. The eventual deal will be good for Russia but presentable by Trump as "Putin wanted much more but I faced him down with some big threats like the tough guy I am." I bet you any money that's how it plays out.
I agree that the eventual deal will be good for Russia and bad for Ukraine and the rest of us. But, go back just a few months to pre-Trump times. Did we have any sense at all of the willingness of the west to actually finish and win this 3 year old war? If there was a plan we weren't told what it might be.
Ditto Gaza, SFAICS pre-Trump, no interested parties had any thoughts at all about 'Gaza, the next 20 years' apart from abominations from Israel and Hamas. We have got very used to situations just going on for ever with much misery and no progress.
Which is not to defend Trump the possible fascist. But if there are upsides we must find them.
The key change for me is we now have a US president who does not view Putin's invasion of Ukraine as wrong. The opposite even, he respects it. Everything else flows from that.
As for upsides there is just the one but it is a big one. The killing stops. This is worth something even if you hate the injustice of it, the geopolitical ramifications, and fear for the longer term consequences.
It doesn't stop.
It continues and potentially expands in whichever parts of Ukraine Russia continues to occupy.
"70pc chance’ Reform and Tories will merge, says Conservative grandee Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh believes odds of a deal being made are ‘very high’"
It would certainly be lesser than the sum of its parts.
Not least there are it seems considerably more Reform members than Tory, so a merger means Farage as leader.
I would expect 20-30 MP defections, to Independent or LD, but possibly forming their own One Nation party.
And a fair number of Reform voters would spit the dummy too.
The Tories are about 50 seats ahead of the LibDems. If a significant number of Tories defected to the LibDems we'd only be a by-election gain or two from the LibDems becoming the Official Opposition. And then the Tory fat would really be in the fire.
Not happening, on the latest forecast the Tories will gain 35 seats and LDs lose 10 seats
We are however talking about defections in the event of a Ref-Con merger before the GE. Not that I would be keen on taking Con defectors carte blanche. I would expect considerable vetting before permitting.
Davey as LOTO is quite plausible in those circumstances.
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
My guess is that he is trying to impose a deal, as for Israel/Hamas.
He is threatening both sides to get them to sign *something*. My guesstimate is a ceasefire in place.
I think a ceasefire in place is most likely. That was in effect the position between 2014 and 2022, with a fair number of ceasefire violations.
It is possible for such ceasefire to endure (Korea and China/Taiwan for example) but they are inherently unstable. A ceasefire is different to a lasting peace treaty.
Both sides would re-arm and prepare for the next round. Ukraine would bind itself into the EU economic system, but probably not NATO. Russia would agitate for sanctions to drop.
So, wait, you’re saying iits going to end up as a Korea style armistice?
If only we’d listened to that pb-er who told us all this 18 months ago; unfortunately I believe he was shouted down as a “Putinist shill” and a “fucking appeaser”
"70pc chance’ Reform and Tories will merge, says Conservative grandee Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh believes odds of a deal being made are ‘very high’"
The problem for this new entity is that Nigel will have to feature as head honcho. Without that I can't envisage many Reform supporters sticking around and so what would be the point? And then, in a few years, when Nigel takes his well-earned retirement, it'll be like Alice Cooper without Alice cooper. I'm not seeing any longevity as a political project here.
I think you are right, and even more fundamentally, there is a general misunderstanding of the political direction overall from the Gammon faction of the Conservative Party, of which Sir Edward is a prime example. Although RefUk has been able to cannibalise money from previous Tory supporters they still lack the national organisation that can win elections and that will remain so unless the Tory organisation defects en masse.
Farage´s closeness to Trump allies RefUk with a US President who is rapidly becoming a hate figure across British politics. Trump is moving fast and breaking things, but his policies, objectively, cannot work and may well trigger violent discontent in the USA, Farage is already tarred with the same brush, and the relatively high RefUK polling may simply be because a lot of people were not paying a whole load of attention but vaguely hear that Labour is bad. Pretty soon anything even vaguely Trumpian will be deeply unpopular and that includes Farage.
Brexit is actually becoming even more unpopular and again Farage is associated. The question for the Tories is how can they escape the right wing nutters and recover a broad range of support? Not easy, and Ed Davey is going to benefit in the May locals, though not to the extent he might have, given the cancellation of several key contests.
As you say, being too focussed on Farage will weaken the Tories, not strengthen them.
Fair points all. But of course, if, which is possible, Reform remains a really serious player and the Tories look less serious, then money and talent (!) will move there and change things, providing a new tier of leadership post Farage.
(The same will, other things being equal, occur post Trump. Money and power are their own recruiting sergeants.)
They're not really fair points.
It comes down to a staunch Liberal Democrat wishing the Tories were more like the Liberal Democrats than Reform, and hopecasting that delivered more electoral success - without providing any evidence for it.
This is the sort of choreography I'm expecting. The eventual deal will be good for Russia but presentable by Trump as "Putin wanted much more but I faced him down with some big threats like the tough guy I am." I bet you any money that's how it plays out.
I agree that the eventual deal will be good for Russia and bad for Ukraine and the rest of us. But, go back just a few months to pre-Trump times. Did we have any sense at all of the willingness of the west to actually finish and win this 3 year old war? If there was a plan we weren't told what it might be.
Ditto Gaza, SFAICS pre-Trump, no interested parties had any thoughts at all about 'Gaza, the next 20 years' apart from abominations from Israel and Hamas. We have got very used to situations just going on for ever with much misery and no progress.
Which is not to defend Trump the possible fascist. But if there are upsides we must find them.
The key change for me is we now have a US president who does not view Putin's invasion of Ukraine as wrong. The opposite even, he respects it. Everything else flows from that.
As for upsides there is just the one but it is a big one. The killing stops. This is worth something even if you hate the injustice of it, the geopolitical ramifications, and fear for the longer term consequences.
"now have a US president who does not view Putin's invasion of Ukraine as wrong" - evidence for that? Being pragmatic about ending the war is not the same as saying the invasion was justified.
The evidence is in how he talks about the war and about Putin. He respects the invasion as a piece of hard power projection by Russia in its own backyard. That's how he sees it primarily.
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
His position depends entirely on the details of the last phonecall he took.
Two posts, back to back. One asserts that has a fixed view and its all about power projection. The next says that Trump is an American version of the Johnson supermarket trolley, parroting the last thing he heard.
Well folks, which is it? Do you not think that some who rather dislike Trump (and thats all right thinking people) overthink what goes on in his head? And are likely to attribute stuff because they don't like him?
What was Biden (or Harris) going to do to actually end the war in Ukraine?
Trump critics (unlike MAGAs) do not all think in exactly the same way.
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
My guess is that he is trying to impose a deal, as for Israel/Hamas.
He is threatening both sides to get them to sign *something*. My guesstimate is a ceasefire in place.
I think a ceasefire in place is most likely. That was in effect the position between 2014 and 2022, with a fair number of ceasefire violations.
It is possible for such ceasefire to endure (Korea and China/Taiwan for example) but they are inherently unstable. A ceasefire is different to a lasting peace treaty.
Both sides would re-arm and prepare for the next round. Ukraine would bind itself into the EU economic system, but probably not NATO. Russia would agitate for sanctions to drop.
So, wait, you’re saying iits going to end up as a Korea style armistice?
If only we’d listened to that pb-er who told us all this 18 months ago; unfortunately I believe he was shouted down as a “Putinist shill” and a “fucking appeaser”
It is the preferred solution of the US President who is err, amongst othings, a “Putinist shill” and a “fucking appeaser”.
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
My guess is that he is trying to impose a deal, as for Israel/Hamas.
He is threatening both sides to get them to sign *something*. My guesstimate is a ceasefire in place.
I think a ceasefire in place is most likely. That was in effect the position between 2014 and 2022, with a fair number of ceasefire violations.
It is possible for such ceasefire to endure (Korea and China/Taiwan for example) but they are inherently unstable. A ceasefire is different to a lasting peace treaty.
Both sides would re-arm and prepare for the next round. Ukraine would bind itself into the EU economic system, but probably not NATO. Russia would agitate for sanctions to drop.
So, wait, you’re saying iits going to end up as a Korea style armistice?
