politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On this day exactly two years ago it was Peak Theresa May (and

AndyJS said:

NickPalmer said:

Interesting 3 hours on the doorstep this afternoon (and no, people don't mind being canvassed at Easter) in deepest Surrey. I think the LibDems are going to do well - I'm used to their voters showing up as don't knows till the last minute, but there's some definite enthusiasm out there. Labour's core vote seems solid but not especially enthusiastic - it's mostly about fighting the Tories. The Tory vote is crumbling at the edges - unusual number of former Tory voters going out of their way to say they wouldn't ever vote Labour but definitely not Tory any more either - even met some Brexiteers voting LibDem ias an anti-big party protest. But the Tories too have a core vote which is loyal - I don't expect a real metldown.

Interesting as far as Surrey is concerned, but I don't expect the situation there to be a particularly good guide to what happens in the rest of the country on this occasion.

I have heard similar reports from several different parts of England. I think it is in places where the LDs have one wards in the past

nico67 said:

Too much was made of the Tory manifesto . The over 65s didn’t desert the party and they would keep voting for them even if they brought in euthanasia at 80 !

It would cut their over 80s vote a bit though!

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1119333109890203650

IIRC a change to the Conservative Party leadership rules is a constitutional change which requires the support of "not less than 66% of Members of Parliament voting"

rcs1000 said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

JosiasJessop said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Pulpstar said:

Adonis is probably better on transport than Grayling...

If you mean better at wasting £100,000,000,000+ on political vanity projects, then yes.

He's certainly not as good as you are at picking figures out of your backside!

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/transport/2019/04/19/hs2-could-end-up-costing-more-than-156-billion/

I could end up living to 1,000 years old.

"could" being the operative word.

It ain't necessarily so!

isam said:

A very good reason to think twice before betting based on opinion polls covering hypothetical events

True, but there's a more general lesson: in political betting, the probability curve is often flatter than you think.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

John_McLean said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

isam said:

A Lord giveth advice and a Lord tells voters to taketh their votes away

https://twitter.com/john_mills_jml/status/1119257139002916865?s=21

The only way to defeat fruitcakes and loons is to take them head on, not to accommodate them.

"Fruitcakes and Loons". Yep I agree. That is probably a reasonable description of the Labour Party.

Certainly their currant crop is less than grape.

Where as the present crop of Tories are whine

Jezza is Red, Red Whine

His future isn't rosé though.

Nos da.

NickPalmer said:

Interesting 3 hours on the doorstep this afternoon (and no, people don't mind being canvassed at Easter) in deepest Surrey. I think the LibDems are going to do well - I'm used to their voters showing up as don't knows till the last minute, but there's some definite enthusiasm out there. Labour's core vote seems solid but not especially enthusiastic - it's mostly about fighting the Tories. The Tory vote is crumbling at the edges - unusual number of former Tory voters going out of their way to say they wouldn't ever vote Labour but definitely not Tory any more either - even met some Brexiteers voting LibDem ias an anti-big party protest. But the Tories too have a core vote which is loyal - I don't expect a real metldown.

Just be careful not to throw away all your good work with a Sheffield rally display of overconfidence.

Recidivist said:

NickPalmer said:

Interesting 3 hours on the doorstep this afternoon (and no, people don't mind being canvassed at Easter) in deepest Surrey. I think the LibDems are going to do well - I'm used to their voters showing up as don't knows till the last minute, but there's some definite enthusiasm out there. Labour's core vote seems solid but not especially enthusiastic - it's mostly about fighting the Tories. The Tory vote is crumbling at the edges - unusual number of former Tory voters going out of their way to say they wouldn't ever vote Labour but definitely not Tory any more either - even met some Brexiteers voting LibDem ias an anti-big party protest. But the Tories too have a core vote which is loyal - I don't expect a real metldown.

Just be careful not to throw away all your good work with a Sheffield rally display of overconfidence.

Sounds a bit downbeat on Labour. It is not often a politician talks up a rival party.

Foxy said:

Recidivist said:

NickPalmer said:

Interesting 3 hours on the doorstep this afternoon (and no, people don't mind being canvassed at Easter) in deepest Surrey. I think the LibDems are going to do well - I'm used to their voters showing up as don't knows till the last minute, but there's some definite enthusiasm out there. Labour's core vote seems solid but not especially enthusiastic - it's mostly about fighting the Tories. The Tory vote is crumbling at the edges - unusual number of former Tory voters going out of their way to say they wouldn't ever vote Labour but definitely not Tory any more either - even met some Brexiteers voting LibDem ias an anti-big party protest. But the Tories too have a core vote which is loyal - I don't expect a real metldown.

