It is futile to pretend that there are no complications and uncertainties about the vaccine, over the long term, it is not clear that it is the solution to COVID that we once thought it was.
That line is interesting.
Back in April 2020, I was telling people that we'd get a vaccine in six months. I was out by a few months. In saying this, I was expecting about 50% efficacy against illness (which I think was the WHO minimum for a workable vaccine), and only one working vaccine.
In the end, we have had several workable vaccines at a much higher efficacy. Delta's been a bi*ch, but the vaccines are still working.
As such, the vaccines have far surpassed my expectations. Even sinovac/sinopharm are probably better than not getting vaccinated. The only one I think is worthless is Sputnik, but that's because of apparent poor quality control.
We've been blessed.
I also don't see any reasonable uncertainties about the health effect of the vaccines in the medium or long-term. Particularly when compared to Invermectin...
I cannot pretend to be an expert on this subject. I am not an anti vaxxer, I've had both of my jabs.
I find the discussion about vaccines to be hysterical and irrational. They certainly save lives and it is probably in your self interest to take them. But - unless someone can persuade me otherwise - they don't seem to prevent infection or transmission of the virus. So the only significant advantage of getting a large proportion of the population vaccinated is to reduce the pressure on the health care system.
I cannot understand why this could amount to a justification for Covid passports, whilst still allowing people to smoke, ride motorcycles, do all sorts of dangerous sports, eat terrible food, drive at 30 mph along residential streets, etc.
If someone wants to try and persuade me otherwise I am genuinely open to arguments to the contrary.
Pre Delta it looked like the vaccines did prevent spread. Governments are slow and stupid and have still not changed course with the new info in hand.
There's less spread in vaccinated populations.
If vaccines didn't prevent spread, the case split in the UK would mirror the vaccinated/unvaccinated proportions almost exactly. Unvaccinated people are still disproportionately likely to be a covid case compared to the population. Hence vaccination must have an effect on spread.
It is futile to pretend that there are no complications and uncertainties about the vaccine, over the long term, it is not clear that it is the solution to COVID that we once thought it was.
That line is interesting.
Back in April 2020, I was telling people that we'd get a vaccine in six months. I was out by a few months. In saying this, I was expecting about 50% efficacy against illness (which I think was the WHO minimum for a workable vaccine), and only one working vaccine.
In the end, we have had several workable vaccines at a much higher efficacy. Delta's been a bi*ch, but the vaccines are still working.
As such, the vaccines have far surpassed my expectations. Even sinovac/sinopharm are probably better than not getting vaccinated. The only one I think is worthless is Sputnik, but that's because of apparent poor quality control.
We've been blessed.
I also don't see any reasonable uncertainties about the health effect of the vaccines in the medium or long-term. Particularly when compared to Invermectin...
I cannot pretend to be an expert on this subject. I am not an anti vaxxer, I've had both of my jabs.
I find the discussion about vaccines to be hysterical and irrational. They certainly save lives and it is probably in your self interest to take them. But - unless someone can persuade me otherwise - they don't seem to prevent infection or transmission of the virus. So the only significant advantage of getting a large proportion of the population vaccinated is to reduce the pressure on the health care system.
I cannot understand why this could amount to a justification for Covid passports, whilst still allowing people to smoke, ride motorcycles, do all sorts of dangerous sports, eat terrible food, drive at 30 mph along residential streets, etc.
If someone wants to try and persuade me otherwise I am genuinely open to arguments to the contrary.
Vaccines do protect against transmission.
e.g
"the likelihood of household transmission was approximately 40 to 50% lower in households of index patients who had been vaccinated 21 days or more before testing positive than in households of unvaccinated index patients; the findings were similar for the two vaccines."
So they seem to reduce the transmissability and infection associated with the virus - but don't actually prevent it. Is this definetly true of the delta variant though?
No, they prevent infection and prevent transmission. Less than they prevent serious illness and death, but still a substantial effect.
This has been tested against the Delta variant in numerous studies.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA and in the US absence they will take the lead. With William Hague now a candidate to be next NATO Secretary General our influence within NATO would only increase.
Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
It is futile to pretend that there are no complications and uncertainties about the vaccine, over the long term, it is not clear that it is the solution to COVID that we once thought it was.
That line is interesting.
Back in April 2020, I was telling people that we'd get a vaccine in six months. I was out by a few months. In saying this, I was expecting about 50% efficacy against illness (which I think was the WHO minimum for a workable vaccine), and only one working vaccine.
In the end, we have had several workable vaccines at a much higher efficacy. Delta's been a bi*ch, but the vaccines are still working.
As such, the vaccines have far surpassed my expectations. Even sinovac/sinopharm are probably better than not getting vaccinated. The only one I think is worthless is Sputnik, but that's because of apparent poor quality control.
We've been blessed.
I also don't see any reasonable uncertainties about the health effect of the vaccines in the medium or long-term. Particularly when compared to Invermectin...
I cannot pretend to be an expert on this subject. I am not an anti vaxxer, I've had both of my jabs.
I find the discussion about vaccines to be hysterical and irrational. They certainly save lives and it is probably in your self interest to take them. But - unless someone can persuade me otherwise - they don't seem to prevent infection or transmission of the virus. So the only significant advantage of getting a large proportion of the population vaccinated is to reduce the pressure on the health care system.
I cannot understand why this could amount to a justification for Covid passports, whilst still allowing people to smoke, ride motorcycles, do all sorts of dangerous sports, eat terrible food, drive at 30 mph along residential streets, etc.
If someone wants to try and persuade me otherwise I am genuinely open to arguments to the contrary.
Pre Delta it looked like the vaccines did prevent spread. Governments are slow and stupid and have still not changed course with the new info in hand.
There's less spread in vaccinated populations.
If vaccines didn't prevent spread, the case split in the UK would mirror the vaccinated/unvaccinated proportions almost exactly. Unvaccinated people are still disproportionately likely to be a covid case compared to the population. Hence vaccination must have an effect on spread.
Sure. But the effect is arguably not big enough to warrant things like vaccine passports, which only serve to give a false sense of comfort.
2 latest Canada polls showing tiny Liberal leads. Pattern now clear if confusing. Mainstreet and Ekos showing healthy Tory leads enough for a plurality of around 6 to 9%. Everyone else showing very close, but pointing to Liberal minority. Somebody is wrong.
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
People who think the current polling is irrelevant because of the Covid-19 environment.
I mean if we have another lockdown/screw up the booster rollout then the government will become very unpopular, those 150,000 deaths will come back into focus.
FWIW - The WhatsApp groups I'm in are fuming about Gavin Williamson today, this is from people normally supportive of the government.
I actually do think the current polling is fairly irrelevant and over analysed, especially when the polls move a few percent one way or the other. But, and its a big but, the Tory vote is tied in to the Brexit vote, not govt performance, and if voters are stubborn generally, they are particularly stubborn over Brexit.
It will take a mind shift in perhaps a quarter of Brexit voters to start regretting their vote to stop the Tories getting most seats. Even if Brexit is a disaster, it can be masked with covid. If it is not a disaster an increased majority is quite plausible.
I see it broadly the same way as you. Brexit has delivered a base to the Cons that is enough for a majority under FPTP. It looks a little bit structural. I don't overpundit on this - since it depresses me and I don't wish to spread that to more optimistic left posters - but it is driving my long range UK politics betting.
I wouldn't be betting on any outcome of GE 2024, I really wouldn't. Chesham and Amersham was a real thing, not just a betting coup. Ignore the polls, they are increasingly iffy with the demise of the telephone landline and the rise of the self selected online panel. Look at the defection into no man's land of virtually the whole pb Tory vote. The typical shire tory (most pb tories are too bright to fit the description) is motivated by fear of iht and support for foxhunting. The financial fear is lessened by the departure of Corbyn and the suspicion that Sunak is going to cook up something fairly unappetising to pay for Covid. As for hunting, the feeling of being generally pro it is spread much much wider than the people who actually ever did it. It's a battle which is well and truly lost and I can't think of anything more ballsachingly dull than having an argument about the merits of it. My point is this: even five years ago nobody would believe that a Con majority of 80 with an OE pm would not repeal or modify the hunting act. I am pretty certain that a lot of people are going to sit out one GE as a punishment for that, in the same way that by some accounts some shire Tories voted Leave as a slap on the wrist to Cameron for gay marriage.
And it pains me to say that there's something about Sunak and Patel that a non-zero number of shire Tories don't really get on with, either. Put all that together and there's the real chance of a countrywide C&A type shock.
C & A was more NIMBY revolt and anti Brexit in a Remain seat in favour of the LDs.
Most rural areas voted for Brexit and if they really wanted to protest over foxhunting still being banned and to keep IHT low and over the boats of migrants crossing the channel they would vote Reform UK not LD
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA and in the US absence they will take the lead. With William Hague now a candidate to be next NATO Secretary General our influence within NATO would only increase.
Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
It’s all relative HY. All I see is the West as a whole vacating the global stage, to greater or lesser effect. The result being that the values and strength of Western civilisation are being further undermined. It’s a pickle for sure. I’m not sure what’s to be done about it but misplaced trust in Johnson and Macron isn’t it.
It is futile to pretend that there are no complications and uncertainties about the vaccine, over the long term, it is not clear that it is the solution to COVID that we once thought it was.
That line is interesting.
Back in April 2020, I was telling people that we'd get a vaccine in six months. I was out by a few months. In saying this, I was expecting about 50% efficacy against illness (which I think was the WHO minimum for a workable vaccine), and only one working vaccine.
In the end, we have had several workable vaccines at a much higher efficacy. Delta's been a bi*ch, but the vaccines are still working.
As such, the vaccines have far surpassed my expectations. Even sinovac/sinopharm are probably better than not getting vaccinated. The only one I think is worthless is Sputnik, but that's because of apparent poor quality control.
We've been blessed.
I also don't see any reasonable uncertainties about the health effect of the vaccines in the medium or long-term. Particularly when compared to Invermectin...
I cannot pretend to be an expert on this subject. I am not an anti vaxxer, I've had both of my jabs.
I find the discussion about vaccines to be hysterical and irrational. They certainly save lives and it is probably in your self interest to take them. But - unless someone can persuade me otherwise - they don't seem to prevent infection or transmission of the virus. So the only significant advantage of getting a large proportion of the population vaccinated is to reduce the pressure on the health care system.
I cannot understand why this could amount to a justification for Covid passports, whilst still allowing people to smoke, ride motorcycles, do all sorts of dangerous sports, eat terrible food, drive at 30 mph along residential streets, etc.
If someone wants to try and persuade me otherwise I am genuinely open to arguments to the contrary.
Pre Delta it looked like the vaccines did prevent spread. Governments are slow and stupid and have still not changed course with the new info in hand.
There's less spread in vaccinated populations.
If vaccines didn't prevent spread, the case split in the UK would mirror the vaccinated/unvaccinated proportions almost exactly. Unvaccinated people are still disproportionately likely to be a covid case compared to the population. Hence vaccination must have an effect on spread.
Sure. But the effect is arguably not big enough to warrant things like vaccine passports, which only serve to give a false sense of comfort.
With no ATC the Afghan civil flights which were flying yesterday from Mazar-I-Sharif in the north (KamAir) are no longer flying
Hmm is ATC considered haram under the Taliban's interpretation of sharia or something ?
If the Allied forces and outgoing Afghan government were sensible, they’ll have had everyone involved in running key infrastructure on the last planes out - leaving no-one who knows how to operate the equipment, or what to do with it if they get it working.
A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:
Say nothing/fudge (as now) Efta EU membership New referendum Carry on Boris.
The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on. Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else The fifth is no improvement
I think we don't need to delight Remainers, just to be less Europhobic than the Government, which is not difficult, Starmer can credibly talk about intelligent cooperation with the EU on a basis of friendly partners and it will sound (and indeed be) genuine, without embracing a new referendum or the like. In practice I suspect that rejoining a single customs area may be quite popular by then to avoid constant hassles for no obvious gain.
I think the EU will overplay its hand again as soon as there's a Labour Government in power on the basis it will just keel over on the basis of emotional affection for the EU.
It will be amusing to watch as Starmer would be obliged to play hardball with them as, regardless of his own feelings, negotiating from out is very different from in and real-politik will govern.
Yep, the Tory odds currently are a steal. I very openly admit I have no idea why Johnson and co are so popular, but they have cemented in 40% of the vote and that means Labour cannot win. The one hope for those of us who favour a less mendacious, more competent government running the country is that on 40% or so the Tories can lose their overall majority if all the tactical voting winds blow in the right direction. That. though, is highly unlikely.
Let me help you out: you've posted on here more than once that the Tories are prosecuting a "culture war" when they object to left-wing radicalism, which many voters find objectionable.
As Tony Blair said in his New Statesman article in the absence of the centre-left providing their own narrative on this the position of non-Tories is being defined by the radical Left and, as they are remaining silent, people assume the Labour leadership sympathises with them.
You want to win again?
A Labour Government that looked like it was about to win would be coming up with more effective solutions to stopping boats crossing the Channel, (b) extolling a progressive, patriotic and inclusive narrative about British history, and (c) an inspiring Unionist vision for the future that outflanks all nationalisms and identity groups.
That's what you need to do to be a Government in waiting. You don't do it, you won't win.
Simple.
No, and when the grown ups recapture the Conservatives Party they won't be chasing down that particular rabbit hole either.
Half-wittery that one day will become unfashionable.
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
People who think the current polling is irrelevant because of the Covid-19 environment.
I mean if we have another lockdown/screw up the booster rollout then the government will become very unpopular, those 150,000 deaths will come back into focus.
FWIW - The WhatsApp groups I'm in are fuming about Gavin Williamson today, this is from people normally supportive of the government.
I actually do think the current polling is fairly irrelevant and over analysed, especially when the polls move a few percent one way or the other. But, and its a big but, the Tory vote is tied in to the Brexit vote, not govt performance, and if voters are stubborn generally, they are particularly stubborn over Brexit.
It will take a mind shift in perhaps a quarter of Brexit voters to start regretting their vote to stop the Tories getting most seats. Even if Brexit is a disaster, it can be masked with covid. If it is not a disaster an increased majority is quite plausible.
I see it broadly the same way as you. Brexit has delivered a base to the Cons that is enough for a majority under FPTP. It looks a little bit structural. I don't overpundit on this - since it depresses me and I don't wish to spread that to more optimistic left posters - but it is driving my long range UK politics betting.
I wouldn't be betting on any outcome of GE 2024, I really wouldn't. Chesham and Amersham was a real thing, not just a betting coup. Ignore the polls, they are increasingly iffy with the demise of the telephone landline and the rise of the self selected online panel. Look at the defection into no man's land of virtually the whole pb Tory vote. The typical shire tory (most pb tories are too bright to fit the description) is motivated by fear of iht and support for foxhunting. The financial fear is lessened by the departure of Corbyn and the suspicion that Sunak is going to cook up something fairly unappetising to pay for Covid. As for hunting, the feeling of being generally pro it is spread much much wider than the people who actually ever did it. It's a battle which is well and truly lost and I can't think of anything more ballsachingly dull than having an argument about the merits of it. My point is this: even five years ago nobody would believe that a Con majority of 80 with an OE pm would not repeal or modify the hunting act. I am pretty certain that a lot of people are going to sit out one GE as a punishment for that, in the same way that by some accounts some shire Tories voted Leave as a slap on the wrist to Cameron for gay marriage.
And it pains me to say that there's something about Sunak and Patel that a non-zero number of shire Tories don't really get on with, either. Put all that together and there's the real chance of a countrywide C&A type shock.
C & A was more NIMBY revolt and anti Brexit in a Remain seat in favour of the LDs.