If only we’d listened to that pb-er who told us all this 18 months ago; unfortunately I believe he was shouted down as a “Putinist shill” and a “fucking appeaser”
It is appeasement. Just because it might happen doesn't make it any less appeasement. And all it will mean is that Russia rearm, reorganise and come back for another go in a few years. Anyone who supports this is indeed a fucking appeaser. Putin wins. Ukraine and Europe - inluding the UK - lose.
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
My guess is that he is trying to impose a deal, as for Israel/Hamas.
He is threatening both sides to get them to sign *something*. My guesstimate is a ceasefire in place.
I think a ceasefire in place is most likely. That was in effect the position between 2014 and 2022, with a fair number of ceasefire violations.
It is possible for such ceasefire to endure (Korea and China/Taiwan for example) but they are inherently unstable. A ceasefire is different to a lasting peace treaty.
Both sides would re-arm and prepare for the next round. Ukraine would bind itself into the EU economic system, but probably not NATO. Russia would agitate for sanctions to drop.
Isn't EU membership for Ukraine one thing that has FA to do with Trump and his crew? Haven't heard much about it in the current clusterfcuk.
Trump will try and block Ukraine membership of the EU. It will be Putin's position, as it weakens Ukraine. And Trump isn't going to want Ukraine on the wrong side of EU tariffs...
This is the sort of choreography I'm expecting. The eventual deal will be good for Russia but presentable by Trump as "Putin wanted much more but I faced him down with some big threats like the tough guy I am." I bet you any money that's how it plays out.
I agree that the eventual deal will be good for Russia and bad for Ukraine and the rest of us. But, go back just a few months to pre-Trump times. Did we have any sense at all of the willingness of the west to actually finish and win this 3 year old war? If there was a plan we weren't told what it might be.
Ditto Gaza, SFAICS pre-Trump, no interested parties had any thoughts at all about 'Gaza, the next 20 years' apart from abominations from Israel and Hamas. We have got very used to situations just going on for ever with much misery and no progress.
Which is not to defend Trump the possible fascist. But if there are upsides we must find them.
The key change for me is we now have a US president who does not view Putin's invasion of Ukraine as wrong. The opposite even, he respects it. Everything else flows from that.
As for upsides there is just the one but it is a big one. The killing stops. This is worth something even if you hate the injustice of it, the geopolitical ramifications, and fear for the longer term consequences.
"now have a US president who does not view Putin's invasion of Ukraine as wrong" - evidence for that? Being pragmatic about ending the war is not the same as saying the invasion was justified.
The evidence is in how he talks about the war and about Putin. He respects the invasion as a piece of hard power projection by Russia in its own backyard. That's how he sees it primarily.
"70pc chance’ Reform and Tories will merge, says Conservative grandee Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh believes odds of a deal being made are ‘very high’"
The problem for this new entity is that Nigel will have to feature as head honcho. Without that I can't envisage many Reform supporters sticking around and so what would be the point? And then, in a few years, when Nigel takes his well-earned retirement, it'll be like Alice Cooper without Alice cooper. I'm not seeing any longevity as a political project here.
I think you are right, and even more fundamentally, there is a general misunderstanding of the political direction overall from the Gammon faction of the Conservative Party, of which Sir Edward is a prime example. Although RefUk has been able to cannibalise money from previous Tory supporters they still lack the national organisation that can win elections and that will remain so unless the Tory organisation defects en masse.
Farage´s closeness to Trump allies RefUk with a US President who is rapidly becoming a hate figure across British politics. Trump is moving fast and breaking things, but his policies, objectively, cannot work and may well trigger violent discontent in the USA, Farage is already tarred with the same brush, and the relatively high RefUK polling may simply be because a lot of people were not paying a whole load of attention but vaguely hear that Labour is bad. Pretty soon anything even vaguely Trumpian will be deeply unpopular and that includes Farage.
Brexit is actually becoming even more unpopular and again Farage is associated. The question for the Tories is how can they escape the right wing nutters and recover a broad range of support? Not easy, and Ed Davey is going to benefit in the May locals, though not to the extent he might have, given the cancellation of several key contests.
As you say, being too focussed on Farage will weaken the Tories, not strengthen them.
Polling 31 Jan-3 Feb, and a lot has happened since then.
Still, it’s to be expected and I reckon it will continue. Trump forces everyone on the right of politics to choose a side. They’ll take their cue from the noises coming out of Reform and the Tories, which are generally warm.
“He’s an arsehole, but he’s our arsehole”.
Also it is easier to join a cult than leave it.
Every year they will convert a few % of normals to the cult with their false promises and scapegoating. It will take a lot to get them back to normal.
"70pc chance’ Reform and Tories will merge, says Conservative grandee Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh believes odds of a deal being made are ‘very high’"
It would certainly be lesser than the sum of its parts.
Not least there are it seems considerably more Reform members than Tory, so a merger means Farage as leader.
I would expect 20-30 MP defections, to Independent or LD, but possibly forming their own One Nation party.
And a fair number of Reform voters would spit the dummy too.
The Tories are about 50 seats ahead of the LibDems. If a significant number of Tories defected to the LibDems we'd only be a by-election gain or two from the LibDems becoming the Official Opposition. And then the Tory fat would really be in the fire.
Not happening, on the latest forecast the Tories will gain 35 seats and LDs lose 10 seats
We are however talking about defections in the event of a Ref-Con merger before the GE. Not that I would be keen on taking Con defectors carte blanche. I would expect considerable vetting before permitting.
Davey as LOTO is quite plausible in those circumstances.
I think that if he were, he'd be quite good.
And, of course, he'd be the first Liberal (or quasi Liberal) in that position since the early 20th Century.
I expect after the last 3 bruising years that Putin will take a break from Ukraine for a while. He has Belarusian Anschluss, consolidating control of Georgia, undermining the leadership of Kazakhstan and some nibbling at Moldova and the Baltics to keep the empire occupied until Russia’s military is sufficiently rebuilt to go again into Ukraine.
“I disagree. Putin and Russia are all in. Russia will not be defeated like this, ie with total Ukrainian victory
OTOH I can’t see how Russia wins, either. I predict a long bloody stalemate that ends with a Korean style partition and an exhausted armistice”
From.. February 2023
TWO YEARS AGO
I guess you’d better add Ukraine to the long long long list of things I got right - major things - which mightily annoys everyone else therefore I’m not allowed to talk about them any more
This is the sort of choreography I'm expecting. The eventual deal will be good for Russia but presentable by Trump as "Putin wanted much more but I faced him down with some big threats like the tough guy I am." I bet you any money that's how it plays out.
I agree that the eventual deal will be good for Russia and bad for Ukraine and the rest of us. But, go back just a few months to pre-Trump times. Did we have any sense at all of the willingness of the west to actually finish and win this 3 year old war? If there was a plan we weren't told what it might be.
Ditto Gaza, SFAICS pre-Trump, no interested parties had any thoughts at all about 'Gaza, the next 20 years' apart from abominations from Israel and Hamas. We have got very used to situations just going on for ever with much misery and no progress.
Which is not to defend Trump the possible fascist. But if there are upsides we must find them.
The key change for me is we now have a US president who does not view Putin's invasion of Ukraine as wrong. The opposite even, he respects it. Everything else flows from that.
As for upsides there is just the one but it is a big one. The killing stops. This is worth something even if you hate the injustice of it, the geopolitical ramifications, and fear for the longer term consequences.
It doesn't stop.
It continues and potentially expands in whichever parts of Ukraine Russia continues to occupy.
Well we don't know. Anyway I'm not arguing for a sellout deal. It'd be a travesty and a tragedy. Nevertheless a ceasefire does have a value in itself. It's not a nothing. It merits inclusion in the pro/con calculus.
This is the sort of choreography I'm expecting. The eventual deal will be good for Russia but presentable by Trump as "Putin wanted much more but I faced him down with some big threats like the tough guy I am." I bet you any money that's how it plays out.
I agree that the eventual deal will be good for Russia and bad for Ukraine and the rest of us. But, go back just a few months to pre-Trump times. Did we have any sense at all of the willingness of the west to actually finish and win this 3 year old war? If there was a plan we weren't told what it might be.
