politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It is a mistake to look at the next election though the prism

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It is a mistake to look at the next election though the prism of the last one

Given what happened on June 8th last year you would have thought people would have worked out by now is that you cannot look at the next election by thinking back to the last one and applying the same sort of judgements relating to what happened.

Read the full story here

DavidL

First.

Wow, must buy a lottery ticket tonight.

RobD

Second

DavidL

On topic I hope that Mike is right but the fact is that by the next election the Tories will have been in power one way or another for more than a decade. They are already a minority government and it is not easy to see them making progress despite the quality of opposition.

HYUFD

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

IanB2

Very rare for sitting governments to improve their standing. Especially after - in terms of vote share - already having done so once.

ydoethur

IanB2 said:

Very rare for sitting governments to improve their standing. Especially after - in terms of vote share - already having done so once.

I think I'm right in saying the last party to increase a majority after seeing it reduced at the previous election were the Liberals under Palmerston in 1865.

HYUFD

IanB2 said:

Very rare for sitting governments to improve their standing. Especially after - in terms of vote share - already having done so once.

Though in 1992 Major managed to lose just 0.3% of the 1987 Tory voteshare which was enough to keep the Tories in power for a fourth consecutive term.

The Tory leader at the next general election will have to repeat his feat

Foxy

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.

Barnesian

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

Or motivate Labour supporters to vote while many Tory supporters sit at home, particularly the Remainers.

Big_G_NorthWales

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.

To be fair that applies to both parties

HYUFD

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.

The LDs have been squeezed to 7% which seems to be their core vote and are unlikely to go much lower, UKIP collapsed completely at the last general election and the Greens were also down on 2015 and SNP and Plaid votes going to Labour does little to help them actually take many Tory seats.

Turnout at the 2017 general election was also the highest since 1997, it is more likely turnout will fall next time than go up further

HYUFD

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

Or motivate Labour supporters to vote while many Tory supporters sit at home, particularly the Remainers.

Tory voters won't sit at home when there is a risk of Corbyn becoming PM

kle4

It is true that just because Corbyn did so well during the campaign last time it does not automatically mean he will next time. Though my recollection is it wasn't about assuming Lab were overstated in the polls like Ed M, but that the few polls that put it as close were not held to be as convincing because they were so much the outlier that it seemed unlikely, all else being equal, that only those ones were calling it right.

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

Or motivate Labour supporters to vote while many Tory supporters sit at home, particularly the Remainers.

It's possible. If the Tories are divided, and unappealing enough after 12 years in office even with Corbyn being the opponent, then they could well lose.

Anazina

I see today PB’s Shrewd Army has decreed that a) a centrist party is only bad for Labour b) the 2022 election can be won only by the Tories c) a poll showing the public want another say on the Brexit deal is to be ignored.

It is written.

Barnesian

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.

To be fair that applies to both parties

Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.

Y0kel

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

DavidL

Anazina said:

I see today PB’s Shrewd Army has decreed that a) a centrist party is only bad for Labour b) the 2022 election can be won only by the Tories c) a poll showing the public want another say on the Brexit deal is to be ignored.

It is written.

You must read different threads from me. Does FB filter contributions to those that match your preconceived views or something?

I think at best people are saying that the Tories have a chance if Corbyn is the opposition; that a new centrist party is unwanted and unlikely to be successful and that the polling on Brexit was an exercise in demonstrating how slightly different wording led to different conclusions. But maybe my threads are being similarly edited.

Barnesian

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

SandyRentool

I still think it is more likely that both parties will go into the next election with new leaders than both stick with the same leader.

Until the leadership questions are settled we are in a phony war.

Big_G_NorthWales

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.

To be fair that applies to both parties

Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.

If we are honest there is no way of knowing which government or the make up of that government will win next time and usually we tend to look at it, understandably, by our own loyalties

Big_G_NorthWales

Anazina said:

I see today PB’s Shrewd Army has decreed that a) a centrist party is only bad for Labour b) the 2022 election can be won only by the Tories c) a poll showing the public want another say on the Brexit deal is to be ignored.

It is written.

I accept your points though I am not a part of the shrewd army

DavidL

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Big_G_NorthWales

SandyRentool said:

I still think it is more likely that both parties will go into the next election with new leaders than both stick with the same leader.

Until the leadership questions are settled we are in a phony war.

If they do the pendulum is likely to swing towards labour, but as long as Corbyn, McDonnell or Milne are not involved

DavidL

SandyRentool said:

I still think it is more likely that both parties will go into the next election with new leaders than both stick with the same leader.

Until the leadership questions are settled we are in a phony war.

That's probably right Sandy but we need to fill the intervening time somehow (maybe Trump will assist).

Barnesian

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.

To be fair that applies to both parties

Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.

If we are honest there is no way of knowing which government or the make up of that government will win next time and usually we tend to look at it, understandably, by our own loyalties

That's true too. Four years is a long time and the political scene may be unrecognisable.