Most rural areas voted for Brexit and if they really wanted to protest over foxhunting still being banned and to keep IHT low and over the boats of migrants crossing the channel they would vote Reform UK not LD
Fox hunting is a bizarre issue to pick in determining whether the next election will be won by the Tories or hung. HY no doubt has the numbers but there can’t be more than a single handful of seats realistically in play where it’s even a consideration in voters’ minds.
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
People who think the current polling is irrelevant because of the Covid-19 environment.
I mean if we have another lockdown/screw up the booster rollout then the government will become very unpopular, those 150,000 deaths will come back into focus.
FWIW - The WhatsApp groups I'm in are fuming about Gavin Williamson today, this is from people normally supportive of the government.
I actually do think the current polling is fairly irrelevant and over analysed, especially when the polls move a few percent one way or the other. But, and its a big but, the Tory vote is tied in to the Brexit vote, not govt performance, and if voters are stubborn generally, they are particularly stubborn over Brexit.
It will take a mind shift in perhaps a quarter of Brexit voters to start regretting their vote to stop the Tories getting most seats. Even if Brexit is a disaster, it can be masked with covid. If it is not a disaster an increased majority is quite plausible.
I see it broadly the same way as you. Brexit has delivered a base to the Cons that is enough for a majority under FPTP. It looks a little bit structural. I don't overpundit on this - since it depresses me and I don't wish to spread that to more optimistic left posters - but it is driving my long range UK politics betting.
I wouldn't be betting on any outcome of GE 2024, I really wouldn't. Chesham and Amersham was a real thing, not just a betting coup. Ignore the polls, they are increasingly iffy with the demise of the telephone landline and the rise of the self selected online panel. Look at the defection into no man's land of virtually the whole pb Tory vote. The typical shire tory (most pb tories are too bright to fit the description) is motivated by fear of iht and support for foxhunting. The financial fear is lessened by the departure of Corbyn and the suspicion that Sunak is going to cook up something fairly unappetising to pay for Covid. As for hunting, the feeling of being generally pro it is spread much much wider than the people who actually ever did it. It's a battle which is well and truly lost and I can't think of anything more ballsachingly dull than having an argument about the merits of it. My point is this: even five years ago nobody would believe that a Con majority of 80 with an OE pm would not repeal or modify the hunting act. I am pretty certain that a lot of people are going to sit out one GE as a punishment for that, in the same way that by some accounts some shire Tories voted Leave as a slap on the wrist to Cameron for gay marriage.
And it pains me to say that there's something about Sunak and Patel that a non-zero number of shire Tories don't really get on with, either. Put all that together and there's the real chance of a countrywide C&A type shock.
I agree with a lot of these conclusions. but it needs simplifying. Only three results are in the current realm of possibility: Tory win, Labour win, NOM. Of these three there are a number of feasible routes to Tory win and NOM; the only feasible route to a Lab victory is via a black swan; so although I have no idea what the outcome will be, I still think there is a 90%+ chance that it will be Tory win or NOM. Because I have no idea (nor does anyone else) and no data beyond the obvious likelihood of there being one of two results from a betting point of view, I would place those two results as mathematically equal. About 47% each.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA and in the US absence they will take the lead. With William Hague now a candidate to be next NATO Secretary General our influence within NATO would only increase.
Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
It’s all relative HY. All I see is the West as a whole vacating the global stage, to greater or lesser effect. The result being that the values and strength of Western civilisation are being further undermined. It’s a pickle for sure. I’m not sure what’s to be done about it but misplaced trust in Johnson and Macron isn’t it.
Well somebody has to defend western civilisation.
With the US administration of Biden and Harris more interested in fighting the unwoke domestically than for western values abroad, it is Macron who has proved more willing to take on jhadis and push against extremists within Islam who are not willing to adhere to western laws and values.
Boris and Macron are also stronger than Biden at the moment in being able to stand up to Putin and Xi , remember too as well as the Queen Elizabeth, France has sent warships and a nuclear submarine to the South China Sea so it is not just the US Japan and S Korea rely on there to contain Beijing. Germany of course cannot do it given the German government's pushing for the Nord Stream pipeline from Russia and the next German government will likely be even closer to Moscow given former SPD leader Schroder's links to Putin
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
People who think the current polling is irrelevant because of the Covid-19 environment.
I mean if we have another lockdown/screw up the booster rollout then the government will become very unpopular, those 150,000 deaths will come back into focus.
FWIW - The WhatsApp groups I'm in are fuming about Gavin Williamson today, this is from people normally supportive of the government.
I actually do think the current polling is fairly irrelevant and over analysed, especially when the polls move a few percent one way or the other. But, and its a big but, the Tory vote is tied in to the Brexit vote, not govt performance, and if voters are stubborn generally, they are particularly stubborn over Brexit.
It will take a mind shift in perhaps a quarter of Brexit voters to start regretting their vote to stop the Tories getting most seats. Even if Brexit is a disaster, it can be masked with covid. If it is not a disaster an increased majority is quite plausible.
I see it broadly the same way as you. Brexit has delivered a base to the Cons that is enough for a majority under FPTP. It looks a little bit structural. I don't overpundit on this - since it depresses me and I don't wish to spread that to more optimistic left posters - but it is driving my long range UK politics betting.
I wouldn't be betting on any outcome of GE 2024, I really wouldn't. Chesham and Amersham was a real thing, not just a betting coup. Ignore the polls, they are increasingly iffy with the demise of the telephone landline and the rise of the self selected online panel. Look at the defection into no man's land of virtually the whole pb Tory vote. The typical shire tory (most pb tories are too bright to fit the description) is motivated by fear of iht and support for foxhunting. The financial fear is lessened by the departure of Corbyn and the suspicion that Sunak is going to cook up something fairly unappetising to pay for Covid. As for hunting, the feeling of being generally pro it is spread much much wider than the people who actually ever did it. It's a battle which is well and truly lost and I can't think of anything more ballsachingly dull than having an argument about the merits of it. My point is this: even five years ago nobody would believe that a Con majority of 80 with an OE pm would not repeal or modify the hunting act. I am pretty certain that a lot of people are going to sit out one GE as a punishment for that, in the same way that by some accounts some shire Tories voted Leave as a slap on the wrist to Cameron for gay marriage.
And it pains me to say that there's something about Sunak and Patel that a non-zero number of shire Tories don't really get on with, either. Put all that together and there's the real chance of a countrywide C&A type shock.
C & A was more NIMBY revolt and anti Brexit in a Remain seat in favour of the LDs.
Most rural areas voted for Brexit and if they really wanted to protest over foxhunting still being banned and to keep IHT low and over the boats of migrants crossing the channel they would vote Reform UK not LD
Nimbyism, if you want to call it that, is not going away any time soon.
And you are wrong about RefUK. There's plenty of people who would happily vote LD as an anti tory protest wouldn't in a million years dream about sullying themselves by voting for Farage. Me, for one.
With no ATC the Afghan civil flights which were flying yesterday from Mazar-I-Sharif in the north (KamAir) are no longer flying
Hmm is ATC considered haram under the Taliban's interpretation of sharia or something ?
Or anyone with the education to be an ATC does not want to live and work under the Taliban?
ATC is a very hard skill for which you need natural talent AND tons of training. I invigilated a test for ATC training for Yemeni military applicants a long while ago. None of them passed.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA and in the US absence they will take the lead. With William Hague now a candidate to be next NATO Secretary General our influence within NATO would only increase.
Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
It’s all relative HY. All I see is the West as a whole vacating the global stage, to greater or lesser effect. The result being that the values and strength of Western civilisation are being further undermined. It’s a pickle for sure. I’m not sure what’s to be done about it but misplaced trust in Johnson and Macron isn’t it.
We're vacating ourselves without and attacking ourselves within.
It doesn't take too much of a dive into history to realise the fate of civilisations that start to do that.
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
People who think the current polling is irrelevant because of the Covid-19 environment.
I mean if we have another lockdown/screw up the booster rollout then the government will become very unpopular, those 150,000 deaths will come back into focus.
FWIW - The WhatsApp groups I'm in are fuming about Gavin Williamson today, this is from people normally supportive of the government.
I actually do think the current polling is fairly irrelevant and over analysed, especially when the polls move a few percent one way or the other. But, and its a big but, the Tory vote is tied in to the Brexit vote, not govt performance, and if voters are stubborn generally, they are particularly stubborn over Brexit.
It will take a mind shift in perhaps a quarter of Brexit voters to start regretting their vote to stop the Tories getting most seats. Even if Brexit is a disaster, it can be masked with covid. If it is not a disaster an increased majority is quite plausible.
I see it broadly the same way as you. Brexit has delivered a base to the Cons that is enough for a majority under FPTP. It looks a little bit structural. I don't overpundit on this - since it depresses me and I don't wish to spread that to more optimistic left posters - but it is driving my long range UK politics betting.
I wouldn't be betting on any outcome of GE 2024, I really wouldn't. Chesham and Amersham was a real thing, not just a betting coup. Ignore the polls, they are increasingly iffy with the demise of the telephone landline and the rise of the self selected online panel. Look at the defection into no man's land of virtually the whole pb Tory vote. The typical shire tory (most pb tories are too bright to fit the description) is motivated by fear of iht and support for foxhunting. The financial fear is lessened by the departure of Corbyn and the suspicion that Sunak is going to cook up something fairly unappetising to pay for Covid. As for hunting, the feeling of being generally pro it is spread much much wider than the people who actually ever did it. It's a battle which is well and truly lost and I can't think of anything more ballsachingly dull than having an argument about the merits of it. My point is this: even five years ago nobody would believe that a Con majority of 80 with an OE pm would not repeal or modify the hunting act. I am pretty certain that a lot of people are going to sit out one GE as a punishment for that, in the same way that by some accounts some shire Tories voted Leave as a slap on the wrist to Cameron for gay marriage.
And it pains me to say that there's something about Sunak and Patel that a non-zero number of shire Tories don't really get on with, either. Put all that together and there's the real chance of a countrywide C&A type shock.
C & A was more NIMBY revolt and anti Brexit in a Remain seat in favour of the LDs.
Most rural areas voted for Brexit and if they really wanted to protest over foxhunting still being banned and to keep IHT low and over the boats of migrants crossing the channel they would vote Reform UK not LD
Fox hunting is a bizarre issue to pick in determining whether the next election will be won by the Tories or hung. HY no doubt has the numbers but there can’t be more than a single handful of seats realistically in play where it’s even a consideration in voters’ minds.
As I tried to say, fox hunting as an issue is not really about fox hunting, any more than the church of England is about religion.
A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:
Say nothing/fudge (as now) Efta EU membership New referendum Carry on Boris.
The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on. Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else The fifth is no improvement
I think we don't need to delight Remainers, just to be less Europhobic than the Government, which is not difficult, Starmer can credibly talk about intelligent cooperation with the EU on a basis of friendly partners and it will sound (and indeed be) genuine, without embracing a new referendum or the like. In practice I suspect that rejoining a single customs area may be quite popular by then to avoid constant hassles for no obvious gain.
Blah Blah zzzzzz.
Lab is finished under SKS.
Get KotN a seat get him as leader
Then they can stop the decline
1. Burnham isn't an MP so isn't eligible to run for leader 2. Burnham shows no sign of being interested 3. Starmer resigns at 2pm - removing himself as you demand. Who is your pick for leader and how to they transform Labour's prospects?
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
People who think the current polling is irrelevant because of the Covid-19 environment.
I mean if we have another lockdown/screw up the booster rollout then the government will become very unpopular, those 150,000 deaths will come back into focus.
FWIW - The WhatsApp groups I'm in are fuming about Gavin Williamson today, this is from people normally supportive of the government.
I actually do think the current polling is fairly irrelevant and over analysed, especially when the polls move a few percent one way or the other. But, and its a big but, the Tory vote is tied in to the Brexit vote, not govt performance, and if voters are stubborn generally, they are particularly stubborn over Brexit.
It will take a mind shift in perhaps a quarter of Brexit voters to start regretting their vote to stop the Tories getting most seats. Even if Brexit is a disaster, it can be masked with covid. If it is not a disaster an increased majority is quite plausible.
I see it broadly the same way as you. Brexit has delivered a base to the Cons that is enough for a majority under FPTP. It looks a little bit structural. I don't overpundit on this - since it depresses me and I don't wish to spread that to more optimistic left posters - but it is driving my long range UK politics betting.
I wouldn't be betting on any outcome of GE 2024, I really wouldn't. Chesham and Amersham was a real thing, not just a betting coup. Ignore the polls, they are increasingly iffy with the demise of the telephone landline and the rise of the self selected online panel. Look at the defection into no man's land of virtually the whole pb Tory vote. The typical shire tory (most pb tories are too bright to fit the description) is motivated by fear of iht and support for foxhunting. The financial fear is lessened by the departure of Corbyn and the suspicion that Sunak is going to cook up something fairly unappetising to pay for Covid. As for hunting, the feeling of being generally pro it is spread much much wider than the people who actually ever did it. It's a battle which is well and truly lost and I can't think of anything more ballsachingly dull than having an argument about the merits of it. My point is this: even five years ago nobody would believe that a Con majority of 80 with an OE pm would not repeal or modify the hunting act. I am pretty certain that a lot of people are going to sit out one GE as a punishment for that, in the same way that by some accounts some shire Tories voted Leave as a slap on the wrist to Cameron for gay marriage.
And it pains me to say that there's something about Sunak and Patel that a non-zero number of shire Tories don't really get on with, either. Put all that together and there's the real chance of a countrywide C&A type shock.
C & A was more NIMBY revolt and anti Brexit in a Remain seat in favour of the LDs.
Most rural areas voted for Brexit and if they really wanted to protest over foxhunting still being banned and to keep IHT low and over the boats of migrants crossing the channel they would vote Reform UK not LD
Fox hunting is a bizarre issue to pick in determining whether the next election will be won by the Tories or hung. HY no doubt has the numbers but there can’t be more than a single handful of seats realistically in play where it’s even a consideration in voters’ minds.
NIMBYISM might lead to a LD or Green vote, migrant boats in the channel and IHT could lead to a Reform UK vote, foxhunting is not a major issue but for those who restoring it is ie the ex hunters and stable hands and local pub landlords etc they might also consider Farage and Tice
Yep, the Tory odds currently are a steal. I very openly admit I have no idea why Johnson and co are so popular, but they have cemented in 40% of the vote and that means Labour cannot win. The one hope for those of us who favour a less mendacious, more competent government running the country is that on 40% or so the Tories can lose their overall majority if all the tactical voting winds blow in the right direction. That. though, is highly unlikely.
Let me help you out: you've posted on here more than once that the Tories are prosecuting a "culture war" when they object to left-wing radicalism, which many voters find objectionable.
As Tony Blair said in his New Statesman article in the absence of the centre-left providing their own narrative on this the position of non-Tories is being defined by the radical Left and, as they are remaining silent, people assume the Labour leadership sympathises with them.
You want to win again?
A Labour Government that looked like it was about to win would be coming up with more effective solutions to stopping boats crossing the Channel, (b) extolling a progressive, patriotic and inclusive narrative about British history, and (c) an inspiring Unionist vision for the future that outflanks all nationalisms and identity groups.
That's what you need to do to be a Government in waiting. You don't do it, you won't win.
Simple.
No, and when the grown ups recapture the Conservatives Party they won't be chasing down that particular rabbit hole either.
Half-wittery that one day will become unfashionable.
Perhaps you've missed that the Conservative Party currently in office is the one you have to beat.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA and in the US absence they will take the lead. With William Hague now a candidate to be next NATO Secretary General our influence within NATO would only increase.
Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
It’s all relative HY. All I see is the West as a whole vacating the global stage, to greater or lesser effect. The result being that the values and strength of Western civilisation are being further undermined. It’s a pickle for sure. I’m not sure what’s to be done about it but misplaced trust in Johnson and Macron isn’t it.