Ditto Gaza, SFAICS pre-Trump, no interested parties had any thoughts at all about 'Gaza, the next 20 years' apart from abominations from Israel and Hamas. We have got very used to situations just going on for ever with much misery and no progress.
Which is not to defend Trump the possible fascist. But if there are upsides we must find them.
The key change for me is we now have a US president who does not view Putin's invasion of Ukraine as wrong. The opposite even, he respects it. Everything else flows from that.
As for upsides there is just the one but it is a big one. The killing stops. This is worth something even if you hate the injustice of it, the geopolitical ramifications, and fear for the longer term consequences.
"now have a US president who does not view Putin's invasion of Ukraine as wrong" - evidence for that? Being pragmatic about ending the war is not the same as saying the invasion was justified.
The evidence is in how he talks about the war and about Putin. He respects the invasion as a piece of hard power projection by Russia in its own backyard. That's how he sees it primarily.
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
His position depends entirely on the details of the last phonecall he took.
Two posts, back to back. One asserts that has a fixed view and its all about power projection. The next says that Trump is an American version of the Johnson supermarket trolley, parroting the last thing he heard.
Well folks, which is it? Do you not think that some who rather dislike Trump (and thats all right thinking people) overthink what goes on in his head? And are likely to attribute stuff because they don't like him?
What was Biden (or Harris) going to do to actually end the war in Ukraine?
Well of course I am right. You don't want to listen to that Kinabalu- he's a PB socialist for goodness sake!🤣
I suspect Harris would have kept Putin in the same holding position Biden kept him in abeyance.
After the phonecall Trump has green lighted whatever expansion plans Putin has in mind. Although today everything appears to have changed. I can't keep up.
For me, that shows a rough true baseline of Labour support in an actual GE would be 32%
You have set stall on Labour becoming unpopular quickly.
Are you now thinking we're still around about at GE 24 in reality?
I'm saying that current polls are mid-term opinion polls and not representative of where opinion would fall in an actual GE. The fact they are very unpopular now (they are) doesn't mean that's where the votes would fall if a choice was truly forced across the centre-left spectrum.
I'd expect Labour to get 32-34% in a real election, especially if up against a Reform-Tory combo which is why they need to both poll higher and get a deal struck.
Reform Tory deal, is that something you favour?
Yes. The ship has sailed and the alternative (from my perspective) is another circling firing squad that leads to a 2nd Labour term.
So despite thinking defence vs Russia existential to the UK, backing Farage who has zero interest in standing up to Putin, let alone working with our neighbours to create a sufficient deterrent.
You'll have to do much better than just shout "PUTIN!" every time you encounter someone interested in blocking Labour out of power.
The current government is doing nothing about our defences, paying to give our territory away and has signed up to reparations.
I won't take any lectures on UK foreign policy from the Labour Party.
"I won't take any lectures.." is a lazy answer beloved of politicians (Starmer included), who are unable to articulate a convincing reply. You can pretty well discount the opinion of anyone resorting to it.
I'll take that with a pinch of salt coming from a man who's dropped the f-bomb this morning on people he politically disagrees with.
Casino you have dropped the f-repeatedly before regarding the EU and Brexit and the like. It feels rather hypocritical that you are suddenly high and mighty.
Oh yeah, and worse. And I've had some really dark times in recent years too - this is why I quit my job at the end of January.
More than a merger, I suspect you'll see a shake out of voters. In Red Wall seats, and Wales, I'd expect to see Conservatives go heavily for Reform, in order to defeat Labour, whereas in more prosperous seats, the Conservative vote will hold up much better.
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
My guess is that he is trying to impose a deal, as for Israel/Hamas.
He is threatening both sides to get them to sign *something*. My guesstimate is a ceasefire in place.
I think a ceasefire in place is most likely. That was in effect the position between 2014 and 2022, with a fair number of ceasefire violations.
It is possible for such ceasefire to endure (Korea and China/Taiwan for example) but they are inherently unstable. A ceasefire is different to a lasting peace treaty.
Both sides would re-arm and prepare for the next round. Ukraine would bind itself into the EU economic system, but probably not NATO. Russia would agitate for sanctions to drop.
So, wait, you’re saying iits going to end up as a Korea style armistice?
If only we’d listened to that pb-er who told us all this 18 months ago; unfortunately I believe he was shouted down as a “Putinist shill” and a “fucking appeaser”
It is appeasement. Just because it might happen doesn't make it any less appeasement. And all it will mean is that Russia rearm, reorganise and come back for another go in a few years. Anyone who supports this is indeed a fucking appeaser. Putin wins. Ukraine and Europe - inluding the UK - lose.
You’ll need to point me to the place where I said “ooh I really want this to happen” rather than what I actually said which was “hmm, this thing is probably going to happen”
“I disagree. Putin and Russia are all in. Russia will not be defeated like this, ie with total Ukrainian victory
OTOH I can’t see how Russia wins, either. I predict a long bloody stalemate that ends with a Korean style partition and an exhausted armistice”
From.. February 2023
TWO YEARS AGO
I guess you’d better add Ukraine to the long long long list of things I got right - major things - which mightily annoys everyone else therefore I’m not allowed to talk about them any more
Now do Putin being the defender of Western civilisation and values.
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
His position depends entirely on the details of the last phonecall he took.
It seems to me the biggest mistake is to think anything like that of Trump and particularly of Trumpism.
The second biggest mistake is to assume that what he says is some final position. And the next mistake is to take him either literally or unseriously.
But the basics of the Trumpism agenda have not been hidden. They are an authoritarian mechanism for advancing USA interests from a Trumpian point of view and the personal interests of Trump and his oligarchy.
The rest of the free world has the job of reacting, finding the upsides where possible and preparing for isolationism. The sooner we get used to the new reality the better.
“I disagree. Putin and Russia are all in. Russia will not be defeated like this, ie with total Ukrainian victory
OTOH I can’t see how Russia wins, either. I predict a long bloody stalemate that ends with a Korean style partition and an exhausted armistice”
From.. February 2023
TWO YEARS AGO
I guess you’d better add Ukraine to the long long long list of things I got right - major things - which mightily annoys everyone else therefore I’m not allowed to talk about them any more
It wouldn't be a Korean style partition. It would be a Vietnam style partition with the same eventual result.
More than a merger, I suspect you'll see a shake out of voters. In Red Wall seats, and Wales, I'd expect to see Conservatives go heavily for Reform, in order to defeat Labour, whereas in more prosperous seats, the Conservative vote will hold up much better.
Yes to get rid of Labour in Stoke vote Reform, in Chelsea and Fulham vote Conservative
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
My guess is that he is trying to impose a deal, as for Israel/Hamas.
He is threatening both sides to get them to sign *something*. My guesstimate is a ceasefire in place.
I think a ceasefire in place is most likely. That was in effect the position between 2014 and 2022, with a fair number of ceasefire violations.
It is possible for such ceasefire to endure (Korea and China/Taiwan for example) but they are inherently unstable. A ceasefire is different to a lasting peace treaty.
Both sides would re-arm and prepare for the next round. Ukraine would bind itself into the EU economic system, but probably not NATO. Russia would agitate for sanctions to drop.
So, wait, you’re saying iits going to end up as a Korea style armistice?
If only we’d listened to that pb-er who told us all this 18 months ago; unfortunately I believe he was shouted down as a “Putinist shill” and a “fucking appeaser”
It is appeasement. Just because it might happen doesn't make it any less appeasement. And all it will mean is that Russia rearm, reorganise and come back for another go in a few years. Anyone who supports this is indeed a fucking appeaser. Putin wins. Ukraine and Europe - inluding the UK - lose.
You’ll need to point me to the place where I said “ooh I really want this to happen” rather than what I actually said which was “hmm, this thing is probably going to happen”
You'll need to point to the place where I said you "wanted it to happen" rather than saying if it happens it is appeasement.
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
My guess is that he is trying to impose a deal, as for Israel/Hamas.
He is threatening both sides to get them to sign *something*. My guesstimate is a ceasefire in place.
I think a ceasefire in place is most likely. That was in effect the position between 2014 and 2022, with a fair number of ceasefire violations.
It is possible for such ceasefire to endure (Korea and China/Taiwan for example) but they are inherently unstable. A ceasefire is different to a lasting peace treaty.