Just be careful not to throw away all your good work with a Sheffield rally display of overconfidence.

Sounds a bit downbeat on Labour. It is not often a politician talks up a rival party.

He's in Surrey. Claiming to have found a Labour voter at all is upbeat.

In any sane country Tweets like this would be grounds for impeachment all on their own.

....big, fat, waste of time, energy and money - $30,000,000 to be exact. It is now finally time to turn the tables and bring justice to some very sick and dangerous people who have committed very serious crimes, perhaps even Spying or Treason. This should never happen again!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 19 April 2019

For a man who says he was "Totally Exonerated" he sure as hell seems extremely angry about the redacted reported. What is he going to do or say when an unredacted copy comes out, or the report's authors testify in Congress?

Mortimer said:

AndyJS said:

NickPalmer said:

Interesting 3 hours on the doorstep this afternoon (and no, people don't mind being canvassed at Easter) in deepest Surrey. I think the LibDems are going to do well - I'm used to their voters showing up as don't knows till the last minute, but there's some definite enthusiasm out there. Labour's core vote seems solid but not especially enthusiastic - it's mostly about fighting the Tories. The Tory vote is crumbling at the edges - unusual number of former Tory voters going out of their way to say they wouldn't ever vote Labour but definitely not Tory any more either - even met some Brexiteers voting LibDem ias an anti-big party protest. But the Tories too have a core vote which is loyal - I don't expect a real metldown.

Interesting as far as Surrey is concerned, but I don't expect the situation there to be a particularly good guide to what happens in the rest of the country on this occasion.

Down here in Dorset not a single person of the few hundred I have canvassed have mentioned the Libs. That’s unusual.

Yet they’re the second party in numbers of nominations. And are making a huge effort with deliveries in several wards.

Either they’re running the most underground, clever campaign ever, or LD non by-election over optimism has triumphed again.

Well in two weeks we will know who has been swimming with no trunks on!

Foxy said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/hackneyabbott/status/1119352416783282177?s=21

Interesting. These is far too much boozing amongst our politicians, not a healthy lifestyle at all.

I'm not a fan of Abbott - but lifestyle choices aside this really isn't anything to pile in on her for.

It seems ridiculous saying this at 40/1 on BF, but Tuldi Gabbard is way too short. At some point (probably if she fails to make an impact at the first couple of debates) she'll swing out to the 100/1 or longer that she deserves.

rcs1000 said:

TGOHF said:

Floater said:

Foxy said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/hackneyabbott/status/1119352416783282177?s=21

Interesting. These is far too much boozing amongst our politicians, not a healthy lifestyle at all.

I'm not a fan of Abbott - but lifestyle choices aside this really isn't anything to pile in on her for.

She’s breaking the law.

According to The Sun:

"The outspoken Labour MP stunned fellow passengers by swigging a £2 can of Marks and Spencer mojito on an Overground service."

Sad to see.

Telegraph:

"Prominent Leavers including former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith face losing their seats at the next general election as Brexiteers prepare to punish the Conservatives at the ballot box with voters threatening to boycott the local and European elections over the UK’s delayed departure from the EU."

It would take a heart of stone etc etc...

Mortimer said:

AndyJS said:

NickPalmer said:

Interesting 3 hours on the doorstep this afternoon (and no, people don't mind being canvassed at Easter) in deepest Surrey. I think the LibDems are going to do well - I'm used to their voters showing up as don't knows till the last minute, but there's some definite enthusiasm out there. Labour's core vote seems solid but not especially enthusiastic - it's mostly about fighting the Tories. The Tory vote is crumbling at the edges - unusual number of former Tory voters going out of their way to say they wouldn't ever vote Labour but definitely not Tory any more either - even met some Brexiteers voting LibDem ias an anti-big party protest. But the Tories too have a core vote which is loyal - I don't expect a real metldown.

Interesting as far as Surrey is concerned, but I don't expect the situation there to be a particularly good guide to what happens in the rest of the country on this occasion.

Down here in Dorset not a single person of the few hundred I have canvassed have mentioned the Libs. That’s unusual.