For what it's worth, Betfair, on a thin market, is showing the following probabilities:

Conservative majority 34%
Labour majority 29%
No overall majority 37%

Big_G_NorthWales

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.

To be fair that applies to both parties

Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.

If we are honest there is no way of knowing which government or the make up of that government will win next time and usually we tend to look at it, understandably, by our own loyalties

That's true too. Four years is a long time and the political scene may be unrecognisable.

For what it's worth, Betfair, on a thin market, is showing the following probabilities:

Conservative majority 34%
Labour majority 29%
No overall majority 37%

The one thing that could change that is if Corbyn's cult was sidelined and someone like Emily Thornberry took over.

Y0kel

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

The Russians have been been consolidating their badged personnel for days. Unbadged might just get left to their fate.

Floater

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

Floater

Y0kel said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

The Russians have been been consolidating their badged personnel for days. Unbadged might just get left to their fate.

That is interesting too - what do you make of that Yokel?

HYUFD

Anazina said:

I see today PB’s Shrewd Army has decreed that a) a centrist party is only bad for Labour b) the 2022 election can be won only by the Tories c) a poll showing the public want another say on the Brexit deal is to be ignored.

It is written.

Nobody has said a or b, in terms of c of course you have largely ignored the actually Leave vote since the day it was cast

kle4

SandyRentool said:

I still think it is more likely that both parties will go into the next election with new leaders than both stick with the same leader.

Until the leadership questions are settled we are in a phony war.

That's my favourite kind of war.

Recidivist

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

He converted at least some 2015 Tories in 2017. In my constituency Labour's vote went up by 11.5% with the Lib Dems and the Greens hardly changing. It's not too much of a stretch to see him shaving off a few percent more.

DavidL

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....

HYUFD

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.

To be fair that applies to both parties

Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.

To get a majority for either party it almost certainly does require vote switching between the two main parties given the Tories need a lead of at least 3% over Labour for a majority and Labour need a lead of at least 6% over the Tories for a majority.

HYUFD

Recidivist said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

He converted at least some 2015 Tories in 2017. In my constituency Labour's vote went up by 11.5% with the Lib Dems and the Greens hardly changing. It's not too much of a stretch to see him shaving off a few percent more.

On a net basis there was virtually no movement from Tory to Labour in 2017 taking the UK as a whole

DavidL

kle4 said:

SandyRentool said:

I still think it is more likely that both parties will go into the next election with new leaders than both stick with the same leader.

Until the leadership questions are settled we are in a phony war.

That's my favourite kind of war.

Amen to that.

williamglenn

Floater said:

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again

We need to be prepared for an asymmetric response.

Big_G_NorthWales

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.

To be fair that applies to both parties

Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.

To get a majority for either party it almost certainly does require vote switching between the two main parties given the Tories need a lead of at least 3% over Labour for a majority and Labour need a lead of at least 6% over the Tories for a majority.

You really are amazing with statistics (and interesting)

DavidL

williamglenn said:

Floater said:

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again

We need to be prepared for an asymmetric response.

There was an excellent early West Wing episode based around that idea. Part of the President's learning curve. Of course Bartlet was written a lot smarter than Trump will ever be.

HYUFD

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.

To be fair that applies to both parties

Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.

To get a majority for either party it almost certainly does require vote switching between the two main parties given the Tories need a lead of at least 3% over Labour for a majority and Labour need a lead of at least 6% over the Tories for a majority.

You really are amazing with statistics (and interesting)

Thankyou, I do like my stats!

Foxy

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.

To be fair that applies to both parties

Absolutely, and with a minority government, and a lot of uncertainty in the future, economically, politically, and militarily in the world, the Betfair market of thirds (Lab, NOC, Con) sounds a little optimistic for Labour, but not by much.

Floater

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....

Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.

viewcode

"last general election proved to be such a disaster for those in the prediction business was that people were looking at it through the prism of 2015."

Thinks.
Did I have money on Con most seats in 2017?
Why yes. Yes I did.
Did I win that particular bet and did the bookies pay out?
Yes. Yes they did.
Am I a particularly smug and wobbly old Viewcode?
Yes. Yes I am.
Pause.
Grins.
Evening all.
[meanders off, whistling the them to "Dixon of Dock Green"...]

Recidivist

It's hard to see us getting to 2022 without at least one and possibly several big issues that will affect voting patterns. We might have British ground troops in Syria. A full scale trade war might break out. Brexit might provoke wage increases that make everyone feel better or price rises that make everyone feel worse. Or something that nobody predicts. It's a shame you can't bet on 'someone nobody thought for a minute would get the job'.

Sunil_Prasannan

FPT

Floater said:

nielh said:

Reflecting on Russia, I think they have a major credibility problem after what happened in Crimea. Putin got what he wanted without the cost of a conventional war, but the harm to Russia's international reputation was immeasurable. The episode exposed them as completely untrustworthy. This has really come back to haunt them with the Salisbury incident.