Both sides would re-arm and prepare for the next round. Ukraine would bind itself into the EU economic system, but probably not NATO. Russia would agitate for sanctions to drop.
So, wait, you’re saying iits going to end up as a Korea style armistice?
If only we’d listened to that pb-er who told us all this 18 months ago; unfortunately I believe he was shouted down as a “Putinist shill” and a “fucking appeaser”
It is the preferred solution of the US President who is err, amongst othings, a “Putinist shill” and a “fucking appeaser”.
Appeasers are the countries who sacrifice others and hope they get eaten last. An analogy would be the hangers on in a bullying gang who look away when necessary.
"70pc chance’ Reform and Tories will merge, says Conservative grandee Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh believes odds of a deal being made are ‘very high’"
It would certainly be lesser than the sum of its parts.
Not least there are it seems considerably more Reform members than Tory, so a merger means Farage as leader.
I would expect 20-30 MP defections, to Independent or LD, but possibly forming their own One Nation party.
And a fair number of Reform voters would spit the dummy too.
The Tories are about 50 seats ahead of the LibDems. If a significant number of Tories defected to the LibDems we'd only be a by-election gain or two from the LibDems becoming the Official Opposition. And then the Tory fat would really be in the fire.
Not happening, on the latest forecast the Tories will gain 35 seats and LDs lose 10 seats
We are however talking about defections in the event of a Ref-Con merger before the GE. Not that I would be keen on taking Con defectors carte blanche. I would expect considerable vetting before permitting.
Davey as LOTO is quite plausible in those circumstances.
There is NOT going to be a merger, the Tories and Reform could win more seats separate then they will combined and Farage and Badenoch oppose one anyway
“I disagree. Putin and Russia are all in. Russia will not be defeated like this, ie with total Ukrainian victory
OTOH I can’t see how Russia wins, either. I predict a long bloody stalemate that ends with a Korean style partition and an exhausted armistice”
From.. February 2023
TWO YEARS AGO
I guess you’d better add Ukraine to the long long long list of things I got right - major things - which mightily annoys everyone else therefore I’m not allowed to talk about them any more
It wouldn't be a Korean style partition. It would be a Vietnam style partition with the same eventual result.
Only if the non USA part of NATO allows that to occur. If we have not got the Trumpian message that Europe takes responsibility for Europe yet we are being very slow. It's 500,000,000 million people with two nuclear powers v 150,000,000 Russians.
More than a merger, I suspect you'll see a shake out of voters. In Red Wall seats, and Wales, I'd expect to see Conservatives go heavily for Reform, in order to defeat Labour, whereas in more prosperous seats, the Conservative vote will hold up much better.
Yes to get rid of Labour in Stoke vote Reform, in Chelsea and Fulham vote Conservative
I shall vote for the conservatives in the Senedd election in 2026 - not Reform, but I do expect tactical voting against Labour across Wales including for Plaid
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
His position depends entirely on the details of the last phonecall he took.
It seems to me the biggest mistake is to think anything like that of Trump and particularly of Trumpism.
The second biggest mistake is to assume that what he says is some final position. And the next mistake is to take him either literally or unseriously.
But the basics of the Trumpism agenda have not been hidden. They are an authoritarian mechanism for advancing USA interests from a Trumpian point of view and the personal interests of Trump and his oligarchy.
The rest of the free world has the job of reacting, finding the upsides where possible and preparing for isolationism. The sooner we get used to the new reality the better.
I don't disagree except Trump is easily persuaded as to what is in HIS best interests. He is not afraid to change his mind for that end.
New from 404 Media: anyone can push updates to the http://Doge.gov site. Two sources independently found the issue, one made their own decision to deface the site. "THESE 'EXPERTS' LEFT THEIR DATABASE OPEN."
U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth does not rule out providing nuclear weapons to Ukraine, but such a decision will ultimately depend on U.S. President Donald Trump, he said in an interview with Breitbart News. https://x.com/Hromadske/status/1890332656002351223
That's an effective negotiating threat to pressure Putin to accept Western security guarantees for Ukraine.
Vlad - either you accept security guarantees so you can't take another bite of Ukraine in the future, or we provide them with nukes. Which do you prefer?
Negotiating points have to be at least semi-credible. That one isn't.
Semi-credible if it's coming from a madman.
No one believes Trump is going to give nuclear weapons to Ukraine. In some things he is predictable. The nuclear club is still a fairly exclusive, one and status is something Trump values for its own sake.
Hegseth is a former Fox News colour commentator with a military background - and zero experience of politics or diplomacy. Nothing he says is particularly credible. If Trump were to repeat the idea, I might believe it as a negotiating tactic - but I'd be extremely surprised if he were to do so.
I wonder if someone of high IQ on PoliticalBetting.com can work out how to monetise their good predictive powers. If only there was some sort of clue, maybe in the name PoliticalBetting.com, as to how predictions can generate income.
As things stand, Ukraine cannot join NATO, because it's involved in a territorial dispute, as unfair as that undoubtedly is. So Starmer is basically just issuing guarantees that he can't keep, like the useless tokenistic prick he is.
"70pc chance’ Reform and Tories will merge, says Conservative grandee Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh believes odds of a deal being made are ‘very high’"
It would certainly be lesser than the sum of its parts.
Not least there are it seems considerably more Reform members than Tory, so a merger means Farage as leader.
I would expect 20-30 MP defections, to Independent or LD, but possibly forming their own One Nation party.
And a fair number of Reform voters would spit the dummy too.
The Tories are about 50 seats ahead of the LibDems. If a significant number of Tories defected to the LibDems we'd only be a by-election gain or two from the LibDems becoming the Official Opposition. And then the Tory fat would really be in the fire.
Not happening, on the latest forecast the Tories will gain 35 seats and LDs lose 10 seats
We are however talking about defections in the event of a Ref-Con merger before the GE. Not that I would be keen on taking Con defectors carte blanche. I would expect considerable vetting before permitting.
Davey as LOTO is quite plausible in those circumstances.
I think that if he were, he'd be quite good.
And, of course, he'd be the first Liberal (or quasi Liberal) in that position since the early 20th Century.
I think his questions in PMQs are very well chosen.
I am sure Starmer would lke to take a stronger anti-Trump line, but he is in no position to do so.
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
His position depends entirely on the details of the last phonecall he took.
It seems to me the biggest mistake is to think anything like that of Trump and particularly of Trumpism.
The second biggest mistake is to assume that what he says is some final position. And the next mistake is to take him either literally or unseriously.
But the basics of the Trumpism agenda have not been hidden. They are an authoritarian mechanism for advancing USA interests from a Trumpian point of view and the personal interests of Trump and his oligarchy.
The rest of the free world has the job of reacting, finding the upsides where possible and preparing for isolationism. The sooner we get used to the new reality the better.
Yes. Starmer and Zelensky, and no doubt others, are treating Trump as a difficult stakeholder - for their respective agendas. This is probably the best approach. But we should never fall into the trap of believing Trump is the solution to anything at all. He's purely a problem to be managed, as best we can.
“I disagree. Putin and Russia are all in. Russia will not be defeated like this, ie with total Ukrainian victory
OTOH I can’t see how Russia wins, either. I predict a long bloody stalemate that ends with a Korean style partition and an exhausted armistice”
From.. February 2023
TWO YEARS AGO
I guess you’d better add Ukraine to the long long long list of things I got right - major things - which mightily annoys everyone else therefore I’m not allowed to talk about them any more
New from 404 Media: anyone can push updates to the http://Doge.gov site. Two sources independently found the issue, one made their own decision to deface the site. "THESE 'EXPERTS' LEFT THEIR DATABASE OPEN."
Ukraine's best chance to win the war was in the summer of 2022, but the delayed counteroffensive at the behest of the US gave Russia chance to reinforce their defences and make it all but impossible.
Bringing down Boris Johnson at that moment was the biggest gift to Putin imaginable.
“I disagree. Putin and Russia are all in. Russia will not be defeated like this, ie with total Ukrainian victory
OTOH I can’t see how Russia wins, either. I predict a long bloody stalemate that ends with a Korean style partition and an exhausted armistice”
From.. February 2023
TWO YEARS AGO
I guess you’d better add Ukraine to the long long long list of things I got right - major things - which mightily annoys everyone else therefore I’m not allowed to talk about them any more
It wouldn't be a Korean style partition. It would be a Vietnam style partition with the same eventual result.