Yet they’re the second party in numbers of nominations. And are making a huge effort with deliveries in several wards.

Either they’re running the most underground, clever campaign ever, or LD non by-election over optimism has triumphed again.

Despite it's hard-core Tory reputation, Remain did pretty well in Surrey compared to most places, so you'd expect the LDs to do much better there than elsewhere. That's why I said their strength in the county may not be a good guide to other places, like Dorset which voted more enthusiastically for Brexit.

Foxy said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/hackneyabbott/status/1119352416783282177?s=21

Interesting. These is far too much boozing amongst our politicians, not a healthy lifestyle at all.

Well there may still be too much boozing in politics but it is far less than it was in the past. Many politicians drank prodigious quantities - Churchill being an obvious example but there were many more. Lunch with a politician, or a political journalist, in the 1970s or 1980s generally involved aperitifs, wine with the meal and quite possibly brandy afterwards, and then everyone staggered back to work for the afternoon. Dinner would be the same, with more liberal quantities of wine. Drunkenness at Westminster was notorious before TV intruded - it would never be tolerated in today's more censorious times.

viewcode said:

TGOHF said:

Floater said:

Foxy said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/hackneyabbott/status/1119352416783282177?s=21

Interesting. These is far too much boozing amongst our politicians, not a healthy lifestyle at all.

I'm not a fan of Abbott - but lifestyle choices aside this really isn't anything to pile in on her for.

She’s breaking the law.

Um, hold on there. Many people drink alcohol on trains. If you catch a late-night train there are usually several discarded cans. If there is a law against drinking alcohol on trains, it's widely ignored.

Only in London, and also some Welsh Valley Lines also ban alcohol on certain journeys.

Quincel said:

It seems ridiculous saying this at 40/1 on BF, but Tuldi Gabbard is way too short. At some point (probably if she fails to make an impact at the first couple of debates) she'll swing out to the 100/1 or longer that she deserves.

100/1 is far too short.

She should be more like 5,000-1

Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.

Biden-Buttigieg?

"There is building buzz in Obama World around Buttigieg, a military veteran, Rhodes scholar and gay millennial leader. "

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/439701-five-former-obama-ambassadors-back-buttigieg

anothernick said:

Foxy said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/hackneyabbott/status/1119352416783282177?s=21

Interesting. These is far too much boozing amongst our politicians, not a healthy lifestyle at all.

Well there may still be too much boozing in politics but it is far less than it was in the past. Many politicians drank prodigious quantities - Churchill being an obvious example but there were many more. Lunch with a politician, or a political journalist, in the 1970s or 1980s generally involved aperitifs, wine with the meal and quite possibly brandy afterwards, and then everyone staggered back to work for the afternoon. Dinner would be the same, with more liberal quantities of wine. Drunkenness at Westminster was notorious before TV intruded - it would never be tolerated in today's more censorious times.

The obvious recent example that sprang to mind was Charlie Kennedy

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.

Biden-Buttigieg?

Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.

Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.

Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?

Foxy said:

Recidivist said:

NickPalmer said:

Interesting 3 hours on the doorstep this afternoon (and no, people don't mind being canvassed at Easter) in deepest Surrey. I think the LibDems are going to do well - I'm used to their voters showing up as don't knows till the last minute, but there's some definite enthusiasm out there. Labour's core vote seems solid but not especially enthusiastic - it's mostly about fighting the Tories. The Tory vote is crumbling at the edges - unusual number of former Tory voters going out of their way to say they wouldn't ever vote Labour but definitely not Tory any more either - even met some Brexiteers voting LibDem ias an anti-big party protest. But the Tories too have a core vote which is loyal - I don't expect a real metldown.

Just be careful not to throw away all your good work with a Sheffield rally display of overconfidence.

Sounds a bit downbeat on Labour. It is not often a politician talks up a rival party.

I try to give an accurate picture, even though it's just anecdata posted for mild interest. I think we're doing OK here, but not amazingly, and my impression is that the LDs will do better than most people expect. What I can't really judge is how large the Tory pissed-offedness is, since if you're canvassing for Labour in a Tory area, you can't easily distinguish between "No I'm not voting Labour" and "No I'm not voting for anyone, even my usual Tories".

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1119362170641354752?s=20

Best to keep busy when you are facing redundancy.