Personally - I thought helping shoot down a civilian airliner was a low point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

DecrepitJohnL

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

Trump might also need to wonder just how much dirt (if any) the Russians have on him.

Foxy

Recidivist said:

It's hard to see us getting to 2022 without at least one and possibly several big issues that will affect voting patterns. We might have British ground troops in Syria. A full scale trade war might break out. Brexit might provoke wage increases that make everyone feel better or price rises that make everyone feel worse. Or something that nobody predicts. It's a shame you can't bet on 'someone nobody thought for a minute would get the job'.

I think that the last sentence is wrong, all that is required is laying the favourites. Generally that is good betting advice this far out, but a lot of money to tie up.

HYUFD

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....

I doubt the Russians will do much more than expel a few more diplomats or impose trade sanctions if as is likely all Trump does is lob a few missiles at Assad

JonnyJimmy

DecrepitJohnL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

Trump might also need to wonder just how much dirt (if any) the Russians have on him.

Might Corbyn?

DavidL

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....

Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.

The Russian threat is massively overblown. Putin seems to be believing his own PR these days and thinks he is much more powerful than he is.

At the moment the risk of a trade war with China is more serious in my opinion. That could be seriously disruptive and I can see Trump staggering into it by accident.

Foxy

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....

Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.

Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.

Ishmael_Z

DecrepitJohnL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

Trump might also need to wonder just how much dirt (if any) the Russians have on him.

Not really. What would shock us about Trump these days? Almost everything is priced in.

Sunil_Prasannan

kle4 said:

SandyRentool said:

I still think it is more likely that both parties will go into the next election with new leaders than both stick with the same leader.

Until the leadership questions are settled we are in a phony war.

That's my favourite kind of war.

"Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?"

nielh

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....

Anyone else get the feeling we are sleepwalking in to a catastrophe?

DavidL

Foxy said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....

Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.

Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.

Are we not already bombing ISIS in Syria? Admittedly in a fairly trivial kind of way?

Y0kel

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....

Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.

The Russian threat is massively overblown. Putin seems to be believing his own PR these days and thinks he is much more powerful than he is.

At the moment the risk of a trade war with China is more serious in my opinion. That could be seriously disruptive and I can see Trump staggering into it by accident.

Agreed but because he hasn't been put back in his box earlier, it gets harder to do now.

Foxy

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....

Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.

Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.

Are we not already bombing ISIS in Syria? Admittedly in a fairly trivial kind of way?

We are. Bombing both sides in the same war seems a bit over the top to me.

Barnesian

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.

To be fair that applies to both parties

Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.

To get a majority for either party it almost certainly does require vote switching between the two main parties given the Tories need a lead of at least 3% over Labour for a majority and Labour need a lead of at least 6% over the Tories for a majority.

Differential turnout makes a big difference.

I can't find the turnouts for Tory and Labour supporters in GE17 but I seem to remember that the Tory turnout was significantly higher - being more elderly.

As an illustration. suppose the turnouts were 75% for Tory supporters and 65% for Labour supporters.

If the number of supporters stays the same (no vote switching) but, for example, the turnouts equalise at 70% because of different levels of motivation, then simple maths shows that the actual result of 42% Tory, 40% Labour changes to 39% Tory, 43% Labour. This is not a prediction. Just an illustration.

DavidL

HYUFD said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....

I doubt the Russians will do much more than expel a few more diplomats or impose trade sanctions if as is likely all Trump does is lob a few missiles at Assad

Russia is not in a position to impose trade sanctions on the US. Its small, commodity based economy is much more vulnerable to retaliation. There are reasons why Oligarch related shares were falling so sharply today.

HYUFD

Foxy said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....

Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.

Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.

All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground

viewcode

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kle4 said:

SandyRentool said:

I still think it is more likely that both parties will go into the next election with new leaders than both stick with the same leader.

Until the leadership questions are settled we are in a phony war.

That's my favourite kind of war.

"Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?"

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

nielh

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....

Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.

The Russian threat is massively overblown. Putin seems to be believing his own PR these days and thinks he is much more powerful than he is.

At the moment the risk of a trade war with China is more serious in my opinion. That could be seriously disruptive and I can see Trump staggering into it by accident.

The problem is that there are multiple possible flashpoints. Trump evidently doesn't have the temprament to make decisions based on advice.

HYUFD

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.

To be fair that applies to both parties

Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.

To get a majority for either party it almost certainly does require vote switching between the two main parties given the Tories need a lead of at least 3% over Labour for a majority and Labour need a lead of at least 6% over the Tories for a majority.

Differential turnout makes a big difference.

I can't find the turnouts for Tory and Labour supporters in GE17 but I seem to remember that the Tory turnout was significantly higher - being more elderly.

As an illustration. suppose the turnouts were 75% for Tory supporters and 65% for Labour supporters.

If the number of supporters stays the same (no vote switching) but, for example, the turnouts equalise at 70% because of different levels of motivation, then simple maths shows that the actual result of 42% Tory, 40% Labour changes to 39% Tory, 43% Labour. This is not a prediction. Just an illustration.