Only if the non USA part of NATO allows that to occur. If we have not got the Trumpian message that Europe takes responsibility for Europe yet we are being very slow. It's 500,000,000 million people with two nuclear powers v 150,000,000 Russians.
North Vietnam was 4 million peple vs 180 million in the US in 1960. Didn't make much difference to the eventual outcome.
Ukraine's best chance to win the war was in the summer of 2022, but the delayed counteroffensive at the behest of the US gave Russia chance to reinforce their defences and make it all but impossible.
Bringing down Boris Johnson at that moment was the biggest gift to Putin imaginable.
"70pc chance’ Reform and Tories will merge, says Conservative grandee Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh believes odds of a deal being made are ‘very high’"
It would certainly be lesser than the sum of its parts.
Not least there are it seems considerably more Reform members than Tory, so a merger means Farage as leader.
I would expect 20-30 MP defections, to Independent or LD, but possibly forming their own One Nation party.
And a fair number of Reform voters would spit the dummy too.
The Tories are about 50 seats ahead of the LibDems. If a significant number of Tories defected to the LibDems we'd only be a by-election gain or two from the LibDems becoming the Official Opposition. And then the Tory fat would really be in the fire.
Not happening, on the latest forecast the Tories will gain 35 seats and LDs lose 10 seats
We are however talking about defections in the event of a Ref-Con merger before the GE. Not that I would be keen on taking Con defectors carte blanche. I would expect considerable vetting before permitting.
Davey as LOTO is quite plausible in those circumstances.
I think that if he were, he'd be quite good.
And, of course, he'd be the first Liberal (or quasi Liberal) in that position since the early 20th Century.
I think his questions in PMQs are very well chosen.
I am sure Starmer would lke to take a stronger anti-Trump line, but he is in no position to do so.
Are Starmer and Davey working together?
No Davey is anti farms tax, anti WFA cut and anti NI employers rise and more NIMBY than Starmer. Even in the event he props up a weakened Starmer minority government after the next GE he will demand his pound of flesh on those issues from him and for the UK to rejoin a Customs Union
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
My guess is that he is trying to impose a deal, as for Israel/Hamas.
He is threatening both sides to get them to sign *something*. My guesstimate is a ceasefire in place.
I think a ceasefire in place is most likely. That was in effect the position between 2014 and 2022, with a fair number of ceasefire violations.
It is possible for such ceasefire to endure (Korea and China/Taiwan for example) but they are inherently unstable. A ceasefire is different to a lasting peace treaty.
Both sides would re-arm and prepare for the next round. Ukraine would bind itself into the EU economic system, but probably not NATO. Russia would agitate for sanctions to drop.
So, wait, you’re saying iits going to end up as a Korea style armistice?
If only we’d listened to that pb-er who told us all this 18 months ago; unfortunately I believe he was shouted down as a “Putinist shill” and a “fucking appeaser”
It is appeasement. Just because it might happen doesn't make it any less appeasement. And all it will mean is that Russia rearm, reorganise and come back for another go in a few years. Anyone who supports this is indeed a fucking appeaser. Putin wins. Ukraine and Europe - inluding the UK - lose.
Having a view on the outcome of a conflict doesn't make one an appeaser or anything else. It makes one an analyst.
I expect after the last 3 bruising years that Putin will take a break from Ukraine for a while. He has Belarusian Anschluss, consolidating control of Georgia, undermining the leadership of Kazakhstan and some nibbling at Moldova and the Baltics to keep the empire occupied until Russia’s military is sufficiently rebuilt to go again into Ukraine.
More likely than "taking a break" would be the attempted subversion of Ukrainian politics. For example, finding and funding an Orban/Fico figure - while continuing with the kind of limited war he waged across the border during the first Trump presidency.
“I disagree. Putin and Russia are all in. Russia will not be defeated like this, ie with total Ukrainian victory
OTOH I can’t see how Russia wins, either. I predict a long bloody stalemate that ends with a Korean style partition and an exhausted armistice”
From.. February 2023
TWO YEARS AGO
I guess you’d better add Ukraine to the long long long list of things I got right - major things - which mightily annoys everyone else therefore I’m not allowed to talk about them any more
It wouldn't be a Korean style partition. It would be a Vietnam style partition with the same eventual result.
Only if the non USA part of NATO allows that to occur. If we have not got the Trumpian message that Europe takes responsibility for Europe yet we are being very slow. It's 500,000,000 million people with two nuclear powers v 150,000,000 Russians.
North Vietnam was 4 million peple vs 180 million in the US in 1960. Didn't make much difference to the eventual outcome.
As North Vietnamese were defending their nation from US troops in Vietnam, only if we actually invaded Russia rather than defended nations from Russian invasion would that comparison arrive and as Russia has nukes unlike the Vietcong that is very unlikely
"70pc chance’ Reform and Tories will merge, says Conservative grandee Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh believes odds of a deal being made are ‘very high’"
It would certainly be lesser than the sum of its parts.
Not least there are it seems considerably more Reform members than Tory, so a merger means Farage as leader.
I would expect 20-30 MP defections, to Independent or LD, but possibly forming their own One Nation party.
And a fair number of Reform voters would spit the dummy too.
The Tories are about 50 seats ahead of the LibDems. If a significant number of Tories defected to the LibDems we'd only be a by-election gain or two from the LibDems becoming the Official Opposition. And then the Tory fat would really be in the fire.
Not happening, on the latest forecast the Tories will gain 35 seats and LDs lose 10 seats
We are however talking about defections in the event of a Ref-Con merger before the GE. Not that I would be keen on taking Con defectors carte blanche. I would expect considerable vetting before permitting.
Davey as LOTO is quite plausible in those circumstances.
I think that if he were, he'd be quite good.
And, of course, he'd be the first Liberal (or quasi Liberal) in that position since the early 20th Century.
I think his questions in PMQs are very well chosen.
I am sure Starmer would lke to take a stronger anti-Trump line, but he is in no position to do so.
Are Starmer and Davey working together?
Their exchanges are very civilised and "grown up". I suspect Starmer appreciates Davey's courtesy. Badenoch's problem is her slam dunk gotchas, tend to "get her".
I wonder if someone of high IQ on PoliticalBetting.com can work out how to monetise their good predictive powers. If only there was some sort of clue, maybe in the name PoliticalBetting.com, as to how predictions can generate income.
I'm glad you acknowledge my ultra high IQ, finally
Given that you've been admirably honest, I will reply honestly:
1. I'm weirdly mediocre at betting, probably because I have no interest in money, per se, and stats and maths tend to bore me
2. Most but not all of the things that I tend to be right about are medium/long term geopolitics, or tech, or evolution - the bigger things, things where there is no market
eg. Was there a Paddypower market on "Will it turn out that it came from the lab, after all", back in mid 2020? No
New from 404 Media: anyone can push updates to the http://Doge.gov site. Two sources independently found the issue, one made their own decision to deface the site. "THESE 'EXPERTS' LEFT THEIR DATABASE OPEN."
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
My guess is that he is trying to impose a deal, as for Israel/Hamas.
He is threatening both sides to get them to sign *something*. My guesstimate is a ceasefire in place.
I think a ceasefire in place is most likely. That was in effect the position between 2014 and 2022, with a fair number of ceasefire violations.
It is possible for such ceasefire to endure (Korea and China/Taiwan for example) but they are inherently unstable. A ceasefire is different to a lasting peace treaty.
Both sides would re-arm and prepare for the next round. Ukraine would bind itself into the EU economic system, but probably not NATO. Russia would agitate for sanctions to drop.
So, wait, you’re saying iits going to end up as a Korea style armistice?
If only we’d listened to that pb-er who told us all this 18 months ago; unfortunately I believe he was shouted down as a “Putinist shill” and a “fucking appeaser”
It is appeasement. Just because it might happen doesn't make it any less appeasement. And all it will mean is that Russia rearm, reorganise and come back for another go in a few years. Anyone who supports this is indeed a fucking appeaser. Putin wins. Ukraine and Europe - inluding the UK - lose.
Having a view on the outcome of a conflict doesn't make one an appeaser or anything else. It makes one an analyst.