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

Mary Beard seems to have really wound up the Brexiteers.

https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1119349139731570688?s=21

From a purely factual point of view, are we really the third greatest military power in the world?

I mean, the US is obviously number one.

But then there are a host of countries who could make a pretty good claim to be above the UK;

- China
Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.

- Russia
Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.

- France
About the same number of people. Nuclear weapons. Working aircraft carriers with actual aircraft. Their own fighters.

- Japan
Quite a few more people. Much bigger budget.

And that's ignoring India (also has at least one working aircraft carrier), Israel (much smaller forces, but you'd have to fancy them in a fight), and North Korea (simply because there's a load of them).

I'd reckon we're probably fifth, if we're going to be honest.

If we magically transport ourselves to a flat plain with untroubled oceans and did fantasy warfare, then

UK vs US: we'd lose
UK vs Russia: we'd lose a land war, we might lose the sea war, I think we might win the submarine war.
UK vs China: we'd lose
UK vs India: I think we'd lose
UK vs France: hmm. We'd win (probably)
UK vs Germany: We'd win

Problem is, our armed forces are good but small, and quantity has a quality all its own. How would we cope against (say) Pakistan or Australia? And if we fought on other country's home soil, it gets worse really quickly: for example, would we win a war against a Scandinavian alliance? We can defend home turf and project a great deal of power abroad, but not enough to fight a big war for a long period.

rottenborough said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.

Biden-Buttigieg?

Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.

Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.

Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?

Nope. It's all proportional.

Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.

AndyJS said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1119331466956222464

I think he's right.

Could be complete two main party populist rage meltdown.

Which, incidentally, will help sales of Goodwin's book

AndyJS said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

Mary Beard seems to have really wound up the Brexiteers.

https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1119349139731570688?s=21

From a purely factual point of view, are we really the third greatest military power in the world?

I mean, the US is obviously number one.

But then there are a host of countries who could make a pretty good claim to be above the UK;

- China
Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.

- Russia
Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.

- France
About the same number of people. Nuclear weapons. Working aircraft carriers with actual aircraft. Their own fighters.

- Japan
Quite a few more people. Much bigger budget.

And that's ignoring India (also has at least one working aircraft carrier), Israel (much smaller forces, but you'd have to fancy them in a fight), and North Korea (simply because there's a load of them).

I'd reckon we're probably fifth, if we're going to be honest.

I think we are third in military power, (and fifth in economic terms). Japan doesn't have freedom of action, Russia and France would both have problems exerting any sort of power outside the confines of their own territory IMO.

But we have problems exerting power beyond our territory.

France and India have working aircraft carriers (and we don't). Russia has a sort of, occasionally working aircraft carrier.

Russia is able to operate - due to its scale and its diplomatic agreements - in much of the world. Certainly more of the world than us.

I think we probably place fifth.

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

Mary Beard seems to have really wound up the Brexiteers.

https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1119349139731570688?s=21

From a purely factual point of view, are we really the third greatest military power in the world?

I mean, the US is obviously number one.

But then there are a host of countries who could make a pretty good claim to be above the UK;

- China
Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.

- Russia
Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.

- France
About the same number of people. Nuclear weapons. Working aircraft carriers with actual aircraft. Their own fighters.

- Japan
Quite a few more people. Much bigger budget.

And that's ignoring India (also has at least one working aircraft carrier), Israel (much smaller forces, but you'd have to fancy them in a fight), and North Korea (simply because there's a load of them).

I'd reckon we're probably fifth, if we're going to be honest.

Moreover, I think Young is (deliberately?) missing the point. If there are any sensible criteria by which we're the world's third military power, how many will continue to apply in 30 years' time - which is the kind of timescale the Brexit project is really about? (Even if in its current state it doesn't manage to last more than a few years.)

Beard is clearly correct about the bigger picture - Britain's search for a place in the world (the Commonwealth, Europe, the Atlantic, splendid isolation?) as its relative importance declines has been an important backdrop to the Leave/Remain debate, indeed to British politics since WW2 or even further.

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.

Biden-Buttigieg?

Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.

Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.

Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?

Nope. It's all proportional.

Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.

Why? O'Rourke delegates, Warren delegates, some Biden delegates will all transfer to Sanders, at this moment Sanders is the likely nominee

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.

Biden-Buttigieg?

Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.

Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.

Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?

Nope. It's all proportional.

Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.

