Howdy, Stranger!

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

A Tribute Act – politicalbetting.com

13468914

Comments

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,093
    Scott_xP said:

    "By the end of '23, we will see spades in the ground..." Truss says (re infrastructure projects)

    Meanwhile, a fair chunk of her MPs think the only hole in the ground she's currently digging is their political graves.


    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1576688758220820480

    She is about to cancel HS2. There's no bigger spade nor one more actually in the ground.

  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,288

    Scott_xP said:

    Liz gets a whoop for economic growth at the 1922 @ConHome reception

    “We haven’t made enough Conservative arguments for the past few years… the city is a good thing”
    https://twitter.com/TaliFraser/status/1576687446242512896/photo/1

    Tweet's been deleted
    Gordon Gekko lives in Number 10...
    This entire government appears to be based on a mis-hearing of the Wall Street classic.

    Gekko said "greed is good". But this lot seem to have mis-heard it as "Greed is god".
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,145
    Andy_JS said:

    Does anyone understand the logic of this tweet?

    "Maria Caulfield MP
    @mariacaulfield

    As a working class Tory I have no problem with bankers bonus removal as it is not tax payers money but I can’t support the 45p tax removal when nurses are struggling to pay their bills. #constiuentsfirst . If Tory party @JakeBerry don’t want this working class MP, fair enough
    10:00 PM · Oct 2, 2022"

    https://twitter.com/mariacaulfield/status/1576678505332383744

    At a wild guess, she's saying "I am not a complete psychopath and therefore understand that big tax giveaways to the rich when we can't be arsed to give nurses a decent pay rise is not a good look." The last part is, of course, a middle finger extended at a party hierarch for threats to withdraw the whip.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,472
    Scott_xP said:

    It's remarkable.

    They seem to be acting as if the last week didn't happen. Truss is master of all she surveys, Kwasi is a genius, and all is going to plan.

    I guess they're hoping that, now the initial shock has passed, opponents will gradually accommodate themselves to the new reality.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916
    edited October 2
    ping said:

    If it ends up Lula 49.9% and goes to a second round, I recon the betfair odds will still be 1/2 vs 2/1

    What a bonkers betting market.

    Fair value would have been 1/15 vs 15/1 all along.

    Bolsonaro on 47.9% currently doing better than the 46% he got in 2018 in the first round and almost exactly matches Trump's 2016 and 2020 voteshares.

    However only 17% in and more Lula favoured urban areas to report
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,112
    🚨I’m ahead of the Tories in the polls.

    https://twitter.com/CountBinface/status/1575919319657201674
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,093
    Scott_xP said:
    I see she is slagging off the last 12 years of...checks notes... tory government, yet again.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,112
    'Row about ditching the top rate engulfs the Tory party once more as it gathers for its annual conference in Birmingham' https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/10/02/liz-truss-dares-defuse-gordon-browns-tax-time-bomb-could-yet/
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,112

    Scott_xP said:
    I see she is slagging off the last 12 years of...checks notes... tory government, yet again.
    That she served in...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,003

    Scott_xP said:

    It's remarkable.

    They seem to be acting as if the last week didn't happen. Truss is master of all she surveys, Kwasi is a genius, and all is going to plan.

    I guess they're hoping that, now the initial shock has passed, opponents will gradually accommodate themselves to the new reality.
    They are at the Wile E Coyote point of having run of the cliff, but not yet realised there’s nothing below their feet.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    ping said:

    If it ends up Lula 49.9% and goes to a second round, I recon the betfair odds will still be 1/2 vs 2/1

    What a bonkers betting market.

    Fair value would have been 1/15 vs 15/1 all along.

    Massive differences is different betting markets. PredictIt has been much closer to true odds. In Brazil Bolsonaro was favourite!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,112
    The party is not going to remove the whip from people who oppose parts of the Growth Plan *because there are too many of them*. The government would no longer command a majority in the House. The threats are toothless
    https://twitter.com/GavinBarwell/status/1576691063607021568
    https://twitter.com/kitty_donaldson/status/1576688217193033730
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,476
    ...
    Scott_xP said:

    🚨I’m ahead of the Tories in the polls.

    https://twitter.com/CountBinface/status/1575919319657201674

    Well his economic manifesto probably makes more sense.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,093
    kyf_100 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Liz gets a whoop for economic growth at the 1922 @ConHome reception

    “We haven’t made enough Conservative arguments for the past few years… the city is a good thing”
    https://twitter.com/TaliFraser/status/1576687446242512896/photo/1

    Tweet's been deleted
    Gordon Gekko lives in Number 10...
    This entire government appears to be based on a mis-hearing of the Wall Street classic.