Well somebody has to defend western civilisation.
With the US administration of Biden and Harris more interested in fighting the unwoke domestically than for western values abroad, it is Macron who has proved more willing to take on jhadis and push against extremists within Islam who are not willing to adhere to western laws and values.
Boris and Macron are also stronger than Biden at the moment in being able to stand up to Putin and Xi , remember too as well as the Queen Elizabeth, France has sent warships and a nuclear submarine to the South China Sea
Someone does need to yes. I have less faith in Manny than you perhaps. I look around at Five Eyes, Europe and Nato and am in dismay at how few leaders are willing and capable enough to defend our values, way of life and civilisation. I don’t really see any bright prospect on the horizon either.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA and in the US absence they will take the lead. With William Hague now a candidate to be next NATO Secretary General our influence within NATO would only increase.
Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
I don't doubt the US calls most of the shots in NATO but it also provides most of the force and the money.
Ultimately such alliances are based on the real-politik of who brings what to the table, and the more you have to offer the more of a say you have.
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
People who think the current polling is irrelevant because of the Covid-19 environment.
I mean if we have another lockdown/screw up the booster rollout then the government will become very unpopular, those 150,000 deaths will come back into focus.
FWIW - The WhatsApp groups I'm in are fuming about Gavin Williamson today, this is from people normally supportive of the government.
I actually do think the current polling is fairly irrelevant and over analysed, especially when the polls move a few percent one way or the other. But, and its a big but, the Tory vote is tied in to the Brexit vote, not govt performance, and if voters are stubborn generally, they are particularly stubborn over Brexit.
It will take a mind shift in perhaps a quarter of Brexit voters to start regretting their vote to stop the Tories getting most seats. Even if Brexit is a disaster, it can be masked with covid. If it is not a disaster an increased majority is quite plausible.
I see it broadly the same way as you. Brexit has delivered a base to the Cons that is enough for a majority under FPTP. It looks a little bit structural. I don't overpundit on this - since it depresses me and I don't wish to spread that to more optimistic left posters - but it is driving my long range UK politics betting.
I wouldn't be betting on any outcome of GE 2024, I really wouldn't. Chesham and Amersham was a real thing, not just a betting coup. Ignore the polls, they are increasingly iffy with the demise of the telephone landline and the rise of the self selected online panel. Look at the defection into no man's land of virtually the whole pb Tory vote. The typical shire tory (most pb tories are too bright to fit the description) is motivated by fear of iht and support for foxhunting. The financial fear is lessened by the departure of Corbyn and the suspicion that Sunak is going to cook up something fairly unappetising to pay for Covid. As for hunting, the feeling of being generally pro it is spread much much wider than the people who actually ever did it. It's a battle which is well and truly lost and I can't think of anything more ballsachingly dull than having an argument about the merits of it. My point is this: even five years ago nobody would believe that a Con majority of 80 with an OE pm would not repeal or modify the hunting act. I am pretty certain that a lot of people are going to sit out one GE as a punishment for that, in the same way that by some accounts some shire Tories voted Leave as a slap on the wrist to Cameron for gay marriage.
And it pains me to say that there's something about Sunak and Patel that a non-zero number of shire Tories don't really get on with, either. Put all that together and there's the real chance of a countrywide C&A type shock.
C & A was more NIMBY revolt and anti Brexit in a Remain seat in favour of the LDs.
Most rural areas voted for Brexit and if they really wanted to protest over foxhunting still being banned and to keep IHT low and over the boats of migrants crossing the channel they would vote Reform UK not LD
It is futile to pretend that there are no complications and uncertainties about the vaccine, over the long term, it is not clear that it is the solution to COVID that we once thought it was.
That line is interesting.
Back in April 2020, I was telling people that we'd get a vaccine in six months. I was out by a few months. In saying this, I was expecting about 50% efficacy against illness (which I think was the WHO minimum for a workable vaccine), and only one working vaccine.
In the end, we have had several workable vaccines at a much higher efficacy. Delta's been a bi*ch, but the vaccines are still working.
As such, the vaccines have far surpassed my expectations. Even sinovac/sinopharm are probably better than not getting vaccinated. The only one I think is worthless is Sputnik, but that's because of apparent poor quality control.
We've been blessed.
I also don't see any reasonable uncertainties about the health effect of the vaccines in the medium or long-term. Particularly when compared to Invermectin...
I cannot pretend to be an expert on this subject. I am not an anti vaxxer, I've had both of my jabs.
I find the discussion about vaccines to be hysterical and irrational. They certainly save lives and it is probably in your self interest to take them. But - unless someone can persuade me otherwise - they don't seem to prevent infection or transmission of the virus. So the only significant advantage of getting a large proportion of the population vaccinated is to reduce the pressure on the health care system.
I cannot understand why this could amount to a justification for Covid passports, whilst still allowing people to smoke, ride motorcycles, do all sorts of dangerous sports, eat terrible food, drive at 30 mph along residential streets, etc.
If someone wants to try and persuade me otherwise I am genuinely open to arguments to the contrary.
Vaccines do protect against transmission.
e.g
"the likelihood of household transmission was approximately 40 to 50% lower in households of index patients who had been vaccinated 21 days or more before testing positive than in households of unvaccinated index patients; the findings were similar for the two vaccines."
So they seem to reduce the transmissability and infection associated with the virus - but don't actually prevent it. Is this definetly true of the delta variant though?
No, they prevent infection and prevent transmission. Less than they prevent serious illness and death, but still a substantial effect.
This has been tested against the Delta variant in numerous studies.
The stochastic nature of infection, disease and transmission - in the vaccinated or unvaccinated - is something I find many people struggle with.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA
Turkey has a larger armed forces than the UK and France combined. And a fine pedigree in fearlessly fighting and killing Russians.
Furlough due to cease at end of September. Whispers that we are going to see Scot Gov cite this as part of argument to restrict hospitality hours again, amid high case numbers. & national clinical director has suggested pubs/nightclubs first to be hit if we go into “reverse gear”
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA and in the US absence they will take the lead. With William Hague now a candidate to be next NATO Secretary General our influence within NATO would only increase.
Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
It’s all relative HY. All I see is the West as a whole vacating the global stage, to greater or lesser effect. The result being that the values and strength of Western civilisation are being further undermined. It’s a pickle for sure. I’m not sure what’s to be done about it but misplaced trust in Johnson and Macron isn’t it.
Well somebody has to defend western civilisation.
With the US administration of Biden and Harris more interested in fighting the unwoke domestically than for western values abroad, it is Macron who has proved more willing to take on jhadis and push against extremists within Islam who are not willing to adhere to western laws and values.
Boris and Macron are also stronger than Biden at the moment in being able to stand up to Putin and Xi , remember too as well as the Queen Elizabeth, France has sent warships and a nuclear submarine to the South China Sea
Someone does need to yes. I have less faith in Manny than you perhaps. I look around at Five Eyes, Europe and Nato and am in dismay at how few leaders are willing and capable enough to defend our values, way of life and civilisation. I don’t really see any bright prospect on the horizon either.
I don't either - we've lost our confidence and all we have left is to rake over and excoriate ourselves over our past, whilst Russia and China rub their hands with glee.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA
Turkey has a larger armed forces than the UK and France combined. And a fine pedigree in fearlessly fighting and killing Russians.
Alas, we don't always approve of who they fight (Syrian allies) or how they fight (Armenians and Greeks).
A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:
Say nothing/fudge (as now) Efta EU membership New referendum Carry on Boris.
The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on. Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else The fifth is no improvement
I think we don't need to delight Remainers, just to be less Europhobic than the Government, which is not difficult, Starmer can credibly talk about intelligent cooperation with the EU on a basis of friendly partners and it will sound (and indeed be) genuine, without embracing a new referendum or the like. In practice I suspect that rejoining a single customs area may be quite popular by then to avoid constant hassles for no obvious gain.
Blah Blah zzzzzz.
Lab is finished under SKS.
Get KotN a seat get him as leader
Then they can stop the decline
1. Burnham isn't an MP so isn't eligible to run for leader 2. Burnham shows no sign of being interested 3. Starmer resigns at 2pm - removing himself as you demand. Who is your pick for leader and how to they transform Labour's prospects?
More basic than that.
What does Burnham do as leader that Starmer currently isn't?
If it's "attack the Tories more passionately", what's stopping him do it from his current perch?
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
People who think the current polling is irrelevant because of the Covid-19 environment.
I mean if we have another lockdown/screw up the booster rollout then the government will become very unpopular, those 150,000 deaths will come back into focus.
FWIW - The WhatsApp groups I'm in are fuming about Gavin Williamson today, this is from people normally supportive of the government.
I actually do think the current polling is fairly irrelevant and over analysed, especially when the polls move a few percent one way or the other. But, and its a big but, the Tory vote is tied in to the Brexit vote, not govt performance, and if voters are stubborn generally, they are particularly stubborn over Brexit.
It will take a mind shift in perhaps a quarter of Brexit voters to start regretting their vote to stop the Tories getting most seats. Even if Brexit is a disaster, it can be masked with covid. If it is not a disaster an increased majority is quite plausible.
I see it broadly the same way as you. Brexit has delivered a base to the Cons that is enough for a majority under FPTP. It looks a little bit structural. I don't overpundit on this - since it depresses me and I don't wish to spread that to more optimistic left posters - but it is driving my long range UK politics betting.
I wouldn't be betting on any outcome of GE 2024, I really wouldn't. Chesham and Amersham was a real thing, not just a betting coup. Ignore the polls, they are increasingly iffy with the demise of the telephone landline and the rise of the self selected online panel. Look at the defection into no man's land of virtually the whole pb Tory vote. The typical shire tory (most pb tories are too bright to fit the description) is motivated by fear of iht and support for foxhunting. The financial fear is lessened by the departure of Corbyn and the suspicion that Sunak is going to cook up something fairly unappetising to pay for Covid. As for hunting, the feeling of being generally pro it is spread much much wider than the people who actually ever did it. It's a battle which is well and truly lost and I can't think of anything more ballsachingly dull than having an argument about the merits of it. My point is this: even five years ago nobody would believe that a Con majority of 80 with an OE pm would not repeal or modify the hunting act. I am pretty certain that a lot of people are going to sit out one GE as a punishment for that, in the same way that by some accounts some shire Tories voted Leave as a slap on the wrist to Cameron for gay marriage.
And it pains me to say that there's something about Sunak and Patel that a non-zero number of shire Tories don't really get on with, either. Put all that together and there's the real chance of a countrywide C&A type shock.
C & A was more NIMBY revolt and anti Brexit in a Remain seat in favour of the LDs.
Most rural areas voted for Brexit and if they really wanted to protest over foxhunting still being banned and to keep IHT low and over the boats of migrants crossing the channel they would vote Reform UK not LD
Fox hunting is a bizarre issue to pick in determining whether the next election will be won by the Tories or hung. HY no doubt has the numbers but there can’t be more than a single handful of seats realistically in play where it’s even a consideration in voters’ minds.
NIMBYISM might lead to a LD or Green vote, migrant boats in the channel and IHT could lead to a Reform UK vote, foxhunting is not a major issue but for those who restoring it is ie the ex hunters and stable hands and local pub landlords etc they might also consider Farage and Tice
It really doesn't work like that. You are telling me about me and my friends and relations, and I can assure you that of the 2 of us I am the greater expert on the subject.
A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:
Say nothing/fudge (as now) Efta EU membership New referendum Carry on Boris.
The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on. Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else The fifth is no improvement
I think we don't need to delight Remainers, just to be less Europhobic than the Government, which is not difficult, Starmer can credibly talk about intelligent cooperation with the EU on a basis of friendly partners and it will sound (and indeed be) genuine, without embracing a new referendum or the like. In practice I suspect that rejoining a single customs area may be quite popular by then to avoid constant hassles for no obvious gain.
I think the EU will overplay its hand again as soon as there's a Labour Government in power on the basis it will just keel over on the basis of emotional affection for the EU.
It will be amusing to watch as Starmer would be obliged to play hardball with them as, regardless of his own feelings, negotiating from out is very different from in and real-politik will govern.
Its a bear trap for all of the progressive parties. The EU is in the past for GB and there isn't a route back any time soon. So the only move has to be forward. The Tories face the opposite bear trap - they cannot move on from brexit because there is no product.
Sooner or later the current political blockage will erode away, and once it starts to go it will go quickly. The Tories promised much from Brexit and have delivered little - that won't be sustained. But Labour / the LDs / the Greens need to move on and talk up what the post-Brexit product should be.
It can't be the EU or EFTA or the single market. But it can point out that we need to close the gaps left by our crashing out to 3rd country status, and things like the forthcoming Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V New Zealand deal will only highlight how hollow the CANZUK argument was. Lets do CANZUK culturally, but it isn't an alternative trading plan. Only by trying to find one that fills the gap can parties move the debate on.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA and in the US absence they will take the lead. With William Hague now a candidate to be next NATO Secretary General our influence within NATO would only increase.
Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
It’s all relative HY. All I see is the West as a whole vacating the global stage, to greater or lesser effect. The result being that the values and strength of Western civilisation are being further undermined. It’s a pickle for sure. I’m not sure what’s to be done about it but misplaced trust in Johnson and Macron isn’t it.
We're vacating ourselves without and attacking ourselves within.
It doesn't take too much of a dive into history to realise the fate of civilisations that start to do that.
Looking with a long lens, I expect the political future of humanity is some model of fascism / mutualism. We’re on the cusp of becoming properly space faring and who knows, may have invented a god in the box in the coming decades too, which will take away demand for human capital. And that’s without healthcare advances sufficient to enable ultra life spans. Democracy and economics as we’ve known them are likely to be the casualties of these technological revolutions.
Quite a messy period ahead for homosapiens. Should our friends in the skies wish to give some advice it would be most appreciated.
Yep, the Tory odds currently are a steal. I very openly admit I have no idea why Johnson and co are so popular, but they have cemented in 40% of the vote and that means Labour cannot win. The one hope for those of us who favour a less mendacious, more competent government running the country is that on 40% or so the Tories can lose their overall majority if all the tactical voting winds blow in the right direction. That. though, is highly unlikely.
Let me help you out: you've posted on here more than once that the Tories are prosecuting a "culture war" when they object to left-wing radicalism, which many voters find objectionable.
As Tony Blair said in his New Statesman article in the absence of the centre-left providing their own narrative on this the position of non-Tories is being defined by the radical Left and, as they are remaining silent, people assume the Labour leadership sympathises with them.
You want to win again?
A Labour Government that looked like it was about to win would be coming up with more effective solutions to stopping boats crossing the Channel, (b) extolling a progressive, patriotic and inclusive narrative about British history, and (c) an inspiring Unionist vision for the future that outflanks all nationalisms and identity groups.
That's what you need to do to be a Government in waiting. You don't do it, you won't win.
Simple.
No, and when the grown ups recapture the Conservatives Party they won't be chasing down that particular rabbit hole either.
Half-wittery that one day will become unfashionable.
Perhaps you've missed that the Conservative Party currently in office is the one you have to beat.
Yes, and when their fall comes it will be with an almighty crash, and your UKIP-lite Party will be repopulated by nice feudal, shire, one nation, woke Tories.
A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:
Say nothing/fudge (as now) Efta EU membership New referendum Carry on Boris.
The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on. Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else The fifth is no improvement
I think we don't need to delight Remainers, just to be less Europhobic than the Government, which is not difficult, Starmer can credibly talk about intelligent cooperation with the EU on a basis of friendly partners and it will sound (and indeed be) genuine, without embracing a new referendum or the like. In practice I suspect that rejoining a single customs area may be quite popular by then to avoid constant hassles for no obvious gain.
I think the EU will overplay its hand again as soon as there's a Labour Government in power on the basis it will just keel over on the basis of emotional affection for the EU.