Why? O'Rourke delegates, Warren delegates, some Biden delegates will all transfer to Sanders, at this moment Sanders is the likely nominee

Then the Dems will lose.

rottenborough said:

viewcode said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

Mary Beard seems to have really wound up the Brexiteers.

https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1119349139731570688?s=21

From a purely factual point of view, are we really the third greatest military power in the world?

I mean, the US is obviously number one.

But then there are a host of countries who could make a pretty good claim to be above the UK;

- China
Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.

- Russia
Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.

- France
About the same number of people. Nuclear weapons. Working aircraft carriers with actual aircraft. Their own fighters.

- Japan
Quite a few more people. Much bigger budget.

And that's ignoring India (also has at least one working aircraft carrier), Israel (much smaller forces, but you'd have to fancy them in a fight), and North Korea (simply because there's a load of them).

I'd reckon we're probably fifth, if we're going to be honest.

If we magically transport ourselves to a flat plain with untroubled oceans and did fantasy warfare, then

UK vs US: we'd lose
UK vs Russia: we'd lose a land war, we might lose the sea war, I think we might win the submarine war.
UK vs China: we'd lose
UK vs India: I think we'd lose
UK vs France: hmm. We'd win (probably)
UK vs Germany: We'd win

Problem is, our armed forces are good but small, and quantity has a quality all its own. How would we cope against (say) Pakistan or Australia? And if we fought on other country's home soil, it gets worse really quickly: for example, would we win a war against a Scandinavian alliance? We can defend home turf and project a great deal of power abroad, but not enough to fight a big war for a long period.

I'm pretty sure the military planning for us to fight a war alone in the 21st century consists of a single side of A4 saying 'not going to happen'.

The only wars we would fight alone potentially are against Spain over Gibraltar and Argentina over the Falklands, beyond that it is inconceivable we would fight any other wars unless alongside the USA, NATO or the UN

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.

Biden-Buttigieg?

Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.

Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.

Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?

Nope. It's all proportional.

Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.

Why? O'Rourke delegates, Warren delegates, some Biden delegates will all transfer to Sanders, at this moment Sanders is the likely nominee

Then the Dems will lose.

WTF would O'Rourke delegates transfer to Sanders? And it'd be scant few of Biden's. Once again, I fear HYUFD is speaking with false certainty about a subject a little outside his chart room.

https://twitter.com/arron_banks/status/1119369147643772930?s=21

isam said:

https://twitter.com/arron_banks/status/1119369147643772930?s=21

https://youtu.be/bv4q4Kk0Qr0

isam said:

isam said:

https://twitter.com/arron_banks/status/1119369147643772930?s=21

https://youtu.be/bv4q4Kk0Qr0

Which was in reply to this:

https://twitter.com/bigdogKeKhard/status/1118984753200414720

rottenborough said:

Bloody hell. Stop the clocks!

Leading Corbynista, Bastani, salutes the work of Brown's government (on climate collapse):

https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1119191881316012033

So, it wasn't all Blairite red-tory, neo-liberal, plant burning, middle east wasting crap after all.

Is he praising the promotion of diesels?

MyBurningEars said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

Mary Beard seems to have really wound up the Brexiteers.

https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1119349139731570688?s=21

From a purely factual point of view, are we really the third greatest military power in the world?

I mean, the US is obviously number one.

But then there are a host of countries who could make a pretty good claim to be above the UK;

- China
Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.

- Russia
Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.

- France
About the same number of people. Nuclear weapons. Working aircraft carriers with actual aircraft. Their own fighters.

- Japan
Quite a few more people. Much bigger budget.

And that's ignoring India (also has at least one working aircraft carrier), Israel (much smaller forces, but you'd have to fancy them in a fight), and North Korea (simply because there's a load of them).

I'd reckon we're probably fifth, if we're going to be honest.

Moreover, I think Young is (deliberately?) missing the point.

Well yes (it is Toby Young after all!) but his reply illustrates a problem. Let's invent a group called "Spectator Leavers": very wealthy London-based leavers who work in the media, the commentariat, and associated industries. They sincerely believe that the UK is very powerful and that its attributes will ensure victory almost without trying, and that those who think otherwise are doing the country down. But that attitude is repeatedly bashing up against reality and not achieving its goals, as three years of post-Ref negotiations show. Even worse, it is used for continual budget cutting against the military, to its detriment. Arrogance and complacency is a recipe for disaster.

@MTimT, well put!