With all the Trump/Ukraine talk, a key consideration is the German elections in just over a week's time: - CDU will win most seats - AfD very likely second place, but very unlikely to form a part of any governent - SPD and Greens third and fourth. One or both likely to be coalition partners with the CDU - Three other parties (FDP, Linke and BSW) fighting over whether they get the 5% needed to enter parliament.
In terms of impact on Ukraine, the question is whether CDU/SPD/Greens will have 2/3rds of MPs such that they can alter the debt brake rules and facilitate deficit spending to boost Ukraine spending materially. The other parties are all either against deficit spending or against defence spending.
German debt/GDP close to 60% so there's plenty of headroom to spend more in the short-term (without cutting something else) in a way there is not in the UK or France, for example.
Ukraine's best chance to win the war was in the summer of 2022, but the delayed counteroffensive at the behest of the US gave Russia chance to reinforce their defences and make it all but impossible.
Bringing down Boris Johnson at that moment was the biggest gift to Putin imaginable.
No it wasn't. Sunak was equally robust over Ukraine.
"70pc chance’ Reform and Tories will merge, says Conservative grandee Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh believes odds of a deal being made are ‘very high’"
The problem for this new entity is that Nigel will have to feature as head honcho. Without that I can't envisage many Reform supporters sticking around and so what would be the point? And then, in a few years, when Nigel takes his well-earned retirement, it'll be like Alice Cooper without Alice cooper. I'm not seeing any longevity as a political project here.
I think you are right, and even more fundamentally, there is a general misunderstanding of the political direction overall from the Gammon faction of the Conservative Party, of which Sir Edward is a prime example. Although RefUk has been able to cannibalise money from previous Tory supporters they still lack the national organisation that can win elections and that will remain so unless the Tory organisation defects en masse.
Farage´s closeness to Trump allies RefUk with a US President who is rapidly becoming a hate figure across British politics. Trump is moving fast and breaking things, but his policies, objectively, cannot work and may well trigger violent discontent in the USA, Farage is already tarred with the same brush, and the relatively high RefUK polling may simply be because a lot of people were not paying a whole load of attention but vaguely hear that Labour is bad. Pretty soon anything even vaguely Trumpian will be deeply unpopular and that includes Farage.
Brexit is actually becoming even more unpopular and again Farage is associated. The question for the Tories is how can they escape the right wing nutters and recover a broad range of support? Not easy, and Ed Davey is going to benefit in the May locals, though not to the extent he might have, given the cancellation of several key contests.
As you say, being too focussed on Farage will weaken the Tories, not strengthen them.
That's a peculiar piece from the Spectator. The only actual statement about the level of support for Trump is that it was 8% among Brits before. It's all trend without saying what the actual level or size of trend is:
New data from my company JL Partners shows that the British public, only 8 per cent of whom said Trump had been a good president on leaving office, are more likely to say they view him more positively after the last few weeks than negatively. And whilst he is still by no means hugely liked, 4 in 10 Reform UK voters, 1 in 3 Conservatives voters and even 1 in 5 Labour voters say their views of Donald Trump have become more positive since the inauguration.
They didn't even ask "do you support Trump". No date on when the 8% number was measured, and no equivalent question to make comparison.
What they have is a series of question about "Regardless of Donald Trump’s politics he is able to get things done:Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?", "do you like that Trump gets things done?", "changing hundreds of laws on day one - do you like?" and so on, then "Overall would you say your view of Donald Trump has become more positive or negative since he became President of the United States?" with one answer saying "I supported him already" (20%).
Ukraine's best chance to win the war was in the summer of 2022, but the delayed counteroffensive at the behest of the US gave Russia chance to reinforce their defences and make it all but impossible.
Bringing down Boris Johnson at that moment was the biggest gift to Putin imaginable.
No it wasn't. Sunak was equally robust over Ukraine.
No he wasn’t. It was noted at the time by Ukraine.
Trump's strategy is to be as confusing as possible so his opponents never quite know where he stands. Where does he stand on Ukraine? It's difficult to tell.
My guess is that he is trying to impose a deal, as for Israel/Hamas.
He is threatening both sides to get them to sign *something*. My guesstimate is a ceasefire in place.
I think a ceasefire in place is most likely. That was in effect the position between 2014 and 2022, with a fair number of ceasefire violations.
It is possible for such ceasefire to endure (Korea and China/Taiwan for example) but they are inherently unstable. A ceasefire is different to a lasting peace treaty.
Both sides would re-arm and prepare for the next round. Ukraine would bind itself into the EU economic system, but probably not NATO. Russia would agitate for sanctions to drop.
So, wait, you’re saying iits going to end up as a Korea style armistice?
If only we’d listened to that pb-er who told us all this 18 months ago; unfortunately I believe he was shouted down as a “Putinist shill” and a “fucking appeaser”
It is appeasement. Just because it might happen doesn't make it any less appeasement. And all it will mean is that Russia rearm, reorganise and come back for another go in a few years. Anyone who supports this is indeed a fucking appeaser. Putin wins. Ukraine and Europe - inluding the UK - lose.
Having a view on the outcome of a conflict doesn't make one an appeaser or anything else. It makes one an analyst.
'Supporting' is not just analysis.
Where is the support bit in wot he wrote:
“I disagree. Putin and Russia are all in. Russia will not be defeated like this, ie with total Ukrainian victory
OTOH I can’t see how Russia wins, either. I predict a long bloody stalemate that ends with a Korean style partition and an exhausted armistice”
With all the Trump/Ukraine talk, a key consideration is the German elections in just over a week's time: - CDU will win most seats - AfD very likely second place, but very unlikely to form a part of any governent - SPD and Greens third and fourth. One or both likely to be coalition partners with the CDU - Three other parties (FDP, Linke and BSW) fighting over whether they get the 5% needed to enter parliament.
In terms of impact on Ukraine, the question is whether CDU/SPD/Greens will have 2/3rds of MPs such that they can alter the debt brake rules and facilitate deficit spending to boost Ukraine spending materially. The other parties are all either against deficit spending or against defence spending.
German debt/GDP close to 60% so there's plenty of headroom to spend more in the short-term (without cutting something else) in a way there is not in the UK or France, for example.
Be interesting to see whether Trump's comments on Ukraine have any impact on these elections.
They won't let it open because they can't stop its patrons being victims of crime? Christ.
'Met said jazz fans “leaving venue late at night” may become target for illegal taxis who “prey on vulnerable, intoxicated lone females”, as well as targeted for mobile phone snatches.'
Tbf the cops have taken at least one big risk to vulnerable, intoxicated lone females out of the equation. I mean he was also a cop, but still..
This is the sort of choreography I'm expecting. The eventual deal will be good for Russia but presentable by Trump as "Putin wanted much more but I faced him down with some big threats like the tough guy I am." I bet you any money that's how it plays out.
I agree that the eventual deal will be good for Russia and bad for Ukraine and the rest of us. But, go back just a few months to pre-Trump times. Did we have any sense at all of the willingness of the west to actually finish and win this 3 year old war? If there was a plan we weren't told what it might be.
Ditto Gaza, SFAICS pre-Trump, no interested parties had any thoughts at all about 'Gaza, the next 20 years' apart from abominations from Israel and Hamas. We have got very used to situations just going on for ever with much misery and no progress.
Which is not to defend Trump the possible fascist. But if there are upsides we must find them.
Yes, there was a clear sense of willingness of the West to support Ukraine winning this war. More and more military equipment and training was pouring into Ukraine, with prior restrictions on the use of some systems being withdrawn. The plan was clear and vocalised: support Ukraine and maintain pressure on Russia, so Ukraine is in a strong position in any peace talks.
Likewise, numerous interested parties had thoughts about Gaza: get both parties to step back from hostilities, work towards a 2-state solution on the 1967 borders or something close to that.
They won't let it open because they can't stop its patrons being victims of crime? Christ.
'Met said jazz fans “leaving venue late at night” may become target for illegal taxis who “prey on vulnerable, intoxicated lone females”, as well as targeted for mobile phone snatches.'
Tbf the cops taken at least one big risk to vulnerable, intoxicated lone females out of the equation. I mean he was also a cop, but still..