It will be amusing to watch as Starmer would be obliged to play hardball with them as, regardless of his own feelings, negotiating from out is very different from in and real-politik will govern.
Its a bear trap for all of the progressive parties. The EU is in the past for GB and there isn't a route back any time soon. So the only move has to be forward. The Tories face the opposite bear trap - they cannot move on from brexit because there is no product.
Sooner or later the current political blockage will erode away, and once it starts to go it will go quickly. The Tories promised much from Brexit and have delivered little - that won't be sustained. But Labour / the LDs / the Greens need to move on and talk up what the post-Brexit product should be.
It can't be the EU or EFTA or the single market. But it can point out that we need to close the gaps left by our crashing out to 3rd country status, and things like the forthcoming Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V New Zealand deal will only highlight how hollow the CANZUK argument was. Lets do CANZUK culturally, but it isn't an alternative trading plan. Only by trying to find one that fills the gap can parties move the debate on.
Some wise words there.
I posted similar last night: there are lots of routes via which Remainers can pursue most if not all of their political objectives in future outwith the obvious, the only obstacle being a lack of imagination.
A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:
Say nothing/fudge (as now) Efta EU membership New referendum Carry on Boris.
The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on. Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else The fifth is no improvement
I think we don't need to delight Remainers, just to be less Europhobic than the Government, which is not difficult, Starmer can credibly talk about intelligent cooperation with the EU on a basis of friendly partners and it will sound (and indeed be) genuine, without embracing a new referendum or the like. In practice I suspect that rejoining a single customs area may be quite popular by then to avoid constant hassles for no obvious gain.
Blah Blah zzzzzz.
Lab is finished under SKS.
Get KotN a seat get him as leader
Then they can stop the decline
1. Burnham isn't an MP so isn't eligible to run for leader 2. Burnham shows no sign of being interested 3. Starmer resigns at 2pm - removing himself as you demand. Who is your pick for leader and how to they transform Labour's prospects?
More basic than that.
What does Burnham do as leader that Starmer currently isn't?
If it's "attack the Tories more passionately", what's stopping him do it from his current perch?
Simply being a northerner is probably a big electoral plus for a Labour leader at the moment.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA and in the US absence they will take the lead. With William Hague now a candidate to be next NATO Secretary General our influence within NATO would only increase.
Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
It’s all relative HY. All I see is the West as a whole vacating the global stage, to greater or lesser effect. The result being that the values and strength of Western civilisation are being further undermined. It’s a pickle for sure. I’m not sure what’s to be done about it but misplaced trust in Johnson and Macron isn’t it.
We're vacating ourselves without and attacking ourselves within.
It doesn't take too much of a dive into history to realise the fate of civilisations that start to do that.
Looking with a long lens, I expect the political future of humanity is some model of fascism / mutualism. We’re on the cusp of becoming properly space faring and who knows, may have invented a god in the box in the coming decades too, which will take away demand for human capital. And that’s without healthcare advances sufficient to enable ultra life spans. Democracy and economics as we’ve known them are likely to be the casualties of these technological revolutions.
Quite a messy period ahead for homosapiens. Should our friends in the skies wish to give some advice it would be most appreciated.
We are not on the cusp of becoming properly space faring. 1.3 light seconds manned flight, 22 light hours unmanned. LOL.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA and in the US absence they will take the lead. With William Hague now a candidate to be next NATO Secretary General our influence within NATO would only increase.
Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
It’s all relative HY. All I see is the West as a whole vacating the global stage, to greater or lesser effect. The result being that the values and strength of Western civilisation are being further undermined. It’s a pickle for sure. I’m not sure what’s to be done about it but misplaced trust in Johnson and Macron isn’t it.
We're vacating ourselves without and attacking ourselves within.
It doesn't take too much of a dive into history to realise the fate of civilisations that start to do that.
Looking with a long lens, I expect the political future of humanity is some model of fascism / mutualism. We’re on the cusp of becoming properly space faring and who knows, may have invented a god in the box in the coming decades too, which will take away demand for human capital. And that’s without healthcare advances sufficient to enable ultra life spans. Democracy and economics as we’ve known them are likely to be the casualties of these technological revolutions.
Quite a messy period ahead for homosapiens. Should our friends in the skies wish to give some advice it would be most appreciated.
Authoritarianism is certainly far more common throughout human history than democracy.
It may be we discover that our democratic age was underpinned entirely by our economic strength and cultural confidence, both of which are now waning.
It is futile to pretend that there are no complications and uncertainties about the vaccine, over the long term, it is not clear that it is the solution to COVID that we once thought it was.
That line is interesting.
Back in April 2020, I was telling people that we'd get a vaccine in six months. I was out by a few months. In saying this, I was expecting about 50% efficacy against illness (which I think was the WHO minimum for a workable vaccine), and only one working vaccine.
In the end, we have had several workable vaccines at a much higher efficacy. Delta's been a bi*ch, but the vaccines are still working.
As such, the vaccines have far surpassed my expectations. Even sinovac/sinopharm are probably better than not getting vaccinated. The only one I think is worthless is Sputnik, but that's because of apparent poor quality control.
We've been blessed.
I also don't see any reasonable uncertainties about the health effect of the vaccines in the medium or long-term. Particularly when compared to Invermectin...
I cannot pretend to be an expert on this subject. I am not an anti vaxxer, I've had both of my jabs.
I find the discussion about vaccines to be hysterical and irrational. They certainly save lives and it is probably in your self interest to take them. But - unless someone can persuade me otherwise - they don't seem to prevent infection or transmission of the virus. So the only significant advantage of getting a large proportion of the population vaccinated is to reduce the pressure on the health care system.
I cannot understand why this could amount to a justification for Covid passports, whilst still allowing people to smoke, ride motorcycles, do all sorts of dangerous sports, eat terrible food, drive at 30 mph along residential streets, etc.
If someone wants to try and persuade me otherwise I am genuinely open to arguments to the contrary.
Vaccines do protect against transmission.
e.g
"the likelihood of household transmission was approximately 40 to 50% lower in households of index patients who had been vaccinated 21 days or more before testing positive than in households of unvaccinated index patients; the findings were similar for the two vaccines."
So they seem to reduce the transmissability and infection associated with the virus - but don't actually prevent it. Is this definetly true of the delta variant though?
No, they prevent infection and prevent transmission. Less than they prevent serious illness and death, but still a substantial effect.
This has been tested against the Delta variant in numerous studies.
The stochastic nature of infection, disease and transmission - in the vaccinated or unvaccinated - is something I find many people struggle with.
The strange bit is that this is a simple issue
1) All the major vaccines reduce the death rate massively 2) All the major vaccines reduce the hospitalisation rate massively. 3) All the major vaccines reduce the chance of getting infected quite a bit. 4) All the major vaccines reduce the chance of transmitting the virus quite a bit.
Delta reduced (primarily) the effectiveness of 3 & 4
It didn't eliminate these abilities.
All this has been shown in multiple, peer reviewed, published studies across millions of people in multiple countries.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA and in the US absence they will take the lead. With William Hague now a candidate to be next NATO Secretary General our influence within NATO would only increase.
Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
It’s all relative HY. All I see is the West as a whole vacating the global stage, to greater or lesser effect. The result being that the values and strength of Western civilisation are being further undermined. It’s a pickle for sure. I’m not sure what’s to be done about it but misplaced trust in Johnson and Macron isn’t it.
Well somebody has to defend western civilisation.
With the US administration of Biden and Harris more interested in fighting the unwoke domestically than for western values abroad, it is Macron who has proved more willing to take on jhadis and push against extremists within Islam who are not willing to adhere to western laws and values.
Boris and Macron are also stronger than Biden at the moment in being able to stand up to Putin and Xi , remember too as well as the Queen Elizabeth, France has sent warships and a nuclear submarine to the South China Sea so it is not just the US Japan and S Korea rely on there to contain Beijing...
You do talk mince on occasion.
Taiwan scholar reveals extent of US military operations in South China Sea https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4279069 The Institute for National Defense and Security Research (INDSR) has released its latest “real-time analysis of national defense security,” which features a piece that examines the strategic significance of the waters southwest of Taiwan and the Bashi Strait.
In the report, titled "U.S. military operations in the South China Sea," INDSR military expert Huang Tsung-ting (黃宗鼎) said that the southwestern corner of Taiwan’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ) is one of the American military’s major areas of operation in the South China Sea. He added that the U.S. has carried out irregular naval voyages, routine military exercises, and reconnaissance missions in the "two lines, one belt" area of the South China Sea.
Huang defined the first “line” as stretching from the Taixinan Basin to the Pearl River Mouth Basin (PRMB) to the Paracel Islands and all the way down to the Qiongdongnan Basin. He described the second line as stretching from Taiwan Shoal to Shantou in China’s Guangdong Province and ending at the PRMB.
Meanwhile, Huang said the “belt” spans the Verde Island Passage, the area surrounding Scarborough Shoal, and the waters north of the Spratly Islands.
The expert noted that the U.S. military has dispatched anti-submarine warfare, early warning, and surveillance aircraft along the first line since U.S.-China tensions increased in June of last year. Additionally, reconnaissance aircraft, anti-submarine aircraft, and early warning aircraft have been conducting missions in the northern part of the South China Sea to detect Chinese submarines, pave a safe path for U.S. military ships, and monitor Chinese military planes entering the southwestern corner of Taiwan’s ADIZ, he said.
Huang said that American aircraft have flown as close as 87 km from Shantou to monitor nearby Chinese military movements, such as activity at the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) naval base on Stonecutters Island in Hong Kong and at the Xiachuan Island navy base, where China's 52nd submarine detachment is stationed...
Only in Britain - where our misanthropy means we need pets as a proxy to express our repressed feelings - would this ridiculously trivial story become news.
An imaginative solution would have been to put him on the mound at Marble Arch and charge people a tenner each to stroke him. I'm fairly confident there are no cattle ranchers within sniffing distance.
A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:
Say nothing/fudge (as now) Efta EU membership New referendum Carry on Boris.
The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on. Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else The fifth is no improvement
I think we don't need to delight Remainers, just to be less Europhobic than the Government, which is not difficult, Starmer can credibly talk about intelligent cooperation with the EU on a basis of friendly partners and it will sound (and indeed be) genuine, without embracing a new referendum or the like. In practice I suspect that rejoining a single customs area may be quite popular by then to avoid constant hassles for no obvious gain.
Blah Blah zzzzzz.
Lab is finished under SKS.
Get KotN a seat get him as leader
Then they can stop the decline
1. Burnham isn't an MP so isn't eligible to run for leader 2. Burnham shows no sign of being interested 3. Starmer resigns at 2pm - removing himself as you demand. Who is your pick for leader and how to they transform Labour's prospects?
Won't be to your political taste (and as a Tory, I'm just an observer) but am becoming impressed by Wes Streeting who is in the Shadow Cabinet. Long-time moderate, young, gay, intelligent, not overtly partisan and now fully recovered from cancer.
Mr. Eagles, the officer should be defenestrated. It's wretched he's allowed to keep his job.
Textbook abuse of authority, and very unlikely to be an isolated or empty threat if hes bold enough to state it bluntly to a member of the public.
I wish his keeping his job was shocking. Something like that should be zero tolerance - you shouldn't even just about such abuse of power if you hold the power.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA and in the US absence they will take the lead. With William Hague now a candidate to be next NATO Secretary General our influence within NATO would only increase.
Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
It’s all relative HY. All I see is the West as a whole vacating the global stage, to greater or lesser effect. The result being that the values and strength of Western civilisation are being further undermined. It’s a pickle for sure. I’m not sure what’s to be done about it but misplaced trust in Johnson and Macron isn’t it.
We're vacating ourselves without and attacking ourselves within.
It doesn't take too much of a dive into history to realise the fate of civilisations that start to do that.
Looking with a long lens, I expect the political future of humanity is some model of fascism / mutualism. We’re on the cusp of becoming properly space faring and who knows, may have invented a god in the box in the coming decades too, which will take away demand for human capital. And that’s without healthcare advances sufficient to enable ultra life spans. Democracy and economics as we’ve known them are likely to be the casualties of these technological revolutions.
Quite a messy period ahead for homosapiens. Should our friends in the skies wish to give some advice it would be most appreciated.
Representative democracy is done for, that's for sure. We'll probably wipe ourselves out with environmental collapse or nuclear war before anything else emerges. Saudi, UAE and Myanmar will all have nuclear weapons by the end of the decade. Somebody is going to lob one off by accident sooner or later.
An imaginative solution would have been to put him on the mound at Marble Arch and charge people a tenner each to stroke him. I'm fairly confident there are no cattle ranchers within sniffing distance.
His owner should have flown him to Kabul last week.
Yep, the Tory odds currently are a steal. I very openly admit I have no idea why Johnson and co are so popular, but they have cemented in 40% of the vote and that means Labour cannot win. The one hope for those of us who favour a less mendacious, more competent government running the country is that on 40% or so the Tories can lose their overall majority if all the tactical voting winds blow in the right direction. That. though, is highly unlikely.
Let me help you out: you've posted on here more than once that the Tories are prosecuting a "culture war" when they object to left-wing radicalism, which many voters find objectionable.
As Tony Blair said in his New Statesman article in the absence of the centre-left providing their own narrative on this the position of non-Tories is being defined by the radical Left and, as they are remaining silent, people assume the Labour leadership sympathises with them.
You want to win again?
A Labour Government that looked like it was about to win would be coming up with more effective solutions to stopping boats crossing the Channel, (b) extolling a progressive, patriotic and inclusive narrative about British history, and (c) an inspiring Unionist vision for the future that outflanks all nationalisms and identity groups.
That's what you need to do to be a Government in waiting. You don't do it, you won't win.
Simple.
No, and when the grown ups recapture the Conservatives Party they won't be chasing down that particular rabbit hole either.
Half-wittery that one day will become unfashionable.
The thing is that one needs to satisfy unhappy supporters of other parties that one won't trash their core values (hence, Labour mustn't be seen as uinpatriotic and the Tories mustn't be seen as disliking the NHS), but it's a waste of time to try to outbid your rivals on their home turf. Almost nobody ever voted Labour because they felt we were more super-patriotic, or Tory because they thought the NHS was much safer with them.
Adopting Casino's programme would merely persuade many Tories to muse that we were''t too bad, on their way to voting Tory (would you vote for us if we did exactly what you said, Casino? You'd give it some consideration and they vote Tory, no?). Arguably Starmer has already got that far. What's missing is the positive bit.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA and in the US absence they will take the lead. With William Hague now a candidate to be next NATO Secretary General our influence within NATO would only increase.
Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
It’s all relative HY. All I see is the West as a whole vacating the global stage, to greater or lesser effect. The result being that the values and strength of Western civilisation are being further undermined. It’s a pickle for sure. I’m not sure what’s to be done about it but misplaced trust in Johnson and Macron isn’t it.
We're vacating ourselves without and attacking ourselves within.
It doesn't take too much of a dive into history to realise the fate of civilisations that start to do that.
Looking with a long lens, I expect the political future of humanity is some model of fascism / mutualism. We’re on the cusp of becoming properly space faring and who knows, may have invented a god in the box in the coming decades too, which will take away demand for human capital. And that’s without healthcare advances sufficient to enable ultra life spans. Democracy and economics as we’ve known them are likely to be the casualties of these technological revolutions.
Quite a messy period ahead for homosapiens. Should our friends in the skies wish to give some advice it would be most appreciated.
Representative democracy is done for, that's for sure. We'll probably wipe ourselves out with environmental collapse or nuclear war before anything else emerges. Saudi, UAE and Myanmar will all have nuclear weapons by the end of the decade. Somebody is going to lob one off by accident sooner or later.
Sounds very similar to claims made by those with autocratic instincts in the early 1900s. The reality is that if you look down the list of the richest countries, they are all democracies, city states or oil regimes. And of course the latter won't stay there long.