Which would still not be enough for a Labour majority.

Every night canvassing so far I have had at least 1 or 2 Tories mention unprompted how they do not want 'that Marxist' anywhere near power. Corbyn is a great motivator for Tory turnout

DavidL

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....

Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.

Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.

Are we not already bombing ISIS in Syria? Admittedly in a fairly trivial kind of way?

We are. Bombing both sides in the same war seems a bit over the top to me.

Seem to recall it was very profitable in Catch 22.

Foxy

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....

Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.

Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.

All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground

A British soldier died last week embedded with US troops in Syria. We already have Boots on the Ground.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria

HYUFD

DavidL said:

HYUFD said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....

I doubt the Russians will do much more than expel a few more diplomats or impose trade sanctions if as is likely all Trump does is lob a few missiles at Assad

Russia is not in a position to impose trade sanctions on the US. Its small, commodity based economy is much more vulnerable to retaliation. There are reasons why Oligarch related shares were falling so sharply today.

Well they will just leave it to the expulsions then

DavidL

nielh said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....

Anyone else get the feeling we are sleepwalking in to a catastrophe?

How could you not have confidence in President Trump? What could possibly go wrong? I am ever more disappointed that McMaster is no longer in the Whitehouse. We need some adults in the room. And I don't mean the Stormy Daniels type either.

Big_G_NorthWales

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.

To be fair that applies to both parties

Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.

To get a majority for either party it almost certainly does require vote switching between the two main parties given the Tories need a lead of at least 3% over Labour for a majority and Labour need a lead of at least 6% over the Tories for a majority.

Differential turnout makes a big difference.

I can't find the turnouts for Tory and Labour supporters in GE17 but I seem to remember that the Tory turnout was significantly higher - being more elderly.

As an illustration. suppose the turnouts were 75% for Tory supporters and 65% for Labour supporters.

If the number of supporters stays the same (no vote switching) but, for example, the turnouts equalise at 70% because of different levels of motivation, then simple maths shows that the actual result of 42% Tory, 40% Labour changes to 39% Tory, 43% Labour. This is not a prediction. Just an illustration.

Which would still not be enough for a Labour majority.

Every night canvassing so far I have had at least 1 or 2 Tories mention unprompted how they do not want 'that Marxist' anywhere near power. Corbyn is a great motivator for Tory turnout

He motivates my wife and I against him in a way no one has done before

HYUFD

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much on Brexit....

Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.

Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.

All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground

A British soldier died last week embedded with US troops in Syria. We already have Boots on the Ground.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria

We have a handful of special forces, nothing like the almost 50,000 we had in Iraq or the thousands we had in Afghanistan

DavidL

Talking of sanctions on Russia I thought that this quote on the BBC was hilarious (even if the BBC seemed to be reporting it straight):

"The Kremlin slammed the sanctions. "This is an outrageous business from the point of view of illegality, from the point of view of flouting all the norms, and of course careful analysis is needed here," said spokesman Dmitry Peskov."

CarlottaVance

Sunil_Prasannan said:

FPT

Floater said:

nielh said:

Reflecting on Russia, I think they have a major credibility problem after what happened in Crimea. Putin got what he wanted without the cost of a conventional war, but the harm to Russia's international reputation was immeasurable. The episode exposed them as completely untrustworthy. This has really come back to haunt them with the Salisbury incident.

Personally - I thought helping shoot down a civilian airliner was a low point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

The difference is, the US admitted to it....

In 1996, the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident...".As part of the settlement, even though the United States did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran, they still agreed to pay US$61.8 million on an ex gratia basis, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims.

nielh

DavidL said:

nielh said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....

Anyone else get the feeling we are sleepwalking in to a catastrophe?

How could you not have confidence in President Trump? What could possibly go wrong? I am ever more disappointed that McMaster is no longer in the Whitehouse. We need some adults in the room. And I don't mean the Stormy Daniels type either.

To my mind, the volatility in the White House means that the risk of a catastrophic conflict is much higher than at any point in the last 70 years.
On the other hand, at least Trump appears to have been diverted from his apparent admiration for Putin.
We've still got the North Korea meeting to look forward to.

HYUFD

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.

To be fair that applies to both parties

Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.

To get a majority for either party it almos Tories for a majority.

Differential turnout makes a big difference.

I can't find the turnouts for Tory and Labour supporters in GE17 but I seem to remember that the Tory turnout was significantly higher - being more elderly.

As an illustration. suppose the turnouts were 75% for Tory supporters and 65% for Labour supporters.

If the number of supporters stays the same (no vote switching) but, for example, the turnouts equalise at 70% because of different levels of motivation, then simple maths shows that the actual result of 42% Tory, 40% Labour changes to 39% Tory, 43% Labour. This is not a prediction. Just an illustration.

Which would still not be enough for a Labour majority.