There are some policy things UK governments could do if they wanted to keep Britain higher up in the pile - throw open the migration gates (Britain's still quite a pull), concrete over the green belt or whatever else it takes to solve the housing crisis, invest heavily in all the stuff that's good for long-run growth. It's feasible for Britain to be steered towards a long-run population of 100 million plus, at least in the sense of there being physical room here, and for the UK to stay above Japan's bracket in the power stakes, maybe surpass it economically too. If the EU doesn't end up as some federated US of E, then potentially Britain could be pre-eminent in Western Europe. I can't see how Britain can stay ahead of India or Indonesia or Brazil; in fact it would say something pretty rough about the world if in 100 years' time we're still several times richer per capita, and more powerful on aggregate, than them! But even in this most "ambitious" vision for Britain, what would be the point of all? It surely isn't to compete with the USA or China in the superpower stakes. Would it make us on an individual level happier or healthier or wealthier? The type of radical changes its creation would require might even undermine the extent to which this new kind of UK might be considered "British" in the sense we currently understand or feel it.

Beard's "ordinary" alternative suggests a kind of petering out or giving up. There are Remain supporters who have a rather negative outlook for any prospect of an independent Britain and many of them are in the camp that the UK's day is done, but at least some of them see the prospect of Britain becoming a more enthusiastically integrated EU member as a positive, proactive approach - forging something new and exciting and powerful. A USofE that again might not be a superpower but at least guarantees Europeans a top-table seat. But as well as the issue of whether that's merely replacing one outdated nationalism with an alternative, wider and less coherent one, I think it's also subject to the "what would be the point?" question. There are small and medium sized countries out there that do not claim to be global players, and are comfortable not even trying to be, but which on the level of the individual human being are doing very well for themselves indeed.

My guess is that the general public's preferred course is somewhere in between "All-out Powerhouse UK" and "let's just give up and leave it to the big boys to sort the world's problems out". History seems to create some expectation that Britain should be doing something with itself, but people aren't massively up for Britain throwing its weight around with tangled wars far away, nor for the kind of demographic and environmental changes necessary to pursue greater long-term population and power.

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

Mary Beard seems to have really wound up the Brexiteers.

https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1119349139731570688?s=21

From a purely factual point of view, are we really the third greatest military power in the world?

I mean, the US is obviously number one.

But then there are a host of countries who could make a pretty good claim to be above the UK;

- China
Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.

- Russia
Lots more people. Nuclear weapons. Their own fighters.

- France
About the same number of people. Nuclear weapons. Working aircraft carriers with actual aircraft. Their own fighters.

- Japan
Quite a few more people. Much bigger budget.

And that's ignoring India (also has at least one working aircraft carrier), Israel (much smaller forces, but you'd have to fancy them in a fight), and North Korea (simply because there's a load of them).

I'd reckon we're probably fifth, if we're going to be honest.

I think to a certain extent, the facts don't matter. We cannot be a superpower, because we don't have the wherewithal or, as you point out, the population. We can chose to be an ordinary country - whatever that means - or we can choose to be influential as top end of the second tier country in pretty much every measure - economy, military, science, innovation, culture. In short, we don't have to be 'ordinary', but it is a legitimate choice.

More importantly, we no longer have the will to be a super power.

There is no enthusiasm for foreign interventions anymore in "pull up the drawbridge" Britain, so silly waving by Toby Young is just that.

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.

Biden-Buttigieg?

Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.

Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.

Wrong, very wrong.

Sanders is the second choice for 32% of Biden voters, compared to just 11% for Harris and 10% for O'Rourke.

Sanders is also the second choice for 21% of O'Rourke voters, and 14% of Harris voters, only Buttigieg voters do not have Sanders in their top 3 second choices (preferring Biden, Harris and O'Rourke instead).


https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/

You also forget Sanders got 60% in the 2016 Democratic Party New Hampshire primary and 49.6% in Iowa.


There is also very little to distinguish Buttigieg's policies from Hillary's

Sanders got those vote shares because his opponent was Hillary Clinton. He was in a two horse race: don't like Hillary, there's... there's... there's...

Errr. Bernie.

Hillary was a dreadful candidate, who wasn't even liked by her own party. That's why Bernie did so well.

Those Biden voters who you think will break for Bernie, well they might. But most of them have never seen Buttigieg or Yang or Hickenlooper yet.

rottenborough said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.