Only in Britain - where our misanthropy means we need pets as a proxy to express our repressed feelings - would this ridiculously trivial story become news.
I'm somewhat at a loss how dear Geronimo attracted so many defenders. Yes Llamas are fluffy creatures, but many animals are cute.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA and in the US absence they will take the lead. With William Hague now a candidate to be next NATO Secretary General our influence within NATO would only increase.
Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
It’s all relative HY. All I see is the West as a whole vacating the global stage, to greater or lesser effect. The result being that the values and strength of Western civilisation are being further undermined. It’s a pickle for sure. I’m not sure what’s to be done about it but misplaced trust in Johnson and Macron isn’t it.
We're vacating ourselves without and attacking ourselves within.
It doesn't take too much of a dive into history to realise the fate of civilisations that start to do that.
Looking with a long lens, I expect the political future of humanity is some model of fascism / mutualism. We’re on the cusp of becoming properly space faring and who knows, may have invented a god in the box in the coming decades too, which will take away demand for human capital. And that’s without healthcare advances sufficient to enable ultra life spans. Democracy and economics as we’ve known them are likely to be the casualties of these technological revolutions.
Quite a messy period ahead for homosapiens. Should our friends in the skies wish to give some advice it would be most appreciated.
Authoritarianism is certainly far more common throughout human history than democracy.
It may be we discover that our democratic age was underpinned entirely by our economic strength and cultural confidence, both of which are now waning.
That they were maintained for such reason is not in the least surprising, certainly.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
Completely wrong.
NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.
NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.
And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.
And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA
Turkey has a larger armed forces than the UK and France combined. And a fine pedigree in fearlessly fighting and killing Russians.
While Turkey might be helpful in containing Russia, as it was in the Crimean War with France and the UK it is also likely to be rather less so in terms of jihadi militants
Only in Britain - where our misanthropy means we need pets as a proxy to express our repressed feelings - would this ridiculously trivial story become news.
I'm somewhat at a loss how dear Geronimo attracted so many defenders. Yes Llamas are fluffy creatures, but many animals are cute.
The Peruvians I know find the whole thing a bit weird. Apparently tons of llamas got the chop there in various anti-TB campaigns.
An imaginative solution would have been to put him on the mound at Marble Arch and charge people a tenner each to stroke him. I'm fairly confident there are no cattle ranchers within sniffing distance.
It is futile to pretend that there are no complications and uncertainties about the vaccine, over the long term, it is not clear that it is the solution to COVID that we once thought it was.
That line is interesting.
Back in April 2020, I was telling people that we'd get a vaccine in six months. I was out by a few months. In saying this, I was expecting about 50% efficacy against illness (which I think was the WHO minimum for a workable vaccine), and only one working vaccine.
In the end, we have had several workable vaccines at a much higher efficacy. Delta's been a bi*ch, but the vaccines are still working.
As such, the vaccines have far surpassed my expectations. Even sinovac/sinopharm are probably better than not getting vaccinated. The only one I think is worthless is Sputnik, but that's because of apparent poor quality control.
We've been blessed.
I also don't see any reasonable uncertainties about the health effect of the vaccines in the medium or long-term. Particularly when compared to Invermectin...
I cannot pretend to be an expert on this subject. I am not an anti vaxxer, I've had both of my jabs.
I find the discussion about vaccines to be hysterical and irrational. They certainly save lives and it is probably in your self interest to take them. But - unless someone can persuade me otherwise - they don't seem to prevent infection or transmission of the virus. So the only significant advantage of getting a large proportion of the population vaccinated is to reduce the pressure on the health care system.
I cannot understand why this could amount to a justification for Covid passports, whilst still allowing people to smoke, ride motorcycles, do all sorts of dangerous sports, eat terrible food, drive at 30 mph along residential streets, etc.
If someone wants to try and persuade me otherwise I am genuinely open to arguments to the contrary.
Vaccines do protect against transmission.
e.g
"the likelihood of household transmission was approximately 40 to 50% lower in households of index patients who had been vaccinated 21 days or more before testing positive than in households of unvaccinated index patients; the findings were similar for the two vaccines."
So they seem to reduce the transmissability and infection associated with the virus - but don't actually prevent it. Is this definetly true of the delta variant though?
No, they prevent infection and prevent transmission. Less than they prevent serious illness and death, but still a substantial effect.
This has been tested against the Delta variant in numerous studies.
The stochastic nature of infection, disease and transmission - in the vaccinated or unvaccinated - is something I find many people struggle with.
The strange bit is that this is a simple issue
1) All the major vaccines reduce the death rate massively 2) All the major vaccines reduce the hospitalisation rate massively. 3) All the major vaccines reduce the chance of getting infected quite a bit. 4) All the major vaccines reduce the chance of transmitting the virus quite a bit.
Delta reduced (primarily) the effectiveness of 3 & 4
It didn't eliminate these abilities.
All this has been shown in multiple, peer reviewed, published studies across millions of people in multiple countries.
I fully agree. I think it just an example of how humans find it hard to think of risk in terms of statistics, and the fact that anecdote (one healthy vaccinated young person died) always seems to trump statistics (per your enumeration above).
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA and in the US absence they will take the lead. With William Hague now a candidate to be next NATO Secretary General our influence within NATO would only increase.
Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
It’s all relative HY. All I see is the West as a whole vacating the global stage, to greater or lesser effect. The result being that the values and strength of Western civilisation are being further undermined. It’s a pickle for sure. I’m not sure what’s to be done about it but misplaced trust in Johnson and Macron isn’t it.
We're vacating ourselves without and attacking ourselves within.
It doesn't take too much of a dive into history to realise the fate of civilisations that start to do that.
Looking with a long lens, I expect the political future of humanity is some model of fascism / mutualism. We’re on the cusp of becoming properly space faring and who knows, may have invented a god in the box in the coming decades too, which will take away demand for human capital. And that’s without healthcare advances sufficient to enable ultra life spans. Democracy and economics as we’ve known them are likely to be the casualties of these technological revolutions.
Quite a messy period ahead for homosapiens. Should our friends in the skies wish to give some advice it would be most appreciated.
Representative democracy is done for, that's for sure. We'll probably wipe ourselves out with environmental collapse or nuclear war before anything else emerges. Saudi, UAE and Myanmar will all have nuclear weapons by the end of the decade. Somebody is going to lob one off by accident sooner or later.
New. Scottish census sex question guidance says people may self identify when answering. People will be asked if their sex is female or male. Guidance says: “If you’re transgender the answer you give can be different from what is on your birth certificate”.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA and in the US absence they will take the lead. With William Hague now a candidate to be next NATO Secretary General our influence within NATO would only increase.
Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
I don't doubt the US calls most of the shots in NATO but it also provides most of the force and the money.
Ultimately such alliances are based on the real-politik of who brings what to the table, and the more you have to offer the more of a say you have.
It is all very well having a very powerful armed forces but if you are unwilling to project and deploy it, as Biden seems reluctant to do compared to previous recent Presidents it means rather less
A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:
Say nothing/fudge (as now) Efta EU membership New referendum Carry on Boris.
The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on. Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else The fifth is no improvement
I think we don't need to delight Remainers, just to be less Europhobic than the Government, which is not difficult, Starmer can credibly talk about intelligent cooperation with the EU on a basis of friendly partners and it will sound (and indeed be) genuine, without embracing a new referendum or the like. In practice I suspect that rejoining a single customs area may be quite popular by then to avoid constant hassles for no obvious gain.
(It's slightly out of date now, and more things need to be added, such as recognising CE marks permanently, but the principles are sound I think).
Which CE marked products don't currently get recognised and for what reason?
None, which is exactly the point. There is precisely zero reason not to recognise them, yet that is the government's crazy, utterly brain-dead policy, now put off for a year. This utter nonsense of trying to set up our own compulsory alternative (with exactly the same underlying regulations!) needs to be kiboshed permanently so as not to disadvantage UK manufacturers and consumers further for zero gain.
Yep, the Tory odds currently are a steal. I very openly admit I have no idea why Johnson and co are so popular, but they have cemented in 40% of the vote and that means Labour cannot win. The one hope for those of us who favour a less mendacious, more competent government running the country is that on 40% or so the Tories can lose their overall majority if all the tactical voting winds blow in the right direction. That. though, is highly unlikely.
Let me help you out: you've posted on here more than once that the Tories are prosecuting a "culture war" when they object to left-wing radicalism, which many voters find objectionable.
As Tony Blair said in his New Statesman article in the absence of the centre-left providing their own narrative on this the position of non-Tories is being defined by the radical Left and, as they are remaining silent, people assume the Labour leadership sympathises with them.
You want to win again?
A Labour Government that looked like it was about to win would be coming up with more effective solutions to stopping boats crossing the Channel, (b) extolling a progressive, patriotic and inclusive narrative about British history, and (c) an inspiring Unionist vision for the future that outflanks all nationalisms and identity groups.
That's what you need to do to be a Government in waiting. You don't do it, you won't win.
Simple.
No, and when the grown ups recapture the Conservatives Party they won't be chasing down that particular rabbit hole either.
Half-wittery that one day will become unfashionable.
The thing is that one needs to satisfy unhappy supporters of other parties that one won't trash their core values (hence, Labour mustn't be seen as uinpatriotic and the Tories mustn't be seen as disliking the NHS), but it's a waste of time to try to outbid your rivals on their home turf. Almost nobody ever voted Labour because they felt we were more super-patriotic, or Tory because they thought the NHS was much safer with them.
Adopting Casino's programme would merely persuade many Tories to muse that we were''t too bad, on their way to voting Tory (would you vote for us if we did exactly what you said, Casino? You'd give it some consideration and they vote Tory, no?). Arguably Starmer has already got that far. What's missing is the positive bit.
All I'm saying Nick is that it's about making a progressive case for competent government that addresses voters real concerns, rather than dismissing them, and therefore outflanks the Tories to attract floating voters.
Blair did similar with Law & Order, and he also (once it became a political issue) dealt with the asylum spike in the early noughties.
PS. I'm not sure why you think me voting Labour is the litmus test? Every political party has a rock-solid core, and I'm in the Tory part of it - otherwise no-one would have voted Tory in 1997 or 2001! - and the better question to ask yourself is whether my suggestions would peel away soft Tories to Labour.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA and in the US absence they will take the lead. With William Hague now a candidate to be next NATO Secretary General our influence within NATO would only increase.
Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
It’s all relative HY. All I see is the West as a whole vacating the global stage, to greater or lesser effect. The result being that the values and strength of Western civilisation are being further undermined. It’s a pickle for sure. I’m not sure what’s to be done about it but misplaced trust in Johnson and Macron isn’t it.
We're vacating ourselves without and attacking ourselves within.
It doesn't take too much of a dive into history to realise the fate of civilisations that start to do that.
Looking with a long lens, I expect the political future of humanity is some model of fascism / mutualism. We’re on the cusp of becoming properly space faring and who knows, may have invented a god in the box in the coming decades too, which will take away demand for human capital. And that’s without healthcare advances sufficient to enable ultra life spans. Democracy and economics as we’ve known them are likely to be the casualties of these technological revolutions.
Quite a messy period ahead for homosapiens. Should our friends in the skies wish to give some advice it would be most appreciated.
We are not on the cusp of becoming properly space faring. 1.3 light seconds manned flight, 22 light hours unmanned. LOL.
You’re right. We haven’t got nearly far enough to move Gavin Williamson to safety yet.
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
People who think the current polling is irrelevant because of the Covid-19 environment.
I mean if we have another lockdown/screw up the booster rollout then the government will become very unpopular, those 150,000 deaths will come back into focus.
FWIW - The WhatsApp groups I'm in are fuming about Gavin Williamson today, this is from people normally supportive of the government.
I actually do think the current polling is fairly irrelevant and over analysed, especially when the polls move a few percent one way or the other. But, and its a big but, the Tory vote is tied in to the Brexit vote, not govt performance, and if voters are stubborn generally, they are particularly stubborn over Brexit.
It will take a mind shift in perhaps a quarter of Brexit voters to start regretting their vote to stop the Tories getting most seats. Even if Brexit is a disaster, it can be masked with covid. If it is not a disaster an increased majority is quite plausible.
I see it broadly the same way as you. Brexit has delivered a base to the Cons that is enough for a majority under FPTP. It looks a little bit structural. I don't overpundit on this - since it depresses me and I don't wish to spread that to more optimistic left posters - but it is driving my long range UK politics betting.
I wouldn't be betting on any outcome of GE 2024, I really wouldn't. Chesham and Amersham was a real thing, not just a betting coup. Ignore the polls, they are increasingly iffy with the demise of the telephone landline and the rise of the self selected online panel. Look at the defection into no man's land of virtually the whole pb Tory vote. The typical shire tory (most pb tories are too bright to fit the description) is motivated by fear of iht and support for foxhunting. The financial fear is lessened by the departure of Corbyn and the suspicion that Sunak is going to cook up something fairly unappetising to pay for Covid. As for hunting, the feeling of being generally pro it is spread much much wider than the people who actually ever did it. It's a battle which is well and truly lost and I can't think of anything more ballsachingly dull than having an argument about the merits of it. My point is this: even five years ago nobody would believe that a Con majority of 80 with an OE pm would not repeal or modify the hunting act. I am pretty certain that a lot of people are going to sit out one GE as a punishment for that, in the same way that by some accounts some shire Tories voted Leave as a slap on the wrist to Cameron for gay marriage.
And it pains me to say that there's something about Sunak and Patel that a non-zero number of shire Tories don't really get on with, either. Put all that together and there's the real chance of a countrywide C&A type shock.
Interesting take. The C/A result felt flakey to me but, yes, if we get an anti-Con surge in the South of anything like those proportions, Johnson will likely be moving house and kicking off that mega money unicycling and juggling tour to sold out tents across the nation.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA and in the US absence they will take the lead. With William Hague now a candidate to be next NATO Secretary General our influence within NATO would only increase.
Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
It’s all relative HY. All I see is the West as a whole vacating the global stage, to greater or lesser effect. The result being that the values and strength of Western civilisation are being further undermined. It’s a pickle for sure. I’m not sure what’s to be done about it but misplaced trust in Johnson and Macron isn’t it.
Well somebody has to defend western civilisation.
With the US administration of Biden and Harris more interested in fighting the unwoke domestically than for western values abroad, it is Macron who has proved more willing to take on jhadis and push against extremists within Islam who are not willing to adhere to western laws and values.
Boris and Macron are also stronger than Biden at the moment in being able to stand up to Putin and Xi , remember too as well as the Queen Elizabeth, France has sent warships and a nuclear submarine to the South China Sea so it is not just the US Japan and S Korea rely on there to contain Beijing...
You do talk mince on occasion.
Taiwan scholar reveals extent of US military operations in South China Sea https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4279069 The Institute for National Defense and Security Research (INDSR) has released its latest “real-time analysis of national defense security,” which features a piece that examines the strategic significance of the waters southwest of Taiwan and the Bashi Strait.
In the report, titled "U.S. military operations in the South China Sea," INDSR military expert Huang Tsung-ting (黃宗鼎) said that the southwestern corner of Taiwan’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ) is one of the American military’s major areas of operation in the South China Sea. He added that the U.S. has carried out irregular naval voyages, routine military exercises, and reconnaissance missions in the "two lines, one belt" area of the South China Sea.
Huang defined the first “line” as stretching from the Taixinan Basin to the Pearl River Mouth Basin (PRMB) to the Paracel Islands and all the way down to the Qiongdongnan Basin. He described the second line as stretching from Taiwan Shoal to Shantou in China’s Guangdong Province and ending at the PRMB.
Meanwhile, Huang said the “belt” spans the Verde Island Passage, the area surrounding Scarborough Shoal, and the waters north of the Spratly Islands.