Every night canvassing so far I have had at least 1 or 2 Tories mention unprompted how they do not want 'that Marxist' anywhere near power. Corbyn is a great motivator for Tory turnout

He motivates my wife and I against him in a way no one has done before

Certainly he is the biggest driver of Tory turnout since Kinnock and probably even more so than him

Foxy

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.

To be fair that applies to both parties

Yes it does.

The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.

To get a majority for either party it almost certainly does require vote switching between the two main parties given the Tories need a lead of at least 3% over Labour for a majority and Labour need a lead of at least 6% over the Tories for a majority.

Differential turnout makes a big difference.

I can't find the turnouts for Tory and Labour supporters in GE17 but I seem to remember that the Tory turnout was significantly higher - being more elderly.

As an illustration. suppose the turnouts were 75% for Tory supporters and 65% for Labour supporters.

If the number of supporters stays the same (no vote switching) but, for example, the turnouts equalise at 70% because of different levels of motivation, then simple maths shows that the actual result of 42% Tory, 40% Labour changes to 39% Tory, 43% Labour. This is not a prediction. Just an illustration.

Which would still not be enough for a Labour majority.

Every night canvassing so far I have had at least 1 or 2 Tories mention unprompted how they do not want 'that Marxist' anywhere near power. Corbyn is a great motivator for Tory turnout

He motivates my wife and I against him in a way no one has done before

Jezza certainly is Marmite, but Tories canvassing their own voters and ignoring the DNVs was how they got 2017 wrong. Who could vote for a thick, Marxist, terrorist supporting looney? Well the answer was 40% of the Great British Public. The Tories were either wrong about Corbyn, or wrong about the public, or a bit of both.

DavidL

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much on Brexit....

Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.

Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.

All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground

A British soldier died last week embedded with US troops in Syria. We already have Boots on the Ground.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria

We have a handful of special forces, nothing like the almost 50,000 we had in Iraq or the thousands we had in Afghanistan

50,000?? You are having a laugh. We started under 10K and fell to less than half of that. We could not possibly put 50K in the field. We would really struggle with 20K.

williamglenn

nielh said:

To my mind, the volatility in the White House means that the risk of a catastrophic conflict is much higher than at any point in the last 70 years.

Trump may be the least of your worries.

https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/bild-international/zapad-2017-english-54233658.bild.html

Zapad 2017 was neither an “anti-terror exercise” nor “purely defensive”, but a “dry run” for a “full-scale conventional war against NATO in Europe”. According to these sources, the drill rehearsed the capture of the Baltic states (and Belarus) as well as a “shock campaign” against Western European NATO nations such as Germany and the Netherlands, but also against Poland, Norway and the non-aligned states of Sweden and Finland.

Foxy

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much on Brexit....

Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.

Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.

All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground

A British soldier died last week embedded with US troops in Syria. We already have Boots on the Ground.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria

We have a handful of special forces, nothing like the almost 50,000 we had in Iraq or the thousands we had in Afghanistan

According to the article, there are 2000 US forces in Syria, with clearly some Brits too.

The endgame of the Syrian war is likely to be very tough on the remaining rebel enclaves, the Kurds, and their backers.

Assad is a bastard, but is he worse than the opposition? debateable at worst.

HYUFD

Foxy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.

To be fair that applies to both parties

Yes it does.

The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.

To get a majority for either party it almost certainly does require vote switching between the two main parties given the Tories need a lead of at least 3% over Labour for a majority and Labour need a lead of at least 6% over the Tories for a majority.

Differential turnout makes a big difference.

I can't find the turnouts for Tory and Labour supporters in GE17 but I seem to remember that the Tory turnout was significantly higher - being more elderly.

As an illustration. suppose the turnouts were 75% for Tory supporters and 65% for Labour supporters.

If the number of supporters stays the same (no vote switching) but, for example, the turnouts equalise at 70% because of different levels of motivation, then simple maths shows that the actual result of 42% Tory, 40% Labour changes to 39% Tory, 43% Labour. This is not a prediction. Just an illustration.

Which wout

He motivates my wife and I against him in a way no one has done before

Jezza certainly is Marmite, but Tories canvassing their own voters and ignoring the DNVs was how they got 2017 wrong. Who could vote for a thick, Marxist, terrorist supporting looney? Well the answer was 40% of the Great British Public. The Tories were either wrong about Corbyn, or wrong about the public, or a bit of both.

Actually I have been canvassing plenty of unknowns or previous undecideds too.

However the question was about Tory turnout and let us not forget the Tory voteshare in 2017 at 42% was the highest since 1983, even if Corbyn managed to get the highest Labour voteshare since 2001 he still got less than the Tory voteshare

Floater

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an snip
Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....

Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.

Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.

All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground

A British soldier died last week embedded with US troops in Syria. We already have Boots on the Ground.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria

If memory serves airstrikes were used on Russian backed militia who were moving towards a joint US / UK spec ops base in Syria.

HYUFD

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much on Brexit....

Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.

Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyoneed up of foreign wars.

All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground

A British soldier died last week embedded with US troops in Syria. We already have Boots on the Ground.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria

We have a handful of special forces, nothing like the almost 50,000 we had in Iraq or the thousands we had in Afghanistan

According to the article, there are 2000 US forces in Syria, with clearly some Brits too.

The endgame of the Syrian war is likely to be very tough on the remaining rebel enclaves, the Kurds, and their backers.

Assad is a bastard, but is he worse than the opposition? debateable at worst.

Not even Trump is proposing toppling Assad, just giving him a message after massacring 70 civilians

Barnesian

nielh said:

DavidL said:

nielh said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

.

Anyone else get the feeling we are sleepwalking in to a catastrophe?

How could you not have confidence in President Trump? What could possibly go wrong? I am ever more disappointed that McMaster is no longer in the Whitehouse. We need some adults in the room. And I don't mean the Stormy Daniels type either.

To my mind, the volatility in the White House means that the risk of a catastrophic conflict is much higher than at any point in the last 70 years.
On the other hand, at least Trump appears to have been diverted from his apparent admiration for Putin.
We've still got the North Korea meeting to look forward to.

Trump's volatility and unpredictability could be a plus. I'm reminded of Nixon's "Madman" theory where he got Kissinger to privately let the Soviets and Chinese know that he Nixon was irrational.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

If Putin and Xi and Kim all think that Trump is slightly crazy they are less likely to go to the edge. With cool rational Obama they knew just how far they could play him. Trump knows this.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/13/donald-trumps-doctrine-unpredictability-world-edge

HYUFD

DavidL said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much on Brexit....

Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.

Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.

All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground

A British soldier died last week embedded with US troops in Syria. We already have Boots on the Ground.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria

We have a handful of special forces, nothing like the almost 50,000 we had in Iraq or the thousands we had in Afghanistan

50,000?? You are having a laugh. We started under 10K and fell to less than half of that. We could not possibly put 50K in the field. We would really struggle with 20K.

There are 153,000 total UK armed forces personnel and 46 000 in Iraq at the 2003 peak
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121203223314/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsFactsheets/OperationsInIraqFactsandFigures.htm

DavidL

Barnesian said:

nielh said:

DavidL said:

nielh said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

.

Anyone else get the feeling we are sleepwalking in to a catastrophe?

How could you not have confidence in President Trump? What could possibly go wrong? I am ever more disappointed that McMaster is no longer in the Whitehouse. We need some adults in the room. And I don't mean the Stormy Daniels type either.

To my mind, the volatility in the White House means that the risk of a catastrophic conflict is much higher than at any point in the last 70 years.
On the other hand, at least Trump appears to have been diverted from his apparent admiration for Putin.
We've still got the North Korea meeting to look forward to.

Trump's volatility and unpredictability could be a plus. I'm reminded of Nixon's "Madman" theory where he got Kissinger to privately let the Soviets and Chinese know that he Nixon was irrational.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

If Putin and Xi and Kim all think that Trump is slightly crazy they are less likely to go to the edge. With cool rational Obama they knew just how far they could play him. Trump knows this.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/13/donald-trumps-doctrine-unpredictability-world-edge

That works well when one side is rational. But I have my doubts about Putin too.

Floater

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.

To be fair that applies to both parties

Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.

To get a majority for either party it almost certainly does require vote switching between the two main parties given the Tories need a lead of at least 3% over Labour for a majority and Labour need a lead of at least 6% over the Tories for a majority.

Differential turnout makes a big difference.

I can't find the turnouts for Tory and Labour supporters in GE17 but I seem to remember that the Tory turnout was significantly higher - being more elderly.

As an illustration. suppose the turnouts were 75% for Tory supporters and 65% for Labour supporters.

If the number of supporters stays the same (no vote switching) but, for example, the turnouts equalise at 70% because of different levels of motivation, then simple maths shows that the actual result of 42% Tory, 40% Labour changes to 39% Tory, 43% Labour. This is not a prediction. Just an illustration.

Which would still not be enough for a Labour majority.

Every night canvassing so far I have had at least 1 or 2 Tories mention unprompted how they do not want 'that Marxist' anywhere near power. Corbyn is a great motivator for Tory turnout

Neither I or my wife are tories but we are both determined to vote for whomever has best chance of keeping that .... poison ... .from power

Barnesian

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

nielh said:

DavidL said:

nielh said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

.

Anyone else get the feeling we are sleepwalking in to a catastrophe?

How could you not have confidence in President Trump? What could possibly go wrong? I am ever more disappointed that McMaster is no longer in the Whitehouse. We need some adults in the room. And I don't mean the Stormy Daniels type either.

To my mind, the volatility in the White House means that the risk of a catastrophic conflict is much higher than at any point in the last 70 years.
On the other hand, at least Trump appears to have been diverted from his apparent admiration for Putin.
We've still got the North Korea meeting to look forward to.