They do have a point, though. So much simpler to close all the clubs and make the lasses stay at home in pink fluffy pyjamas drinking Ovaltine and watching Bridget wossername. More time to investigate, er, themselves?
Interesting detail from the spat over Trump giving Adams a pass* on his corruption charges.
The Thursday Night Massacre(s) Two very different episodes on Thursday provide growing evidence of a Department of Justice that is showing less respect, by the day, for the rule of law.
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/124-the-thursday-night-massacres ...What’s striking about this is not just how transparent what’s actually happening is; it’s Bove’s candid admission, in today’s letter, that “the policies of a democratically elected President and a Senate-confirmed Attorney General” take precedence over a Justice Department lawyer’s oath … to the Constitution. It would be one thing if Bove argued that the President’s (or Attorney General’s) interpretation of the Constitution takes precedence over that of an Interim U.S. Attorney. But that’s not even his argument. Rather, it’s that Sassoon (who, although it shouldn’t matter, is a Republican who clerked for Justice Scalia) had no business raising to the Attorney General her view of what the law required in a case in which it conflicts with the political preferences of the President—indeed, that it was “insubordinate” for her to do so.
So we have what sure as sh*t seems like a quid pro quo on DOJ’s part (dropping the Adams case in exchange for Adams using his powers as mayor to assist federal immigration enforcement efforts); a principled, Republican DOJ attorney raising concerns about the whole situation and asking for a meeting with the Attorney General; and the Acting Deputy Attorney General describing those efforts as “insubordination” while accepting her resignation—without any word from the Attorney General herself...
*One which could be withdrawn in the future, so keeping him under Trump's control.
Ukraine's best chance to win the war was in the summer of 2022, but the delayed counteroffensive at the behest of the US gave Russia chance to reinforce their defences and make it all but impossible.
Bringing down Boris Johnson at that moment was the biggest gift to Putin imaginable.
No it wasn't. Sunak was equally robust over Ukraine.
No he wasn’t. It was noted at the time by Ukraine.
Rubbish! Sunak was often commended for his support by Zelensky. The Johnson cynics amongst us might suggest Johnson's enthusiasm was a last throw of the dice to bolster his waning popularity. Now that thought may be as disingenuous as yours was regarding Sunak.
With all the Trump/Ukraine talk, a key consideration is the German elections in just over a week's time: - CDU will win most seats - AfD very likely second place, but very unlikely to form a part of any governent - SPD and Greens third and fourth. One or both likely to be coalition partners with the CDU - Three other parties (FDP, Linke and BSW) fighting over whether they get the 5% needed to enter parliament.
In terms of impact on Ukraine, the question is whether CDU/SPD/Greens will have 2/3rds of MPs such that they can alter the debt brake rules and facilitate deficit spending to boost Ukraine spending materially. The other parties are all either against deficit spending or against defence spending.
German debt/GDP close to 60% so there's plenty of headroom to spend more in the short-term (without cutting something else) in a way there is not in the UK or France, for example.
CDU/CSU want to keep the debt brake. However, they will probably be open to suspending it to allow more spending.
CNN being remarkably generous about the Trump plan for Ukraine
"Clumsy in delivery but potentially good in outcomr"
Not if one looks at the bigger, longer term picture and Putin, on the brink of defeat now has the opportunity to regroup, rearm and consolidate his gains next year or the year after.
Ukraine's best chance to win the war was in the summer of 2022, but the delayed counteroffensive at the behest of the US gave Russia chance to reinforce their defences and make it all but impossible.
Bringing down Boris Johnson at that moment was the biggest gift to Putin imaginable.
No it wasn't. Sunak was equally robust over Ukraine.
No he wasn’t. It was noted at the time by Ukraine.
Rubbish! Sunak was often commended for his support by Zelensky. The Johnson cynics amongst us might suggest Johnson's enthusiasm was a last throw of the dice to bolster his waning popularity. Now that thought may be as disingenuous as yours was regarding Sunak.
Johnson's footnote in the history books might be "Played a significant role in the ending of NATO" rather than "Got Brexit done"
CNN being remarkably generous about the Trump plan for Ukraine
"Clumsy in delivery but potentially good in outcomr"
Not if one looks at the bigger, longer term picture and Putin, on the brink of defeat now has the opportunity to regroup, rearm and consolidate his gains next year or the year after.
"...Putin, on the brink of defeat now..."
Have you been watching your video games again for analysis on the SMO.
The Conservatives lost over 60 seats to the LibDems, including 6 here in leafy Surrey (12,000 majority in my constituency). I’m struggling to see how a pact with Reform will entice those defectors back into the blue fold.
Ditto here in South Cambridgeshire / St Neots constituencies. Once true blue.
The Tories aren't going to win those types of seat back.
Then they will never form a majority government.
Never is a long time. I remember people saying Labour would never win another election not that long ago. The electorate is uniquely volatile and disaligned from party identification. This is not a particularly good thing - stability and institutional memory matters and too much disalignment is almost as bad as too much partisanship - but it is where we are.
Apologies if wrong and not a dig, but are you not on your third party since 2019?
I'm also on my third party since 1995. But my defections are, in their own small way, a measure of the volatility on the centre-right. If the Tories were still sensibly conservative, I'd still be there. For that matter, had the Lib Dems had a more democratic (and politically viable) Brexit policy in 2019, I'd have moved directly across. And if the YP could have been made more functional and if the wider British and international picture wasn't so acute, I'd still be working there too - but it isn't and time is too critical to take the chance. Anyway, my objection to the Lib Dems is now in the past.
To be clear, I don't blame the electorate for being politically promiscuous: I blame the parties for not giving a solid, consistent, values-based programme.
Fuck you and your concern, Susan Collins. You voted for this shit.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/5144026-trump-ukraine-peace-talks/ ...Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who occasionally bucks Trump’s positions and is strongly aligned with Kyiv, said she is concerned about Ukraine’s fate. “This was an unprovoked, unjustified invasion. I appreciate that the president is trying to achieve peace, but we have to make sure that Ukraine does not get the short end of a deal,” she said. ..
It's rather unedifying logging on and seeing lots of pb regulars dropping the f-bomb on anyone associated with Trump.
Are we going to have a full 4 years of this?
It’s deranged
are you suggesting that there is any tact or tast involved in the trumpist style of politics that should be catered to?
Er, yeah?
I approve 100% of all his anti-woke orders. I approve in his destruction of DEI. I approve of his banning of trans men from women’s sports. I approve of his hard action at the US border. I approve of his mass deportations. I approve of him telling Europe to shape up and stop sponging
Do I need to go on?
A large number of PBers find it impossible to comprehend that anyone can hold firm right wing opinions and REALLY believe them
Do you approve of him deleting the CDC’s database or copying the federal payments database?
I think we should stop using and developing AI today. It's too dangerous.
Lets assume you are correct and it is too dangerous, which I may have some sympathy with. How could we even try and stop it? Someone is going to develop it further and for military purposes whether we should or not, and whether the UK bans it or not. At which point we should too.
Ukraine's best chance to win the war was in the summer of 2022, but the delayed counteroffensive at the behest of the US gave Russia chance to reinforce their defences and make it all but impossible.
Bringing down Boris Johnson at that moment was the biggest gift to Putin imaginable.
No it wasn't. Sunak was equally robust over Ukraine.
No he wasn’t. It was noted at the time by Ukraine.
Rubbish! Sunak was often commended for his support by Zelensky. The Johnson cynics amongst us might suggest Johnson's enthusiasm was a last throw of the dice to bolster his waning popularity. Now that thought may be as disingenuous as yours was regarding Sunak.
More of a desperate gambit to distract from his previous Russian connections including putting Putinists in the Lords
Comments
But in general, while developments in the gangster oligarchy must be watched, moving at Trump pace is important. which means moving from 'Isn't this plutocratic gangster fascist ghastly' to what policies and actions are in the interests of the UK, the west, Europe, the EU, non USA NATO, our closest international allies and the international order, and to do so quickly.
For Europe as a whole to be seen as a dependent, toothless, declining demilitarised has been won't do.