The expert noted that the U.S. military has dispatched anti-submarine warfare, early warning, and surveillance aircraft along the first line since U.S.-China tensions increased in June of last year. Additionally, reconnaissance aircraft, anti-submarine aircraft, and early warning aircraft have been conducting missions in the northern part of the South China Sea to detect Chinese submarines, pave a safe path for U.S. military ships, and monitor Chinese military planes entering the southwestern corner of Taiwan’s ADIZ, he said.
Huang said that American aircraft have flown as close as 87 km from Shantou to monitor nearby Chinese military movements, such as activity at the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) naval base on Stonecutters Island in Hong Kong and at the Xiachuan Island navy base, where China's 52nd submarine detachment is stationed...
If you believe Biden would send US ships and troops to defend Taiwan after a Chinese invasion you have more confidence in him than me
Miss Vance, for some people, concepts and thoughts should override objective reality. If you ask both, you put both on an equal footing, which is too much for ideologues who dislike biological facts.
New. Scottish census sex question guidance says people may self identify when answering. People will be asked if their sex is female or male. Guidance says: “If you’re transgender the answer you give can be different from what is on your birth certificate”.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA and in the US absence they will take the lead. With William Hague now a candidate to be next NATO Secretary General our influence within NATO would only increase.
Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
It’s all relative HY. All I see is the West as a whole vacating the global stage, to greater or lesser effect. The result being that the values and strength of Western civilisation are being further undermined. It’s a pickle for sure. I’m not sure what’s to be done about it but misplaced trust in Johnson and Macron isn’t it.
We're vacating ourselves without and attacking ourselves within.
It doesn't take too much of a dive into history to realise the fate of civilisations that start to do that.
Looking with a long lens, I expect the political future of humanity is some model of fascism / mutualism. We’re on the cusp of becoming properly space faring and who knows, may have invented a god in the box in the coming decades too, which will take away demand for human capital. And that’s without healthcare advances sufficient to enable ultra life spans. Democracy and economics as we’ve known them are likely to be the casualties of these technological revolutions.
Quite a messy period ahead for homosapiens. Should our friends in the skies wish to give some advice it would be most appreciated.
Representative democracy is done for, that's for sure. We'll probably wipe ourselves out with environmental collapse or nuclear war before anything else emerges. Saudi, UAE and Myanmar will all have nuclear weapons by the end of the decade. Somebody is going to lob one off by accident sooner or later.
You auditioning to be the anti-Fukuyama ?
Since I joined the FCO in 1980, people have been saying Saudi will have nukes within a decade.
I was in the anti-Fukuyama camp the moment the first book review was published. It was always a ridiculous concept that failed to recognize how culture and context play into how we organize. And there is indeed a logic to Taiwan, Japan, South Korean and Philippines getting nukes to contain China - at least from each individual nation's perspective.
I am sure the multi-player game theorists will tell us that we'll all die as a result.
It is futile to pretend that there are no complications and uncertainties about the vaccine, over the long term, it is not clear that it is the solution to COVID that we once thought it was.
That line is interesting.
Back in April 2020, I was telling people that we'd get a vaccine in six months. I was out by a few months. In saying this, I was expecting about 50% efficacy against illness (which I think was the WHO minimum for a workable vaccine), and only one working vaccine.
In the end, we have had several workable vaccines at a much higher efficacy. Delta's been a bi*ch, but the vaccines are still working.
As such, the vaccines have far surpassed my expectations. Even sinovac/sinopharm are probably better than not getting vaccinated. The only one I think is worthless is Sputnik, but that's because of apparent poor quality control.
We've been blessed.
I also don't see any reasonable uncertainties about the health effect of the vaccines in the medium or long-term. Particularly when compared to Invermectin...
I cannot pretend to be an expert on this subject. I am not an anti vaxxer, I've had both of my jabs.
I find the discussion about vaccines to be hysterical and irrational. They certainly save lives and it is probably in your self interest to take them. But - unless someone can persuade me otherwise - they don't seem to prevent infection or transmission of the virus. So the only significant advantage of getting a large proportion of the population vaccinated is to reduce the pressure on the health care system.
I cannot understand why this could amount to a justification for Covid passports, whilst still allowing people to smoke, ride motorcycles, do all sorts of dangerous sports, eat terrible food, drive at 30 mph along residential streets, etc.
If someone wants to try and persuade me otherwise I am genuinely open to arguments to the contrary.
Vaccines do protect against transmission.
e.g
"the likelihood of household transmission was approximately 40 to 50% lower in households of index patients who had been vaccinated 21 days or more before testing positive than in households of unvaccinated index patients; the findings were similar for the two vaccines."
So they seem to reduce the transmissability and infection associated with the virus - but don't actually prevent it. Is this definetly true of the delta variant though?
No, they prevent infection and prevent transmission. Less than they prevent serious illness and death, but still a substantial effect.
This has been tested against the Delta variant in numerous studies.
The stochastic nature of infection, disease and transmission - in the vaccinated or unvaccinated - is something I find many people struggle with.
The strange bit is that this is a simple issue
1) All the major vaccines reduce the death rate massively 2) All the major vaccines reduce the hospitalisation rate massively. 3) All the major vaccines reduce the chance of getting infected quite a bit. 4) All the major vaccines reduce the chance of transmitting the virus quite a bit.
Delta reduced (primarily) the effectiveness of 3 & 4
It didn't eliminate these abilities.
All this has been shown in multiple, peer reviewed, published studies across millions of people in multiple countries.
I fully agree. I think it just an example of how humans find it hard to think of risk in terms of statistics, and the fact that anecdote (one healthy vaccinated young person died) always seems to trump statistics (per your enumeration above).
Yes
It's just that when you are dealing with people who go
1) I don't understand those number thingies 2) I *want* to believe something else 3) It's intellectual freedom to say that Goop etc
... I start wondering about sitting such people on a chair, Rondas Campesinas style....
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
Completely wrong.
NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.
NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.
And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.
And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.
Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
On topic: Just to 'hats off' myself since otherwise nobody notices - I did post a few times a while back that 'Cons most seats' at the then available 1.8 was the best political bet out there. Ok, shorter now at 1.5, but still, as the header says, solid value. I also agree on the Con majority. That should be odds on. For me around 1.7 so the 2.3 is good.
What is interesting is I am not sure there is a single poster making the opposite case, at least with conviction? So why is the market where it is?
Largely agree. But: Con majority is no more likely than NOM, in my view. The question of who forms the next government is about: Con 47%, NOM Labour rainbow 47%, Lab 6%. For 326 approx seats Labour can only rely on a black swan.
Party with most seats is different. Currently Tories hold about 363. Losing the 40+ seats needed to lose the majority is feasible, because they could lose them not only to a Labour fightback but an LD one. If the LDs fight back and gain in the posh seats where they traditionally come second (look out Raab!) and Labour recover their mojo in the north and continue sweeping up in London.
If Lab gained 60 and LDs 40 from the Tories (recovering to nearly 2010 position) Tories would have 263 seats, and Labour 259. That is within a whisker of being largest party. A Tory collapse to the SNP is Scotland would just see Labour over the line - Labour 259, Tories 258.
No, I don't think it will happen either; but it requires a concatenation of realistic possibilities whereas Labour 326 seats + looks like science fiction.
But who is backing the other side, i.e Labour at this stage and those prices? And why? It is curious.
People who think the current polling is irrelevant because of the Covid-19 environment.
I mean if we have another lockdown/screw up the booster rollout then the government will become very unpopular, those 150,000 deaths will come back into focus.
FWIW - The WhatsApp groups I'm in are fuming about Gavin Williamson today, this is from people normally supportive of the government.
I actually do think the current polling is fairly irrelevant and over analysed, especially when the polls move a few percent one way or the other. But, and its a big but, the Tory vote is tied in to the Brexit vote, not govt performance, and if voters are stubborn generally, they are particularly stubborn over Brexit.
It will take a mind shift in perhaps a quarter of Brexit voters to start regretting their vote to stop the Tories getting most seats. Even if Brexit is a disaster, it can be masked with covid. If it is not a disaster an increased majority is quite plausible.
I see it broadly the same way as you. Brexit has delivered a base to the Cons that is enough for a majority under FPTP. It looks a little bit structural. I don't overpundit on this - since it depresses me and I don't wish to spread that to more optimistic left posters - but it is driving my long range UK politics betting.
I wouldn't be betting on any outcome of GE 2024, I really wouldn't. Chesham and Amersham was a real thing, not just a betting coup. Ignore the polls, they are increasingly iffy with the demise of the telephone landline and the rise of the self selected online panel. Look at the defection into no man's land of virtually the whole pb Tory vote. The typical shire tory (most pb tories are too bright to fit the description) is motivated by fear of iht and support for foxhunting. The financial fear is lessened by the departure of Corbyn and the suspicion that Sunak is going to cook up something fairly unappetising to pay for Covid. As for hunting, the feeling of being generally pro it is spread much much wider than the people who actually ever did it. It's a battle which is well and truly lost and I can't think of anything more ballsachingly dull than having an argument about the merits of it. My point is this: even five years ago nobody would believe that a Con majority of 80 with an OE pm would not repeal or modify the hunting act. I am pretty certain that a lot of people are going to sit out one GE as a punishment for that, in the same way that by some accounts some shire Tories voted Leave as a slap on the wrist to Cameron for gay marriage.
And it pains me to say that there's something about Sunak and Patel that a non-zero number of shire Tories don't really get on with, either. Put all that together and there's the real chance of a countrywide C&A type shock.
I agree with a lot of these conclusions. but it needs simplifying. Only three results are in the current realm of possibility: Tory win, Labour win, NOM. Of these three there are a number of feasible routes to Tory win and NOM; the only feasible route to a Lab victory is via a black swan; so although I have no idea what the outcome will be, I still think there is a 90%+ chance that it will be Tory win or NOM. Because I have no idea (nor does anyone else) and no data beyond the obvious likelihood of there being one of two results from a betting point of view, I would place those two results as mathematically equal. About 47% each.
I broadly agree and so do the markets (although overstating Lab win compared to your view and mine).
The interesting thing is the combination of Tory majorit at >2 and Starmer next PM at >5. In the event of no Tory majority, Starmer is surely more than the implied ~40% chance to be PM?
There are of course other possibilities: 1. NOM on paper, but practical Tory wafer thin majority - SF not sitting etc or some minority Tory government with smaller parties abstaining on confidence votes etc (biggest risk) 2. Johnson or Starmer replaced pre-election (low risk, I think) 3. Starmer replaced after election - NOM and rainbow coalition demands someone else (low risk, Starmer no Corbyn, not really objectionable to anyone) But to put those at ~60% in the event of no Tory majority? (even under 1. the Starmer bet still has a chance of winning if an unstable Johnson-led government falls - it's next PM after Johnson).
This is just academic interest to me as I'm on the Tories at 2.4 and Starmer ~8 (hat tip to Kinabalu for pointing out those odds when they were around) and I've no desire to add to that this far out. But even at ~2.3 and ~5 it doesn't add up to me.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
Completely wrong.
NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.
NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.
And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.
And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.
Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
Really strange. This site temporarily stopped working for me, telling me that my version of Safari was missing important resources and needed to be reinstalled. I ignored that, exited PB, reloaded, it loaded in a skeleton format, then suddenly corrected itself to normal format.
Since I joined the FCO in 1980, people have been saying Saudi will have nukes within a decade.
I was in the anti-Fukuyama camp the moment the first book review was published. It was always a ridiculous concept that failed to recognize how culture and context play into how we organize. And there is indeed a logic to Taiwan, Japan, South Korean and Philippines getting nukes to contain China - at least from each individual nation's perspective.
I am sure the multi-player game theorists will tell us that we'll all die as a result.
I have a friend who works out a lot in Saudi Arabia and knows a few of the many many Princes from the House of Saud.
His view (and their view) if Iran gets nukes then it's a bit Shi'ite for all concerned in the region as well as the world because the Saudis will need nukes as well ego and national security concerns will demand it.
So Israel, Iran, and the Saudis all with nukes, and with the reliance on oil ending soon things will be interesting.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA and in the US absence they will take the lead. With William Hague now a candidate to be next NATO Secretary General our influence within NATO would only increase.
Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
It’s all relative HY. All I see is the West as a whole vacating the global stage, to greater or lesser effect. The result being that the values and strength of Western civilisation are being further undermined. It’s a pickle for sure. I’m not sure what’s to be done about it but misplaced trust in Johnson and Macron isn’t it.
We're vacating ourselves without and attacking ourselves within.
It doesn't take too much of a dive into history to realise the fate of civilisations that start to do that.
Looking with a long lens, I expect the political future of humanity is some model of fascism / mutualism. We’re on the cusp of becoming properly space faring and who knows, may have invented a god in the box in the coming decades too, which will take away demand for human capital. And that’s without healthcare advances sufficient to enable ultra life spans. Democracy and economics as we’ve known them are likely to be the casualties of these technological revolutions.
Quite a messy period ahead for homosapiens. Should our friends in the skies wish to give some advice it would be most appreciated.
We are not on the cusp of becoming properly space faring. 1.3 light seconds manned flight, 22 light hours unmanned. LOL.
A permanent presence on another planet would in my mind mean we have become space faring. We’ll see that within the decade most likely. Project that to the end of the century and that presence would ceterus paribus likely be well on the way to being self sustaining if not already there. And the industrialisation of space gives the potential for long habitation beyond earth and Mars also. Sure, we’re not flying to Andromeda soon. But we’ll still be properly space faring.
An imaginative solution would have been to put him on the mound at Marble Arch and charge people a tenner each to stroke him. I'm fairly confident there are no cattle ranchers within sniffing distance.
Just as well humans can’t catch TB from animals.
Ah.
But Geronimo looks so cuddly. I mean ... looked ... obvs.
Really strange. This site temporarily stopped working for me, telling me that my version of Safari was missing important resources and needed to be reinstalled. I ignored that, exited PB, reloaded, it loaded in a skeleton format, then suddenly corrected itself to normal format.
Weird
Joe Biden and the SurrenderCrats switched off the Internet, to check if they are sufficiently subservient to the Chinese. Or something.
A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:
Say nothing/fudge (as now) Efta EU membership New referendum Carry on Boris.
The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on. Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else The fifth is no improvement
I think we don't need to delight Remainers, just to be less Europhobic than the Government, which is not difficult, Starmer can credibly talk about intelligent cooperation with the EU on a basis of friendly partners and it will sound (and indeed be) genuine, without embracing a new referendum or the like. In practice I suspect that rejoining a single customs area may be quite popular by then to avoid constant hassles for no obvious gain.
(It's slightly out of date now, and more things need to be added, such as recognising CE marks permanently, but the principles are sound I think).
Which CE marked products don't currently get recognised and for what reason?
None, which is exactly the point. There is precisely zero reason not to recognise them, yet that is the government's crazy, utterly brain-dead policy, now put off for a year. This utter nonsense of trying to set up our own compulsory alternative (with exactly the same underlying regulations!) needs to be kiboshed permanently so as not to disadvantage UK manufacturers and consumers further for zero gain.
Surely all that sort of thing was behind Liam's 'Easiest Trade Deal in History' pronouncements. Of course, Boris and co. now make Liam look like an arch Euro-pragmatist in comparison.
New. Scottish census sex question guidance says people may self identify when answering. People will be asked if their sex is female or male. Guidance says: “If you’re transgender the answer you give can be different from what is on your birth certificate”.
Since I joined the FCO in 1980, people have been saying Saudi will have nukes within a decade.
I was in the anti-Fukuyama camp the moment the first book review was published. It was always a ridiculous concept that failed to recognize how culture and context play into how we organize. And there is indeed a logic to Taiwan, Japan, South Korean and Philippines getting nukes to contain China - at least from each individual nation's perspective.