    Gekko said "greed is good". But this lot seem to have mis-heard it as "Greed is god".
    She worships free markets right up until the moment free markets tell her the plan is risible and bonkers, then they become lefty activist hedge fund hippies.

    So Truss is not even consistent.

    I doubt Hayek would be impressed.

  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,145
    Scott_xP said:

    It's remarkable.

    They seem to be acting as if the last week didn't happen. Truss is master of all she surveys, Kwasi is a genius, and all is going to plan.

    Do we think there are enough Tory MPs who are ashamed/terrified of the new management, and are either intent on retiring from Parliament or convinced that they are doomed, who might now be prepared simply to quit the party and vote with Labour to bring the Government down?

    The speed with which MPs are moving to openly defy the new Prime Minister's economic agenda is quite remarkable.
  • DoubleCarpetDoubleCarpet Posts: 516
    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    If it ends up Lula 49.9% and goes to a second round, I recon the betfair odds will still be 1/2 vs 2/1

    What a bonkers betting market.

    Fair value would have been 1/15 vs 15/1 all along.

    Bolsonaro on 47.9% currently doing better than the 46% he got in 2018 in the first round and almost exactly matches Trump's 2016 and 2020 voteshares.

    However only 17% in and more Lula favoured urban areas to report
    Federal District (Brasilia) is 86.6% counted, Bolsonaro is on 51.6%, down from 58.4% in Round 1 2018.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,093
    Scott_xP said:

    🚨I’m ahead of the Tories in the polls.

    https://twitter.com/CountBinface/status/1575919319657201674

    Bus pass Elvis not far behind.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,297
    Scott_xP said:

    The party is not going to remove the whip from people who oppose parts of the Growth Plan *because there are too many of them*. The government would no longer command a majority in the House. The threats are toothless
    https://twitter.com/GavinBarwell/status/1576691063607021568
    https://twitter.com/kitty_donaldson/status/1576688217193033730

    It's not exactly easy to oppose the Growth Plan. As no details have been outlined
  • So Liz Truss has almost certainly lost the Red Wall then. Conservatism is specifically the opposite of what they want.

    So where does a majority come from? Cameron approach but that's middle of the road, can someone educate me?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,112
    pigeon said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It's remarkable.

    They seem to be acting as if the last week didn't happen. Truss is master of all she surveys, Kwasi is a genius, and all is going to plan.

    Do we think there are enough Tory MPs who are ashamed/terrified of the new management, and are either intent on retiring from Parliament or convinced that they are doomed, who might now be prepared simply to quit the party and vote with Labour to bring the Government down?

    The speed with which MPs are moving to openly defy the new Prime Minister's economic agenda is quite remarkable.
    I think they would rather defenestrate their leader than force an election, but I think there might be enough of them to do that
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,493
    pigeon said:

    Yokes said:

    Sean_F said:

    kyf_100 said:

    pigeon said:

    Yokes said:

    Jonathan said:

    If Putin is close to defeat, is now the time to offer him something if we think he might go postal planet killer?

    Not sure what. I guess that’s the trouble.

    No, because the odds on him going nuclear are still fairly long. 1. People within his own coterie will seek to stop him and 2. I believe the US when they have said they will do a very large retaliation, which will, in effect end Russias ability to win this. And if they lose, Putin is likely done anyway.

    In short even if he did, if the West sticks to that stance, Putin is finished
    FWIW, a report in the Graun quotes General Petraeus (the ex-CIA director and senior American general) suggesting that NATO would respond to the use of tactical nuclear weapons by wiping out the Russian occupation forces in Ukraine and sinking the Black Sea fleet.

    Besides which, a resort to nuclear weapons is the one atrocity so grave that the United States could use it as a wedge to separate China and India from Putin. In particular, if I were in Biden's place I'd be having conversations with Xi in such circumstances along the lines of (a) trade with Russia or trade with us, you can't have both; and then, if that doesn't force him to drop Putin like a red hot stove, (b) you back this shit using nuclear weapons to wage a war of conquest, and we'll both recognise Taiwanese independence and extend our own nuclear umbrella over the island. You will never, ever get it back.