New from 404 Media: anyone can push updates to the http://Doge.gov site. Two sources independently found the issue, one made their own decision to deface the site. "THESE 'EXPERTS' LEFT THEIR DATABASE OPEN."
https://x.com/josephfcox/status/1890297504262127686
But Ukraine is unlikely to concede any of its sovereign territory, and Russia unlikely to abandon its imperial ambitions.
A Korean outcome - with US forces stationed there for decades - is extremely unlikely, IMO. China/Taiwan is anyway a closer comparison, as it has the would be imperial power directly adjacent to its intended conquest, rather than with a tinpot dictatorship buffer in between.
Overexcited Russian and Ukrainian conscripts exchanging shots becomes problematic if the Russians wound a British soldier, and their unit has “you can defend yourself if fired upon” RoE.
(The same will, other things being equal, occur post Trump. Money and power are their own recruiting sergeants.)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/trumps-popularity-amongst-brits-is-rising/
Well folks, which is it? Do you not think that some who rather dislike Trump (and thats all right thinking people) overthink what goes on in his head? And are likely to attribute stuff because they don't like him?
What was Biden (or Harris) going to do to actually end the war in Ukraine?
“He’s an arsehole, but he’s our arsehole”.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Remember “Life is a Rollercoaster” - as so wisely sung by Ronan Keating
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Trump is going to provide very good reasons for a Labour to increase income tax by x% in a way that it’s going to be hard to argue against.
It continues and potentially expands in whichever parts of Ukraine Russia continues to occupy.
Davey as LOTO is quite plausible in those circumstances.
If only we’d listened to that pb-er who told us all this 18 months ago; unfortunately I believe he was shouted down as a “Putinist shill” and a “fucking appeaser”
It comes down to a staunch Liberal Democrat wishing the Tories were more like the Liberal Democrats than Reform, and hopecasting that delivered more electoral success - without providing any evidence for it.
Every year they will convert a few % of normals to the cult with their false promises and scapegoating. It will take a lot to get them back to normal.
And, of course, he'd be the first Liberal (or quasi Liberal) in that position since the early 20th Century.
Leon Posts: 58,165
February 2023
“I disagree. Putin and Russia are all in. Russia will not be defeated like this, ie with total Ukrainian victory
OTOH I can’t see how Russia wins, either. I predict a long bloody stalemate that ends with a Korean style partition and an exhausted armistice”
From.. February 2023
TWO YEARS AGO
I guess you’d better add Ukraine to the long long long list of things I got right - major things - which mightily annoys everyone else therefore I’m not allowed to talk about them any more
I suspect Harris would have kept Putin in the same holding position Biden kept him in abeyance.
After the phonecall Trump has green lighted whatever expansion plans Putin has in mind. Although today everything appears to have changed. I can't keep up.
I just wish I could monetise it. Oh well
The second biggest mistake is to assume that what he says is some final position. And the next mistake is to take him either literally or unseriously.
But the basics of the Trumpism agenda have not been hidden. They are an authoritarian mechanism for advancing USA interests from a Trumpian point of view and the personal interests of Trump and his oligarchy.
The rest of the free world has the job of reacting, finding the upsides where possible and preparing for isolationism. The sooner we get used to the new reality the better.
We can both play that game smartarse.
"I voted Starmer and he turned the nation around, what a guy!"
Or
"I told you Starmer was a loser who would run the nation into the ground."
I am sure Starmer would lke to take a stronger anti-Trump line, but he is in no position to do so.
Are Starmer and Davey working together?
Bringing down Boris Johnson at that moment was the biggest gift to Putin imaginable.
Russia ought not to be given concessions that it cannot win, militarily.
For example, finding and funding an Orban/Fico figure - while continuing with the kind of limited war he waged across the border during the first Trump presidency.
Given that you've been admirably honest, I will reply honestly:
1. I'm weirdly mediocre at betting, probably because I have no interest in money, per se, and stats and maths tend to bore me
2. Most but not all of the things that I tend to be right about are medium/long term geopolitics, or tech, or evolution - the bigger things, things where there is no market
eg. Was there a Paddypower market on "Will it turn out that it came from the lab, after all", back in mid 2020? No
So it is hard to make money on it
https://x.com/stateofsoho/status/1890102479674835379
- CDU will win most seats
- AfD very likely second place, but very unlikely to form a part of any governent
- SPD and Greens third and fourth. One or both likely to be coalition partners with the CDU
- Three other parties (FDP, Linke and BSW) fighting over whether they get the 5% needed to enter parliament.
In terms of impact on Ukraine, the question is whether CDU/SPD/Greens will have 2/3rds of MPs such that they can alter the debt brake rules and facilitate deficit spending to boost Ukraine spending materially. The other parties are all either against deficit spending or against defence spending.
German debt/GDP close to 60% so there's plenty of headroom to spend more in the short-term (without cutting something else) in a way there is not in the UK or France, for example.
New data from my company JL Partners shows that the British public, only 8 per cent of whom said Trump had been a good president on leaving office, are more likely to say they view him more positively after the last few weeks than negatively. And whilst he is still by no means hugely liked, 4 in 10 Reform UK voters, 1 in 3 Conservatives voters and even 1 in 5 Labour voters say their views of Donald Trump have become more positive since the inauguration.
Full piece: https://archive.is/20250204173144/https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/trumps-popularity-amongst-brits-is-rising/#selection-1663.0-1663.458
They didn't even ask "do you support Trump". No date on when the 8% number was measured, and no equivalent question to make comparison.
What they have is a series of question about "Regardless of Donald Trump’s politics he is able to get things done:Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?", "do you like that Trump gets things done?", "changing hundreds of laws on day one - do you like?" and so on, then "Overall would you say your view of Donald Trump has become more positive or negative since he became President of the United States?" with one answer saying "I supported him already" (20%).
Is that push polling?
Tables:
https://jlpartners.co.uk/s/Attitudinal-Tables.xlsx
“I disagree. Putin and Russia are all in. Russia will not be defeated like this, ie with total Ukrainian victory
OTOH I can’t see how Russia wins, either. I predict a long bloody stalemate that ends with a Korean style partition and an exhausted armistice”
Tbf the cops have taken at least one big risk to vulnerable, intoxicated lone females out of the equation. I mean he was also a cop, but still..
Likewise, numerous interested parties had thoughts about Gaza: get both parties to step back from hostilities, work towards a 2-state solution on the 1967 borders or something close to that.
"Clumsy in delivery but potentially good in outcomr"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxkBE23zDmQ
The Thursday Night Massacre(s)
Two very different episodes on Thursday provide growing evidence of a Department of Justice that is showing less respect, by the day, for the rule of law.
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/124-the-thursday-night-massacres
...What’s striking about this is not just how transparent what’s actually happening is; it’s Bove’s candid admission, in today’s letter, that “the policies of a democratically elected President and a Senate-confirmed Attorney General” take precedence over a Justice Department lawyer’s oath … to the Constitution. It would be one thing if Bove argued that the President’s (or Attorney General’s) interpretation of the Constitution takes precedence over that of an Interim U.S. Attorney. But that’s not even his argument. Rather, it’s that Sassoon (who, although it shouldn’t matter, is a Republican who clerked for Justice Scalia) had no business raising to the Attorney General her view of what the law required in a case in which it conflicts with the political preferences of the President—indeed, that it was “insubordinate” for her to do so.
So we have what sure as sh*t seems like a quid pro quo on DOJ’s part (dropping the Adams case in exchange for Adams using his powers as mayor to assist federal immigration enforcement efforts); a principled, Republican DOJ attorney raising concerns about the whole situation and asking for a meeting with the Attorney General; and the Acting Deputy Attorney General describing those efforts as “insubordination” while accepting her resignation—without any word from the Attorney General herself...
*One which could be withdrawn in the future, so keeping him under Trump's control.
Rubbish! Sunak was often commended for his support by Zelensky. The Johnson cynics amongst us might suggest Johnson's enthusiasm was a last throw of the dice to bolster his waning popularity. Now that thought may be as disingenuous as yours was regarding Sunak.
"Played a significant role in the ending of NATO" rather than
"Got Brexit done"
Have you been watching your video games again for analysis on the SMO.
To be clear, I don't blame the electorate for being politically promiscuous: I blame the parties for not giving a solid, consistent, values-based programme.
https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1890215519539912920
Even if two thirds of the world were agree with you, it's not going to stop anything.