I am sure the multi-player game theorists will tell us that we'll all die as a result.
I have a friend who works out a lot in Saudi Arabia and knows a few of the many many Princes from the House of Saud.
His view (and their view) if Iran gets nukes then it's a bit Shi'ite for all concerned in the region as well as the world because the Saudis will need nukes as well ego and national security concerns will demand it.
So Israel, Iran, and the Saudis all with nukes, and with the reliance on oil ending soon things will be interesting.
Well, the prospect is clearly Shi’ite as it is anything but Sunni.
An imaginative solution would have been to put him on the mound at Marble Arch and charge people a tenner each to stroke him. I'm fairly confident there are no cattle ranchers within sniffing distance.
Just as well humans can’t catch TB from animals.
Ah.
But Geronimo looks so cuddly. I mean ... looked ... obvs.
Reminds me of on Clarkson's Farm when he was upset about having to slaughter his sheep only to observe later how tasty the mutton therefrom turned out to be.
New. Scottish census sex question guidance says people may self identify when answering. People will be asked if their sex is female or male. Guidance says: “If you’re transgender the answer you give can be different from what is on your birth certificate”.
Since I joined the FCO in 1980, people have been saying Saudi will have nukes within a decade.
I was in the anti-Fukuyama camp the moment the first book review was published. It was always a ridiculous concept that failed to recognize how culture and context play into how we organize. And there is indeed a logic to Taiwan, Japan, South Korean and Philippines getting nukes to contain China - at least from each individual nation's perspective.
I am sure the multi-player game theorists will tell us that we'll all die as a result.
I have a friend who works out a lot in Saudi Arabia and knows a few of the many many Princes from the House of Saud.
His view (and their view) if Iran gets nukes then it's a bit Shi'ite for all concerned in the region as well as the world because the Saudis will need nukes as well ego and national security concerns will demand it.
So Israel, Iran, and the Saudis all with nukes, and with the reliance on oil ending soon things will be interesting.
That's a pretty standard analysis - that if Iran goes nuclear then everyone in the neighbourhood will go nuclear.
A milder version of the same thing is the common wisdom that if Japan goes nuclear then so will nearly everyone else in *that* neck of the woods.
Turkey has a larger armed forces than the UK and France combined. And a fine pedigree in fearlessly fighting and killing Russians.
Ivan and Abdul eh?
The sons of the Prophet are hardy and bold, And quite unaccustomed to fear, but of all the most reckless of life or of limb was Abdullah Bulbul Amir. .. ..
The heroes were plenty and well known to fame That fought in the ranks of the Czar. But the greatest of these was a man by the name Of Ivan Skavinsky Skivar.
Since I joined the FCO in 1980, people have been saying Saudi will have nukes within a decade.
I was in the anti-Fukuyama camp the moment the first book review was published. It was always a ridiculous concept that failed to recognize how culture and context play into how we organize. And there is indeed a logic to Taiwan, Japan, South Korean and Philippines getting nukes to contain China - at least from each individual nation's perspective.
I am sure the multi-player game theorists will tell us that we'll all die as a result.
I have a friend who works out a lot in Saudi Arabia and knows a few of the many many Princes from the House of Saud.
His view (and their view) if Iran gets nukes then it's a bit Shi'ite for all concerned in the region as well as the world because the Saudis will need nukes as well ego and national security concerns will demand it.
So Israel, Iran, and the Saudis all with nukes, and with the reliance on oil ending soon things will be interesting.
That's a pretty standard analysis - that if Iran goes nuclear then everyone in the neighbourhood will go nuclear.
A milder version of the same thing is the common wisdom that if Japan goes nuclear then so will nearly everyone else in *that* neck of the woods.
Though Iraq and Syria are in large part Iranian client states anyway now
Since I joined the FCO in 1980, people have been saying Saudi will have nukes within a decade.
I was in the anti-Fukuyama camp the moment the first book review was published. It was always a ridiculous concept that failed to recognize how culture and context play into how we organize. And there is indeed a logic to Taiwan, Japan, South Korean and Philippines getting nukes to contain China - at least from each individual nation's perspective.
I am sure the multi-player game theorists will tell us that we'll all die as a result.
I have a friend who works out a lot in Saudi Arabia and knows a few of the many many Princes from the House of Saud.
His view (and their view) if Iran gets nukes then it's a bit Shi'ite for all concerned in the region as well as the world because the Saudis will need nukes as well ego and national security concerns will demand it.
So Israel, Iran, and the Saudis all with nukes, and with the reliance on oil ending soon things will be interesting.
That's a pretty standard analysis - that if Iran goes nuclear then everyone in the neighbourhood will go nuclear.
A milder version of the same thing is the common wisdom that if Japan goes nuclear then so will nearly everyone else in *that* neck of the woods.
I think the House of Saud will be able to do outdo the Iranians. I think at best the Iranians will have land based missile nuclear weapons whereas the Saudis could afford submarine and bomber based nuclear weapons as well, the latter two are the Harrods of nuclear weapons.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
Completely wrong.
NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.
NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.
And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.
And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.
Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
It was only the US withdrawal which allowed the Taliban to regain Kabul and most of the country, even as recently as 2017 the Taliban only controlled 7 out of 421 districts
A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:
Say nothing/fudge (as now) Efta EU membership New referendum Carry on Boris.
The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on. Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else The fifth is no improvement
I think we don't need to delight Remainers, just to be less Europhobic than the Government, which is not difficult, Starmer can credibly talk about intelligent cooperation with the EU on a basis of friendly partners and it will sound (and indeed be) genuine, without embracing a new referendum or the like. In practice I suspect that rejoining a single customs area may be quite popular by then to avoid constant hassles for no obvious gain.
(It's slightly out of date now, and more things need to be added, such as recognising CE marks permanently, but the principles are sound I think).
Which CE marked products don't currently get recognised and for what reason?
None, which is exactly the point. There is precisely zero reason not to recognise them, yet that is the government's crazy, utterly brain-dead policy, now put off for a year. This utter nonsense of trying to set up our own compulsory alternative (with exactly the same underlying regulations!) needs to be kiboshed permanently so as not to disadvantage UK manufacturers and consumers further for zero gain.
Why does it need to be kiboshed?
If it turns out to be the same, then CE mark and UK mark (whatever its called) will be equivalent and people can just stamp whatever they produce with both. CE marks are self-declared anyway, so if UK mark is the same you just print CE mark and UK mark on the product and job done. No disadvantage whatsoever.
If it turns out not to be the same, then its because we've found a reason its worth diverging, in which case that's a good thing.
There's no loss in printing both marks, and there's something to gain in being able to diverge.
Since I joined the FCO in 1980, people have been saying Saudi will have nukes within a decade.
I was in the anti-Fukuyama camp the moment the first book review was published. It was always a ridiculous concept that failed to recognize how culture and context play into how we organize. And there is indeed a logic to Taiwan, Japan, South Korean and Philippines getting nukes to contain China - at least from each individual nation's perspective.
I am sure the multi-player game theorists will tell us that we'll all die as a result.
I have a friend who works out a lot in Saudi Arabia and knows a few of the many many Princes from the House of Saud.
His view (and their view) if Iran gets nukes then it's a bit Shi'ite for all concerned in the region as well as the world because the Saudis will need nukes as well ego and national security concerns will demand it.
So Israel, Iran, and the Saudis all with nukes, and with the reliance on oil ending soon things will be interesting.
That's a pretty standard analysis - that if Iran goes nuclear then everyone in the neighbourhood will go nuclear.
A milder version of the same thing is the common wisdom that if Japan goes nuclear then so will nearly everyone else in *that* neck of the woods.
I think the House of Saud will be able to do outdo the Iranians. I think at best the Iranians will have land based missile nuclear weapons whereas the Saudis could afford submarine and bomber based nuclear weapons as well, the latter two are the Harrods of nuclear weapons.
Gravity bombs for their various aircraft, maybe.
Saudi submarines? Ha Ha Ha..... Sorry, haven't laugh liked that in a long time.
Unless they find someone to build *and run* some subs for them - no chance.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
Completely wrong.
NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.
NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.
And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.
And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
The US withdrew most of its troops from Iraq in 2011, the Taliban did not regain Kabul until this summer.
Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
Bingo. But you are blaming Biden and Trump particularly Biden. You are wrong. The Taliban began the takeover process over 15 years ago.
It was only the US withdrawal which allowed the Taliban to regain Kabul and most of the country, even as recently as 2017 the Taliban only controlled 7 out of 421 districts
It was inevitable. Either send back in 400,000 soldiers or withdraw.
They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA and in the US absence they will take the lead. With William Hague now a candidate to be next NATO Secretary General our influence within NATO would only increase.
Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
It’s all relative HY. All I see is the West as a whole vacating the global stage, to greater or lesser effect. The result being that the values and strength of Western civilisation are being further undermined. It’s a pickle for sure. I’m not sure what’s to be done about it but misplaced trust in Johnson and Macron isn’t it.
Well somebody has to defend western civilisation.
With the US administration of Biden and Harris more interested in fighting the unwoke domestically than for western values abroad, it is Macron who has proved more willing to take on jhadis and push against extremists within Islam who are not willing to adhere to western laws and values.
Boris and Macron are also stronger than Biden at the moment in being able to stand up to Putin and Xi , remember too as well as the Queen Elizabeth, France has sent warships and a nuclear submarine to the South China Sea so it is not just the US Japan and S Korea rely on there to contain Beijing...
You do talk mince on occasion.
Taiwan scholar reveals extent of US military operations in South China Sea https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4279069 The Institute for National Defense and Security Research (INDSR) has released its latest “real-time analysis of national defense security,” which features a piece that examines the strategic significance of the waters southwest of Taiwan and the Bashi Strait.
In the report, titled "U.S. military operations in the South China Sea," INDSR military expert Huang Tsung-ting (黃宗鼎) said that the southwestern corner of Taiwan’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ) is one of the American military’s major areas of operation in the South China Sea. He added that the U.S. has carried out irregular naval voyages, routine military exercises, and reconnaissance missions in the "two lines, one belt" area of the South China Sea.
Huang defined the first “line” as stretching from the Taixinan Basin to the Pearl River Mouth Basin (PRMB) to the Paracel Islands and all the way down to the Qiongdongnan Basin. He described the second line as stretching from Taiwan Shoal to Shantou in China’s Guangdong Province and ending at the PRMB.
Meanwhile, Huang said the “belt” spans the Verde Island Passage, the area surrounding Scarborough Shoal, and the waters north of the Spratly Islands.
The expert noted that the U.S. military has dispatched anti-submarine warfare, early warning, and surveillance aircraft along the first line since U.S.-China tensions increased in June of last year. Additionally, reconnaissance aircraft, anti-submarine aircraft, and early warning aircraft have been conducting missions in the northern part of the South China Sea to detect Chinese submarines, pave a safe path for U.S. military ships, and monitor Chinese military planes entering the southwestern corner of Taiwan’s ADIZ, he said.
Huang said that American aircraft have flown as close as 87 km from Shantou to monitor nearby Chinese military movements, such as activity at the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) naval base on Stonecutters Island in Hong Kong and at the Xiachuan Island navy base, where China's 52nd submarine detachment is stationed...
If you believe Biden would send US ships and troops to defend Taiwan after a Chinese invasion you have more confidence in him than me
After wouldn't be much use.
And, as usual when a point you make has been rebutted, you shrug off the fact and present your opinion as an alternative fact.
Which is more degrading - criminally starting a war by invading a foreign country, losing it, and then withdrawing, or criminally invading a foreign country on the instructions of a third country, with the same result?
The issue shouldn't be what this or that former public schoolboy British army veteran is doing (playing up the jut-jawed playing-field meme in time of defeat is so predictable); it should be why on earth Britain should remain a member of NATO or any other kind of military ally of the US, followed by who should go to jail, followed by how large the reparations payments should be.
Funny how attention can be directed. Jimmy Savile abuses a large number of children over decades? Make it an issue about those favourite Tory targets (at least until recently in the case of the first one) the NHS and the BBC. NATO gets humiliated in its biggest failure ever? Whatever you do, don't mention NATO.
It is not NATO that is the problem, NATO removed the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan after 9/11 killed thousands in NYC, including 67 Britons. It is the Biden and Harris administration that has abandoned Afghanistan back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is also Biden and Trump who have weakened their commitment to NATO in both Europe and Afghanistan. It is the Biden and Harris administration and the Democrats who control Congress who will be judged on this at next year's midterms and the 2024 presidential election.
You have therefore got it completely the wrong way around, it is now the US on whom western Europe has relied for its defence that is retreating into isolationism. It is France and the UK, led by Macron and Boris, who are having to fill in the gap, leading intervention in Africa against jihadi militants for example absent US commitment. It is also western Europe which will have to step up its defence spending to the 2% or more of gdp we and the French provide if NATO is going to be able to successfully contain Putin's ambitions in Eastern Europe.
Taiwan may well have to get nuclear weapons as well if it is to ensure its own defence against Chinese advances given the Biden administration clearly will not lift a finger to defend it
Us and NATO ought to be considered without prejudgment though. It's a changed world (cf the WW2 settlement and the cold war) and we are now more of a solo player post Brexit.
On military matters at least the UK and French relationship is stronger than ever, Brexit has not changed that at all.
Boris and Macron will now be driving NATO for the foreseeable future as the Biden led US retreats into itself
Johnson and Macron aren't driving shit and have zero strategic autonomy inside NATO. Macron has worked this out, hence his enthusiasm for L'Europe de la défense. Johnson either has not worked it or, more likely, doesn't give a fuck and just prefers to dribble about Global Britain.
Yes they are, Johnson and Macron will be driving NATO containment of Putin and now taking the lead on jihadis in areas like Africa etc. The UK and France are by far the biggest military powers in NATO after the USA
Turkey has a larger armed forces than the UK and France combined. And a fine pedigree in fearlessly fighting and killing Russians.
While Turkey might be helpful in containing Russia, as it was in the Crimean War with France and the UK it is also likely to be rather less so in terms of jihadi militants
Turkey is not pathologically scared of losing troops which gives it quite a big advantage.
A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:
Say nothing/fudge (as now) Efta EU membership New referendum Carry on Boris.
The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on. Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else The fifth is no improvement
I think we don't need to delight Remainers, just to be less Europhobic than the Government, which is not difficult, Starmer can credibly talk about intelligent cooperation with the EU on a basis of friendly partners and it will sound (and indeed be) genuine, without embracing a new referendum or the like. In practice I suspect that rejoining a single customs area may be quite popular by then to avoid constant hassles for no obvious gain.
(It's slightly out of date now, and more things need to be added, such as recognising CE marks permanently, but the principles are sound I think).
Which CE marked products don't currently get recognised and for what reason?
None, which is exactly the point. There is precisely zero reason not to recognise them, yet that is the government's crazy, utterly brain-dead policy, now put off for a year. This utter nonsense of trying to set up our own compulsory alternative (with exactly the same underlying regulations!) needs to be kiboshed permanently so as not to disadvantage UK manufacturers and consumers further for zero gain.
Why does it need to be kiboshed?
If it turns out to be the same, then CE mark and UK mark (whatever its called) will be equivalent and people can just stamp whatever they produce with both. CE marks are self-declared anyway, so if UK mark is the same you just print CE mark and UK mark on the product and job done. No disadvantage whatsoever.
If it turns out not to be the same, then its because we've found a reason its worth diverging, in which case that's a good thing.
There's no loss in printing both marks, and there's something to gain in being able to diverge.
Not jabbing kids over the summer holidays is a massive own goal, as will be if we don't start boosters for oldies extremely sharpish.
Given that JCVI have been right on the two really big calls they made why are you so convinced they are wrong on this one?
The downside of the UK doing so is basically zero.