Trump's volatility and unpredictability could be a plus. I'm reminded of Nixon's "Madman" theory where he got Kissinger to privately let the Soviets and Chinese know that he Nixon was irrational.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

If Putin and Xi and Kim all think that Trump is slightly crazy they are less likely to go to the edge. With cool rational Obama they knew just how far they could play him. Trump knows this.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/13/donald-trumps-doctrine-unpredictability-world-edge

That works well when one side is rational. But I have my doubts about Putin too.

I think Putin is a master chess player.

Sunil_Prasannan

CarlottaVance said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

FPT

Floater said:

nielh said:

Reflecting on Russia, I think they have a major credibility problem after what happened in Crimea. Putin got what he wanted without the cost of a conventional war, but the harm to Russia's international reputation was immeasurable. The episode exposed them as completely untrustworthy. This has really come back to haunt them with the Salisbury incident.

Personally - I thought helping shoot down a civilian airliner was a low point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

The difference is, the US admitted to it....

In 1996, the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident...".As part of the settlement, even though the United States did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran, they still agreed to pay US$61.8 million on an ex gratia basis, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims.

You missed:

the United States did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran

JonnyJimmy

Barnesian said:

I think Putin is a master chess player.

I think he's better suited to Risk

DavidL

HYUFD said:

DavidL said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

.

I think that he will be looking for targets much on Brexit....

Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.

Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.

All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground

A British soldier died last week embedded with US troops in Syria. We already have Boots on the Ground.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria

We have a handful of special forces, nothing like the almost 50,000 we had in Iraq or the thousands we had in Afghanistan

50,000?? You are having a laugh. We started under 10K and fell to less than half of that. We could not possibly put 50K in the field. We would really struggle with 20K.

There are 153,000 total UK armed forces personnel and 46 000 in Iraq at the 2003 peak
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121203223314/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsFactsheets/OperationsInIraqFactsandFigures.htm

(including those outside of Iraq in support of the operation) it says. So basically including all naval personnel in the area and probably some of those on Cyprus as well. At no time since WW2 have we had "almost 50,000 in Iraq". We simply cannot deploy that kind of force and have not been able to do so for decades.

nielh

Floater said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

e.

To be fair that applies to both parties

Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.

To get a majority for either party it almost certainly does require vote switching between the two main parties given the Tories need a lead of at least 3% over Labour for a majority and Labour need a lead of at least 6% over the Tories for a majority.

Differential turnout makes a big difference.

I can't find the turnouts for Tory and Labour supporters in GE17 but I seem to remember that the Tory turnout was significantly higher - being more elderly.

As an illustration. suppose the turnouts were 75% for Tory supporters and 65% for Labour supporters.

If the number of supporters stays the same (no vote switching) but, for example, the turnouts equalise at 70% because of different levels of motivation, then simple maths shows that the actual result of 42% Tory, 40% Labour changes to 39% Tory, 43% Labour. This is not a prediction. Just an illustration.

Which would still not be enough for a Labour majority.

Every night canvassing so far I have had at least 1 or 2 Tories mention unprompted how they do not want 'that Marxist' anywhere near power. Corbyn is a great motivator for Tory turnout

Neither I or my wife are tories but we are both determined to vote for whomever has best chance of keeping that .... poison ... .from power

Yep. And lots of former labour voters will vote conservative for that reason.
I suspect though that they will be outnumbered by the number of people who are unconcerned by the prospect of a Corbyn led government, and different factors altogether will influence their decision.

RobD

williamglenn said:

nielh said:

To my mind, the volatility in the White House means that the risk of a catastrophic conflict is much higher than at any point in the last 70 years.

Trump may be the least of your worries.

https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/bild-international/zapad-2017-english-54233658.bild.html

Zapad 2017 was neither an “anti-terror exercise” nor “purely defensive”, but a “dry run” for a “full-scale conventional war against NATO in Europe”. According to these sources, the drill rehearsed the capture of the Baltic states (and Belarus) as well as a “shock campaign” against Western European NATO nations such as Germany and the Netherlands, but also against Poland, Norway and the non-aligned states of Sweden and Finland.

One wonders, is Putin being advised by General Orlov?

HYUFD

Floater said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.

To be fair that applies to both parties

Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.

To get a majority for either party it almost certainly does require vote switching between the two main parties given the Tories need a lead of at least 3% over Labour for a majority and Labour need a lead of at least 6% over the Tories for a majority.

Differential turnout makes a big difference.

I can't find the turnouts for Tory and Labour supporters in GE17 but I seem to remember that the Tory turnout was significantly higher - being more elderly.

As an illustration. suppose the turnouts were 75% for Tory supporters and 65% for Labour supporters.

If the number of suppor% Labour changes to 39% Tory, 43% Labour. This is not a prediction. Just an illustration.

Which would still not be enough for a Labour majority.