Biden-Buttigieg?

Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.

Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.

Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?

Nope. It's all proportional.

Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.

Surely Biden wins a contested, especially as there are the super delegates (are there not?)?

Superdelegates aren't allowed to vote in the first round unless there is already a majority winner from the primaries.

It works against Sanders.

See: https://www.vox.com/2018/8/25/17781964/democrats-superdelegates-bernie-sanders-2020-clinton

MyBurningEars said:

@MTimT, well put!

There are some policy things UK governments could do if they wanted to keep Britain higher up in the pile - throw open the migration gates (Britain's still quite a pull), concrete over the green belt or whatever else it takes to solve the housing crisis, invest heavily in all the stuff that's good for long-run growth. It's feasible for Britain to be steered towards a long-run population of 100 million plus, at least in the sense of there being physical room here, and for the UK to stay above Japan's of radical changes its creation would require might even undermine the extent to which this new kind of UK might be considered "British" in the sense we currently understand or feel it.

Beard's "ordinary" alternative suggests a kind of petering out or giving up. There are Remain supporters who have a rather negative outlook for any prospect of an independent Britain and many of them are in the camp that the UK's day is done, but at least some of them see the prospect of Britain becoming a more enthusiastically integrated EU member as a positive, proactive approach - forging something new and exciting and powerful. A USofE that again might not be a superpower but at least guarantees Europeans a top-table seat. But as well as the issue of whether that's merely replacing one outdated nationalism with an alternative, wider and less coherent one, I think it's also subject to the "what would be the point?" question. There are small and medium sized countries out there that do not claim to be global players, and are comfortable not even trying to be, but which on the level of the individual human being are doing very well for themselves indeed.

My guess is that the general public's preferred course is somewhere in between "All-out Powerhouse UK" and "let's just give up and leave it to the big boys to sort the world's problems out". History seems to create some expectation that Britain should be doing something with itself, but people aren't massively up for Britain throwing its weight around with tangled wars far away, nor for the kind of demographic and environmental changes necessary to pursue greater long-term population and power.

Given our NATO and UN Security Council membership we cannot just sit out global affairs even if we wanted to

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.

Biden-Buttigieg?

Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.

Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.

Wrong, very wrong.

Sanders is the second choice for 32% of Biden voters, compared to just 11% for Harris and 10% for O'Rourke.

Sanders is also the second choice for 21% of O'Rourke voters, and 14% of Harris voters, only Buttigieg voters do not have Sanders in their top 3 second choices (preferring Biden, Harris and O'Rourke instead).


https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/

You also forget Sanders got 60% in the 2016 Democratic Party New Hampshire primary and 49.6% in Iowa.


There is also very little to distinguish Buttigieg's policies from Hillary's

Sanders got those vote shares because his opponent was Hillary Clinton. He was in a two horse race: don't like Hillary, there's... there's... there's...

Errr. Bernie.

Hillary was a dreadful candidate, who wasn't even liked by her own party. That's why Bernie did so well.

Those Biden voters who you think will break for Bernie, well they might. But most of them have never seen Buttigieg or Yang or Hickenlooper yet.

Look at the Ashcroft polling last week, 57% of Democratic voters want more liberal, progressive candidates, only 28% want more moderate, centrist candidates. Democrats picked a centrist last time and lost, they are not going to pick a candidate rehashing Hillary's policies, they want their own Corbyn and they will vote for Sanders to get it.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/04/the-battle-lines-for-2020-what-my-polling-says-about-the-next-presidential-election/

Hickelooper or Buttigieg ie Hillary 2.0 in policy terms are not what the Democratic base wants at the moment, indeed Hickenlooper is just a Democratic version of Kasich in 2016

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.

Biden-Buttigieg?

Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.

Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.

Is it still winner takes all in these primaries?

Nope. It's all proportional.

Which means a contested convention is possible to probable. Which is another reason why Sanders won't be the nominee.

Why? O'Rourke delegates, Warren delegates, some Biden delegates will all transfer to Sanders, at this moment Sanders is the likely nominee

LOL!

Sanders IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. This means there will be enormous pressure from the DNC for delegates not to switch to Sanders. So, sure, if he's on 45% of the delegate count he *might* win a contested convention. But on 20% of them, not a chance.

Sanders already got 43% of the Democratic vote in 2016 and 1865 delegates out of 4763

Yes. Because he was in a two horse race with Hillary Clinton.