Isn't the downside "dead unvaccinated people in the Third World for marginal benefit in the UK"?
I doubt that's a question for the JCVI but to say there's "zero" downside is misplaced.
For booster shots there is zero downside for the UK. 35m additional doses for developing nations will make no difference to the overall picture and given its all coming from our Pfizer stock the viability of it in developing nations is low as well so we'd actually have to give it to second world countries that have the means to procure it themselves but have failed to do so such as South Africa or Brazil.
There is simply no reason not to have a 54m booster dose programme with eligibility 6 months after a person's second dose. Why take the risk of a lockdown when the downside risk of doing it is so low.
People in each place don't form their view based on some guess at the "overall picture".
Since I joined the FCO in 1980, people have been saying Saudi will have nukes within a decade.
I was in the anti-Fukuyama camp the moment the first book review was published. It was always a ridiculous concept that failed to recognize how culture and context play into how we organize. And there is indeed a logic to Taiwan, Japan, South Korean and Philippines getting nukes to contain China - at least from each individual nation's perspective.
I am sure the multi-player game theorists will tell us that we'll all die as a result.
I have a friend who works out a lot in Saudi Arabia and knows a few of the many many Princes from the House of Saud.
His view (and their view) if Iran gets nukes then it's a bit Shi'ite for all concerned in the region as well as the world because the Saudis will need nukes as well ego and national security concerns will demand it.
So Israel, Iran, and the Saudis all with nukes, and with the reliance on oil ending soon things will be interesting.
That's a pretty standard analysis - that if Iran goes nuclear then everyone in the neighbourhood will go nuclear.
A milder version of the same thing is the common wisdom that if Japan goes nuclear then so will nearly everyone else in *that* neck of the woods.
I think the House of Saud will be able to do outdo the Iranians. I think at best the Iranians will have land based missile nuclear weapons whereas the Saudis could afford submarine and bomber based nuclear weapons as well, the latter two are the Harrods of nuclear weapons.
Gravity bombs for their various aircraft, maybe.
Saudi submarines? Ha Ha Ha..... Sorry, haven't laugh liked that in a long time.
Unless they find someone to build *and run* some subs for them - no chance.
Won't they do what they always do and hire a load of former American and UK military staff to do the work for them?
I'm still mystified by the fact we haven't had an accidental nuclear war between Pakistan and India. Both sides spent a lot of money on the bombs but sod all on command and control systems/chains of command.
Then again I was shocked by this.
Launch code for US nukes was 00000000 for 20 years
A side issue here is that Labour hope to get away without having a coherent post-Brexit policy, since any actual policy will divide their supporters. Their choice is:
Say nothing/fudge (as now) Efta EU membership New referendum Carry on Boris.
The first is dangerous as it is too important to be silent on. Two, three and four make perfect sense for pro Europeans but no-one else The fifth is no improvement
I think we don't need to delight Remainers, just to be less Europhobic than the Government, which is not difficult, Starmer can credibly talk about intelligent cooperation with the EU on a basis of friendly partners and it will sound (and indeed be) genuine, without embracing a new referendum or the like. In practice I suspect that rejoining a single customs area may be quite popular by then to avoid constant hassles for no obvious gain.
I think the EU will overplay its hand again as soon as there's a Labour Government in power on the basis it will just keel over on the basis of emotional affection for the EU.
It will be amusing to watch as Starmer would be obliged to play hardball with them as, regardless of his own feelings, negotiating from out is very different from in and real-politik will govern.
Its a bear trap for all of the progressive parties. The EU is in the past for GB and there isn't a route back any time soon. So the only move has to be forward. The Tories face the opposite bear trap - they cannot move on from brexit because there is no product.
Sooner or later the current political blockage will erode away, and once it starts to go it will go quickly. The Tories promised much from Brexit and have delivered little - that won't be sustained. But Labour / the LDs / the Greens need to move on and talk up what the post-Brexit product should be.
It can't be the EU or EFTA or the single market. But it can point out that we need to close the gaps left by our crashing out to 3rd country status, and things like the forthcoming Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V New Zealand deal will only highlight how hollow the CANZUK argument was. Lets do CANZUK culturally, but it isn't an alternative trading plan. Only by trying to find one that fills the gap can parties move the debate on.
I don't see how we square the NI trading circle without either a) an EFTA or b) a United Ireland/ permanent border in the Irish Sea. Labour, LDs or sensible Tories all have this problem.
Comments
If vaccines didn't prevent spread, the case split in the UK would mirror the vaccinated/unvaccinated proportions almost exactly. Unvaccinated people are still disproportionately likely to be a covid case compared to the population. Hence vaccination must have an effect on spread.
This has been tested against the Delta variant in numerous studies.
Proposals for an EU rapid response force have still not got off the ground, in part because it would be very reliant on the French military. Absent significant US presence and commitment, which will become less evident under Biden, western European defence relies on the UK as well as France and so cannot be done via the EU alone, it needs NATO too
Mainstreet and Ekos showing healthy Tory leads enough for a plurality of around 6 to 9%.
Everyone else showing very close, but pointing to Liberal minority.
Somebody is wrong.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2021_Canadian_federal_election
Most rural areas voted for Brexit and if they really wanted to protest over foxhunting still being banned and to keep IHT low and over the boats of migrants crossing the channel they would vote Reform UK not LD
Not a criticism BTW, I'm all for them.
It will be amusing to watch as Starmer would be obliged to play hardball with them as, regardless of his own feelings, negotiating from out is very different from in and real-politik will govern.
Half-wittery that one day will become unfashionable.
With the US administration of Biden and Harris more interested in fighting the unwoke domestically than for western values abroad, it is Macron who has proved more willing to take on jhadis and push against extremists within Islam who are not willing to adhere to western laws and values.
Boris and Macron are also stronger than Biden at the moment in being able to stand up to Putin and Xi , remember too as well as the Queen Elizabeth, France has sent warships and a nuclear submarine to the South China Sea so it is not just the US Japan and S Korea rely on there to contain Beijing. Germany of course cannot do it given the German government's pushing for the Nord Stream pipeline from Russia and the next German government will likely be even closer to Moscow given former SPD leader Schroder's links to Putin
And you are wrong about RefUK. There's plenty of people who would happily vote LD as an anti tory protest wouldn't in a million years dream about sullying themselves by voting for Farage. Me, for one.
ATC is a very hard skill for which you need natural talent AND tons of training. I invigilated a test for ATC training for Yemeni military applicants a long while ago. None of them passed.
It doesn't take too much of a dive into history to realise the fate of civilisations that start to do that.
2. Burnham shows no sign of being interested
3. Starmer resigns at 2pm - removing himself as you demand. Who is your pick for leader and how to they transform Labour's prospects?
Ultimately such alliances are based on the real-politik of who brings what to the table, and the more you have to offer the more of a say you have.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1432682589761019906?s=20
I'm afraid I don't see much sign of it changing.
What does Burnham do as leader that Starmer currently isn't?
If it's "attack the Tories more passionately", what's stopping him do it from his current perch?
Geronimo is EXECUTED
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9943067/Is-D-Day-Geronimo-Police-finally-arrive-alpacas-farm.html
Sooner or later the current political blockage will erode away, and once it starts to go it will go quickly. The Tories promised much from Brexit and have delivered little - that won't be sustained. But Labour / the LDs / the Greens need to move on and talk up what the post-Brexit product should be.
It can't be the EU or EFTA or the single market. But it can point out that we need to close the gaps left by our crashing out to 3rd country status, and things like the forthcoming Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V New Zealand deal will only highlight how hollow the CANZUK argument was. Lets do CANZUK culturally, but it isn't an alternative trading plan. Only by trying to find one that fills the gap can parties move the debate on.
Quite a messy period ahead for homosapiens. Should our friends in the skies wish to give some advice it would be most appreciated.
From Ex + sequi ("to follow out")
I posted similar last night: there are lots of routes via which Remainers can pursue most if not all of their political objectives in future outwith the obvious, the only obstacle being a lack of imagination.
It may be we discover that our democratic age was underpinned entirely by our economic strength and cultural confidence, both of which are now waning.
1) All the major vaccines reduce the death rate massively
2) All the major vaccines reduce the hospitalisation rate massively.
3) All the major vaccines reduce the chance of getting infected quite a bit.
4) All the major vaccines reduce the chance of transmitting the virus quite a bit.
Delta reduced (primarily) the effectiveness of 3 & 4
It didn't eliminate these abilities.
All this has been shown in multiple, peer reviewed, published studies across millions of people in multiple countries.
Taiwan scholar reveals extent of US military operations in South China Sea
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4279069
The Institute for National Defense and Security Research (INDSR) has released its latest “real-time analysis of national defense security,” which features a piece that examines the strategic significance of the waters southwest of Taiwan and the Bashi Strait.
In the report, titled "U.S. military operations in the South China Sea," INDSR military expert Huang Tsung-ting (黃宗鼎) said that the southwestern corner of Taiwan’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ) is one of the American military’s major areas of operation in the South China Sea. He added that the U.S. has carried out irregular naval voyages, routine military exercises, and reconnaissance missions in the "two lines, one belt" area of the South China Sea.
Huang defined the first “line” as stretching from the Taixinan Basin to the Pearl River Mouth Basin (PRMB) to the Paracel Islands and all the way down to the Qiongdongnan Basin. He described the second line as stretching from Taiwan Shoal to Shantou in China’s Guangdong Province and ending at the PRMB.
Meanwhile, Huang said the “belt” spans the Verde Island Passage, the area surrounding Scarborough Shoal, and the waters north of the Spratly Islands.
The expert noted that the U.S. military has dispatched anti-submarine warfare, early warning, and surveillance aircraft along the first line since U.S.-China tensions increased in June of last year. Additionally, reconnaissance aircraft, anti-submarine aircraft, and early warning aircraft have been conducting missions in the northern part of the South China Sea to detect Chinese submarines, pave a safe path for U.S. military ships, and monitor Chinese military planes entering the southwestern corner of Taiwan’s ADIZ, he said.
Huang said that American aircraft have flown as close as 87 km from Shantou to monitor nearby Chinese military movements, such as activity at the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) naval base on Stonecutters Island in Hong Kong and at the Xiachuan Island navy base, where China's 52nd submarine detachment is stationed...
I wish his keeping his job was shocking. Something like that should be zero tolerance - you shouldn't even just about such abuse of power if you hold the power.
Adopting Casino's programme would merely persuade many Tories to muse that we were''t too bad, on their way to voting Tory (would you vote for us if we did exactly what you said, Casino? You'd give it some consideration and they vote Tory, no?). Arguably Starmer has already got that far. What's missing is the positive bit.
Oh sorry, not that Geronimo.
NATO subdued the Taliban, or rather made them go back to their homes and store their AKs after 9/11.
NATO then, lead by the US, turned its attention to Iraq.
And hence allowed the Taliban to manifest themselves once again.
And when NATO went back into Afghan in 2006 the result was what we have seen over the past few weeks.
https://www.businessinsider.com/most-powerful-militaries-in-the-world-ranked-2018-2?r=US&IR=T#6-united-kingdom-20
While Turkey might be helpful in containing Russia, as it was in the Crimean War with France and the UK it is also likely to be rather less so in terms of jihadi militants
Ah.
https://twitter.com/SundayTimesSco/status/1432676958635274243?s=20
Why not ask both "sex" and "gender"?
Blair did similar with Law & Order, and he also (once it became a political issue) dealt with the asylum spike in the early noughties.
PS. I'm not sure why you think me voting Labour is the litmus test? Every political party has a rock-solid core, and I'm in the Tory part of it - otherwise no-one would have voted Tory in 1997 or 2001! - and the better question to ask yourself is whether my suggestions would peel away soft Tories to Labour.
The fun part of this one, is that you have two sides whose view of what should be legal to say and do is incompatible.
I was in the anti-Fukuyama camp the moment the first book review was published. It was always a ridiculous concept that failed to recognize how culture and context play into how we organize. And there is indeed a logic to Taiwan, Japan, South Korean and Philippines getting nukes to contain China - at least from each individual nation's perspective.
I am sure the multi-player game theorists will tell us that we'll all die as a result.
David Evans is clearing out the rot
It's just that when you are dealing with people who go
1) I don't understand those number thingies
2) I *want* to believe something else
3) It's intellectual freedom to say that Goop etc
... I start wondering about sitting such people on a chair, Rondas Campesinas style....
Even if there had been no Iraq invasion at all if the US was not prepared to commit to keep troops in Afghanistan permanently as it has in S Korea and Germany, then eventually the Taliban would regain power and jihadi militants would return
The interesting thing is the combination of Tory majorit at >2 and Starmer next PM at >5. In the event of no Tory majority, Starmer is surely more than the implied ~40% chance to be PM?
There are of course other possibilities:
1. NOM on paper, but practical Tory wafer thin majority - SF not sitting etc or some minority Tory government with smaller parties abstaining on confidence votes etc (biggest risk)
2. Johnson or Starmer replaced pre-election (low risk, I think)
3. Starmer replaced after election - NOM and rainbow coalition demands someone else (low risk, Starmer no Corbyn, not really objectionable to anyone)
But to put those at ~60% in the event of no Tory majority? (even under 1. the Starmer bet still has a chance of winning if an unstable Johnson-led government falls - it's next PM after Johnson).
This is just academic interest to me as I'm on the Tories at 2.4 and Starmer ~8 (hat tip to Kinabalu for pointing out those odds when they were around) and I've no desire to add to that this far out. But even at ~2.3 and ~5 it doesn't add up to me.
Weird
His view (and their view) if Iran gets nukes then it's a bit Shi'ite for all concerned in the region as well as the world because the Saudis will need nukes as well ego and national security concerns will demand it.
So Israel, Iran, and the Saudis all with nukes, and with the reliance on oil ending soon things will be interesting.
Ah, my coat…
A milder version of the same thing is the common wisdom that if Japan goes nuclear then so will nearly everyone else in *that* neck of the woods.
The sons of the Prophet are hardy and bold,
And quite unaccustomed to fear,
but of all the most reckless of life or of limb
was Abdullah Bulbul Amir.
.. ..
The heroes were plenty and well known to fame
That fought in the ranks of the Czar.
But the greatest of these was a man by the name
Of Ivan Skavinsky Skivar.
If it turns out to be the same, then CE mark and UK mark (whatever its called) will be equivalent and people can just stamp whatever they produce with both. CE marks are self-declared anyway, so if UK mark is the same you just print CE mark and UK mark on the product and job done. No disadvantage whatsoever.
If it turns out not to be the same, then its because we've found a reason its worth diverging, in which case that's a good thing.
There's no loss in printing both marks, and there's something to gain in being able to diverge.
Saudi submarines? Ha Ha Ha..... Sorry, haven't laugh liked that in a long time.
Unless they find someone to build *and run* some subs for them - no chance.
Sonntagsfrage Ipsos zur Bundestagswahl • SPD 25 % | CDU/CSU 21 % | GRÜNE 19 % | AfD 11 % | FDP 11 % | DIE LINKE 7 % | Sonstige 6 %
This is Ipsos which isn't commissioned by any of Germany's main newspapers.
They were never going to send in 400,000 more troops hence it was inevitable that we would reach this state sooner or later.
And, as usual when a point you make has been rebutted, you shrug off the fact and present your opinion as an alternative fact.
https://www.bsigroup.com/en-SE/our-services/product-testing-and-certification/ukca-mark/frequently-asked-questions-ukca-marking/
https://www.bbacerts.co.uk/apply-for-ukca-marking/
I'm still mystified by the fact we haven't had an accidental nuclear war between Pakistan and India. Both sides spent a lot of money on the bombs but sod all on command and control systems/chains of command.
Then again I was shocked by this.
Launch code for US nukes was 00000000 for 20 years
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-us-nukes-was-00000000-for-20-years/