Every night canvassing so far I have had at least 1 or 2 Tories mention unprompted how they do not want 'that Marxist' anywhere near power. Corbyn is a great motivator for Tory turnout

Neither I or my wife are tories but we are both determined to vote for whomever has best chance of keeping that .... poison ... .from power

Yes, Corbyn polarises opinion dramatically

Barnesian

JonnyJimmy said:

Barnesian said:

I think Putin is a master chess player.

I think he's better suited to Risk

You need allies in Risk. Who are Putin's allies? Iran. Syria. He's weak but he's good at bluff and asymmetric warfare.

I might try putting all the world's various alliances on a Risk board to see what it looks like.

viewcode

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

nielh said:

To my mind, the volatility in the White House means that the risk of a catastrophic conflict is much higher than at any point in the last 70 years.

Trump may be the least of your worries.

https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/bild-international/zapad-2017-english-54233658.bild.html

Zapad 2017 was neither an “anti-terror exercise” nor “purely defensive”, but a “dry run” for a “full-scale conventional war against NATO in Europe”. According to these sources, the drill rehearsed the capture of the Baltic states (and Belarus) as well as a “shock campaign” against Western European NATO nations such as Germany and the Netherlands, but also against Poland, Norway and the non-aligned states of Sweden and Finland.

One wonders, is Putin being advised by General Orlov?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x99njmZxaMA

Y0kel

Context:

I posted a few weeks back there was internal debate with the US administration over whether to launch some kind of strike over renewed and increasingly blatant use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime from January 2018. This hasn't come out of nowhere even though from public perception point of view its landed in the space of a few days because we had a particularly notable event.

At the time of that debate the most against it was James Mattis, the US Secretary of Defense and a man who believes that if you are going to use violence, you use it properly and like all military men can be very wary of military force being used without clear objectives. His comments today perhaps give best indication of sway.

After the April 17 strike, reported and confirmed chemical weapons use dropped away dramatically and was very small scale until the turn of the year.

Just one note about Trump's decision making. There was a lot of talk back in 2017 that his daughter had a major influence on him in the decision to strike.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/ReutersPolitics/status/983469691837526017

Sunil_Prasannan

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did m
Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much on Brexit....

Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.

Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyoneed up of foreign wars.

All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground

A British soldier died last week embedded with US troops in Syria. We already have Boots on the Ground.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria

We have a handful of special forces, nothing like the almost 50,000 we had in Iraq or the thousands we had in Afghanistan

According to the article, there are 2000 US forces in Syria, with clearly some Brits too.

The endgame of the Syrian war is likely to be very tough on the remaining rebel enclaves, the Kurds, and their backers.

Assad is a bastard, but is he worse than the opposition? debateable at worst.

Not even Trump is proposing toppling Assad, just giving him a message after massacring 70 civilians

What are the odds that Trump's air strikes will kill more than 70 civilians?

Sunil_Prasannan

JonnyJimmy said:

Barnesian said:

I think Putin is a master chess player.

I think he's better suited to Risk

Tic Tac Toe

JonnyJimmy

How is Corbyn actually too stupid to realise that his alignment with the Kremlin line since Salisbury would reinforce all of the most potent criticism previously levelled against him?

Surely this means either he's too thick to tie his shoelaces, or he's scared that Putin will release the old tapes of him in East Germany?

DavidL

Sunil_Prasannan said:

CarlottaVance said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

FPT

Floater said:

nielh said:

Reflecting on Russia, I think they have a major credibility problem after what happened in Crimea. Putin got what he wanted without the cost of a conventional war, but the harm to Russia's international reputation was immeasurable. The episode exposed them as completely untrustworthy. This has really come back to haunt them with the Salisbury incident.

Personally - I thought helping shoot down a civilian airliner was a low point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

The difference is, the US admitted to it....

In 1996, the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident...".As part of the settlement, even though the United States did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran, they still agreed to pay US$61.8 million on an ex gratia basis, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims.

You missed:

the United States did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran

I don't think the money has actually been paid either. I think it has been held up by various sanction regimes imposed on Iran since the agreement was reached. My daughter is a keen participant in model UN and they had a scenario based on this a few months ago.

HYUFD

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Floater said:

DavidL said:

Barnesian said:

Y0kel said:

The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did m
Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

He set the bar with

Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

I think that he will be looking for targets much on Brexit....

Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.

Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyoneed up of foreign wars.

All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground

A British soldier died last week embedded with US troops in Syria. We already have Boots on the Ground.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria

We have a handful of special forces, nothing like the almost 50,000 we had in Iraq or the thousands we had in Afghanistan

According to the article, there are 2000 US forces in Syria, with clearly some Brits too.

The endgame of the Syrian war is likely to be very tough on the remaining rebel enclaves, the Kurds, and their backers.

Assad is a bastard, but is he worse than the opposition? debateable at worst.

Not even Trump is proposing toppling Assad, just giving him a message after massacring 70 civilians

What are the odds that Trump's air strikes will kill more than 70 civilians?

A bit too high for comfort unfortunately