    Putin knows that there are a few lines he can't cross without triggering total economic isolation and the consequent collapse of the Russian economy, and so will all his cronies. If he wants to survive defeat then his best option isn't to resort to the indiscriminate use of WMDs, it's to draw up a long list of internal enemies on whom to blame the Russian army's failures and have them all arrested and tried for treason. Evidence of corruption on the part of almost every soldier above the rank of corporal shouldn't be hard to find for starters.
    The Russians using even a single battlefield nuke will trigger mass panic in the west. Shelves cleared of tinned food, fighting in the aisles over the last roll of andrex. The markets will shit themselves. Like what happened last week - cascading margin calls - only much, much worse, and it will be much harder (and costlier) for the government to step in to stabilise things.

    Meanwhile, a conventional reply by NATO forces - wiping out Russian positions in Ukraine, Black Sea Fleet, etc, could potentially lead to a deadly escalation. It could, for example, make ordinary Russian soldiers in the chain of command more likely to agree to an order from Putin to use strategic nukes, as they feel as if they are responding to NATO aggression. It could also lead to a deadly miscalculation - Russian radar sees a dozen conventional missiles approaching, mistakes them for a nuclear first strike, responds in kind.

    "Strange game. The only winning move is not to play." That is the rational answer. The question is, is Putin rational? The other questions are: would his orders be followed, and what state is the Russian nuclear arsenal in? Questions I don't particularly want to find out the answers to. All I know is, this has the potential to escalate from here, very fast.
    The events of the past seven months have demonstrated that Western peoples are not pathetic cowards who will let the Russians roll over Ukraine for fear of their living standards being adversely affected.

    Putin is fucked, and there is nothing he can do about it now.
    Just a minor correction: The events of the past seven months have demonstrated that Western peoples (except for the German political establishment) are not pathetic cowards who will let the Russians roll over Ukraine for fear of their living standards being adversely affected.
    Just a major correction, it is neither pathetic, nor cowardice, to question the extent to which Britain should sacrifice the wellbeing of its own subjects in the cause of beating the Russians back from Kherson or Lyshansk. I suspect the same moralising arguments were used against contemporaries who questioned Richard the Lionheart emptying England's coffers to get the Saracens out of the Holy Land.
    The "faraway land, of which we know nothing" argument only holds any conceivable attraction if you believe that the conquest of Ukraine would represent Tsar Vlad's "final territorial demand."

    It's entirely reasonable to assume that the despot wants to absorb the whole of Europe east of Berlin directly into the Russian Empire, and reduce the rest of us to terrified, quivering satellites. It's the kind of bloke he is. The earlier we stop him in his tracks by insisting that he doesn't devour the neighbours, the better.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but if the collective West had acted decisively against Russia in 2014 then the situation would be a great deal less dangerous than it is now.
    I don't think that's a logical assumption at all. I think he wanted Ukraine to be a terrified quivering satellite, and he wants, in general, Russia to be surrounded by a buffer of terrified quivering satellites. It's not a nice, or a very justifiable doctrine, but it is at least a clear and unambiguous one.

    We (by which I mean America, 'we' have little to do with it) decided that Ukraine was going to be a Western satellite not a Russian one. It's dressed in language about Ukraine being a free democracy, but Victoria Nuland on tape deciding who the Ukrainian President is going to be doesn't smack much of a free democracy to me - nor could it ever really be. In such a strategic hotspot. Ukraine is always going to have a sponsor.

    Now, if America wants to support Ukraine to join the EU/NATO as a thorn in Russia's side, and Ukraine wants that too (as it now seems to) it is free to do that, and it is not wrong morally to do it, but if Russia has a clear and inviolable doctrine of being surrounded by terrified quivering satellites, and we know that, we can hardly claim to be 100% surprised by Russia doing what it has done. Nor should we invent some story about Putin's mad desire to drive a cavalcade of Trabants up the Mall to accept the surrender of the King, because he's never given the slightest indication of that.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,789
    Scott_xP said:

    It's remarkable.

    They seem to be acting as if the last week didn't happen. Truss is master of all she surveys, Kwasi is a genius, and all is going to plan.

    One of the consistent stories of Truss is that she simply ignores inputs that go against what she wants to believe.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,122
    edited October 2

    Cyclefree - Here's hoping your Eldest Son recovers quickly -- and completely. (What with long COVID, I feel I have to add the "completely".)

    Thank you. And I hope you get properly well too.