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.

Biden-Buttigieg?

Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.

Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.

Wrong, very wrong.

Sanders is the second choice for 32% of Biden voters, compared to just 11% for Harris and 10% for O'Rourke.

Sanders is also the second choice for 21% of O'Rourke voters, and 14% of Harris voters, only Buttigieg voters do not have Sanders in their top 3 second choices (preferring Biden, Harris and O'Rourke instead).


https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/

You also forget Sanders got 60% in the 2016 Democratic Party New Hampshire primary and 49.6% in Iowa.


There is also very little to distinguish Buttigieg's policies from Hillary's

Sanders got those vote shares because his opponent was Hillary Clinton. He was in a two horse race: don't like Hillary, there's... there's... there's...

Errr. Bernie.

Hillary was a dreadful candidate, who wasn't even liked by her own party. That's why Bernie did so well.

Those Biden voters who you think will break for Bernie, well they might. But most of them have never seen Buttigieg or Yang or Hickenlooper yet.

Look at the Ashcroft polling last week, 57% of Democratic voters want more liberal, progressive candidates, only 28% want more moderate, centrist candidates. Democrats picked a centrist last time and lost, they are not going to pick a candidate rehashing Hillary's policies, they want their own Corbyn and they will vote for Sanders to get it.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/04/the-battle-lines-for-2020-what-my-polling-says-about-the-next-presidential-election/

Hickelooper or Buttigieg ie Hillary 2.0 in policy terms are not what the Democratic base wants at the moment, indeed Hickenlooper is just a Democratic version of Kasich in 2016

You've decided that Buttigieg has Clinton policies based on... errr.. errr...

Buttigieg has - like almost all political winners in history - avoided detailing his exact policies. Winners are those are a blank slate, onto which voters can project their own policies. Being likeable and vague wins more votes than being dislikeable and specific*.

* Hillary was dislikeable and specific.

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

Loads of US news sources saying Biden will announce on Wednesday.

Biden-Buttigieg?

Biden is Hillary to Obama's Buttigieg.

Sanders is the 20% kid. He'll get 20% in Iowa. He'll get 20% in New Hampshire. But his problem is that he won't get the transfers, and while a fifth of the votes might make you tier one in the first few contests, it'll make you an irrelevancy further on in the process.

Wrong, very wrong.

Sanders is the second choice for 32% of Biden voters, compared to just 11% es from Hillary's

Sanders got those vote shares because his opponent was Hillary Clinton. He was in a two horse race: don't like Hillary, there's... there's... there's...

Errr. Bernie.

Hillary was a dreadful candidate, who wasn't even liked by her own party. That's why Bernie did so well.

Those Biden voters who you think will break for Bernie, well they might. But most of them have never seen Buttigieg or Yang or Hickenlooper yet.

Look at the Ashcroft polling last week, 57% of Democratic voters want more liberal, progressive candidates, only 28% want more moderate, centrist candidates. Democrats picked a centrist last time and lost, they are not going to pick a candidate rehashing Hillary's policies, they want their own Corbyn and they will vote for Sanders to get it.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/04/the-battle-lines-for-2020-what-my-polling-says-about-the-next-presidential-election/

Hickelooper or Buttigieg ie Hillary 2.0 in policy terms are not what the Democratic base wants at the moment, indeed Hickenlooper is just a Democratic version of Kasich in 2016

You've decided that Buttigieg has Clinton policies based on... errr.. errr...

Buttigieg has - like almost all political winners in history - avoided detailing his exact policies. Winners are those are a blank slate, onto which voters can project their own policies. Being likeable and vague wins more votes than being dislikeable and specific*.

* Hillary was dislikeable and specific.

Buttigieg is not going to win over the blue collar voters the Democrats need in the swing states to beat Trump, as a VP prospect or in 5 years time once Trump has left the scene he might be worth looking at but not now if the Democrats want to try and win in 2020

Dura_Ace said:

rcs1000 said:

France and India have working aircraft carriers (and we don't). Russia has a sort of, occasionally working aircraft carrier.

The Kuznetsov is dead and Russian carrier capability has gone with it. Some drunk bastard sunk the floating dry dock it was in at Murmansk which damaged the ship badly. The Russian Navy does not have the funds to repair what was already a floating shit box and have given up on it.

Scratch "has" and replace with "had".