    Cyclefree said:

    In all the stress and upset a nice gesture

    In the street where my son and his family live a large bucket of apples lies at a neighbours gate

    Anyone passing can help themselves to an apple or two, and the neighbour just keeps filling the bucket from her apple trees

    We really do need happy stories

    We do that here. And we often get back jam and cider made from the apples and plums. Fruit that is too damaged gets fed to the turkeys being fattened for Xmas by a local.

    Anyway, Eldest Son has caught Covid. Bugger! A bad cough, shivering and cold.

    I and my brother are the only ones in the family not to have caught it.
    I find it almost impossible to believe that you (or indeed anyone) hasn’t had it by now. You may well have had a very mild dose and not thought anything of it?
    I've not had so much as a cold. I have to avoid lung infections so I tend to monitor this pretty carefully. And I have been pretty good at living like a hermit for the last few years + my children, bless them, have been very good at protecting me

    You may be right of course. I was with my Italian cousin In December/January 2019/early 2020 and did have a sore throat which took a while to shake off.I did wonder later if I might have caught it then.

    Anyway I do find it hard to hear of my children being ill and not being there to help them. Goes against all my instincts.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,093
    Martin Wolf: "“These people are mad, bad and dangerous. They have to go.”

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,493
    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The party is not going to remove the whip from people who oppose parts of the Growth Plan *because there are too many of them*. The government would no longer command a majority in the House. The threats are toothless
    https://twitter.com/GavinBarwell/status/1576691063607021568
    https://twitter.com/kitty_donaldson/status/1576688217193033730

    It's not exactly easy to oppose the Growth Plan. As no details have been outlined
    Lack of knowledge about something has never been a bar to peoples' screaming opposition to it, or have you never read PB?
  • pingping Posts: 3,177
    Lula 1.55
    Bols 2.8
  • I am going to ask again: why is Truss going to go? Where do the numbers for another Tory leadership contest come from?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,297

    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The party is not going to remove the whip from people who oppose parts of the Growth Plan *because there are too many of them*. The government would no longer command a majority in the House. The threats are toothless
    https://twitter.com/GavinBarwell/status/1576691063607021568
    https://twitter.com/kitty_donaldson/status/1576688217193033730

    It's not exactly easy to oppose the Growth Plan. As no details have been outlined
    Lack of knowledge about something has never been a bar to peoples' screaming opposition to it, or have you never read PB?
    I'm sure it's just super.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,437

    kyf_100 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Liz gets a whoop for economic growth at the 1922 @ConHome reception

    “We haven’t made enough Conservative arguments for the past few years… the city is a good thing”
    https://twitter.com/TaliFraser/status/1576687446242512896/photo/1

    Tweet's been deleted
    Gordon Gekko lives in Number 10...
    This entire government appears to be based on a mis-hearing of the Wall Street classic.

    Gekko said "greed is good". But this lot seem to have mis-heard it as "Greed is god".
    She worships free markets right up until the moment free markets tell her the plan is risible and bonkers, then they become lefty activist hedge fund hippies.

    So Truss is not even consistent.

    I doubt Hayek would be impressed.

    Hayek would be DEPRESSED at seeing his ideas parodied and discredited, in such cack-handed, clueless fashion.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,944
    edited October 2
    HYUFD said:

    ping said:

    If it ends up Lula 49.9% and goes to a second round, I recon the betfair odds will still be 1/2 vs 2/1

    What a bonkers betting market.

    Fair value would have been 1/15 vs 15/1 all along.

    Bolsonaro on 47.9% currently doing better than the 46% he got in 2018 in the first round and almost exactly matches Trump's 2016 and 2020 voteshares.

    However only 17% in and more Lula favoured urban areas to report
    20 million people live in Rio and Sao Paulo. A lot of votes to come.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,093

    So Liz Truss has almost certainly lost the Red Wall then. Conservatism is specifically the opposite of what they want.

    So where does a majority come from? Cameron approach but that's middle of the road, can someone educate me?

    There is no majority.

    The GE 2024/5 was lost on Friday 23rd September and there is nothing now they can do other than stem the losses to a one term recovery rather than three.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916

    So Liz Truss has almost certainly lost the Red Wall then. Conservatism is specifically the opposite of what they want.

    So where does a majority come from? Cameron approach but that's middle of the road, can someone educate me?

    More to the point libertarianism is not want the redwall wants, the redwall is quite socially conservative on backing immigration controls etc
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,934
    Scott_xP said:
    Would you be able to conduct a thought experiment?

    I would like you to imagine that you don't particularly care about Brexit one way or the other. What kind of economic and taxation policies would you like to see?

    I know that in the past you said Labour was the party "most likely to piss my hard earned taxes up the wall or spend on them workshy scroungers", so I imagine you might like lower taxes? Perhaps when you think about it you might actually agree with Liz Truss that there haven't been "enough conservative arguments for the last few years".
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,403
    Scott_xP said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Does anyone understand the logic of this tweet?

    "Maria Caulfield MP
    @mariacaulfield

    As a working class Tory I have no problem with bankers bonus removal as it is not tax payers money but I can’t support the 45p tax removal when nurses are struggling to pay their bills. #constiuentsfirst . If Tory party @JakeBerry don’t want this working class MP, fair enough
    10:00 PM · Oct 2, 2022"

    https://twitter.com/mariacaulfield/status/1576678505332383744

    She is saying she will quit the party instead of voting for it
    I'm out of the country at the moment so have only been picking up snippets.

    But did I hear correctly that the Chief Whip (or similar) was at a party with the Chancellor for a bunch of Tory Party donors to celebrate the top rate tax cut and the removal of the caps on bankers bonuses?

    If so shouldn't both of them be sacked for appalling vulgarity if not for something more serious?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508
    eek said:

    It seems the cost of the energy bail out is going to be used to reduce the increase to the benefits of workers//

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1576684772130422785

    6% rather than 9.9% will be offered...

    Correct me where I misunderstand, but we are borrowing an awful lot of money to protect households from energy bill crisis - this was the good news Truss toured the studios with last week, RCS posted advert where they are boasting how much GDP the scheme actually costs - but some of the very poorest and needy won’t even get the benefit of it, as what they are given with one hand will largely be taken away by another? Really? 😢
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,200
    pigeon said:

    darkage said:

    pigeon said:

    Leon said:

    PeterM said:
    This is a deeply malevolent regime probably in its death throes. Listen to the lack of enthusiasm

    Young Russians LIKE the West. They like the consumer goods, the internet, the media, the holidays in Spain, Italy, Turkey, the Maldives, and the elite like the flats in London, the villas in Provence, the jobs in California

    I have never met a Russian, rich or poor, who has ever expressed a desire for "Holy War" against the West. It is insane. Most of them personally *feel* Western , as compared to being Muslim or Chinese
    OTOH there's precious little evidence of Russian opposition to the programme of imperial conquest and brutalisation in Ukraine. It's not just that most of the protest inside the country looks suspiciously like moaning about forced conscriptions rather than the actual morality of the exercise; it's that there is precious little dissent being voiced outside of the country, amongst people who are both entirely free to speak and too unimportant to be pursued by FSB hit squads with glow in the dark teabags. A couple of out-of-favour oligarchs and Pussy Riot does not a mass movement make.

    The Russian population, collectively, is either indifferent to the suffering its Government inflicts upon its neighbours or actively approves. The main objections to Putin's campaigns aren't the result of their perceived immorality, but of their incompetent execution and its consequences.
    My sense is that the pro western Russians are essentially in an impossible position. There is nothing they can do because a majority of Russians support Putin. They've already tried protesting against the regime and the regime outwitted them. All they can do is make some kind of accommodation with the regime. But now things have taken a turn for the worse and they are basically being rounded up and sent off to Ukraine to be cannon fodder in the most brutal, deranged sense. So you can see why a lot of them are fleeing. I am personally very sympathetic, I think they should be accepted as refugees.
    The Poles, Balts and Finns all seem to have drawn the conclusion that most of the Russians running away are draft dodging to save their necks, rather than seeking political asylum. I sympathise with their arguments.

    There's no advantage to Europe in taking in destabilising quantities of young Russian men who are completely OK with Putin's savagery, but just don't want to be exposed to any physical risks themselves. Let them be packed off to Ukraine and take their chances - they've always got the option of surrendering to Ukrainian captivity if they don't want to fight.
    But the Ukranian men who fled the country at the start of the war were also 'draft dodging'. We aren't forcing them to go back to Ukraine to go and join the army, even though the Ukranian government has ordered them to return. And they are the people who we need to actually win the war. If everyone left Ukraine, then no progress would ever be made with the war.

    Given that we welcomed in these 'deserters', I think we should be a lot more sympathetic to the Russian draft dodgers. It isn't that easy to just be conscripted in the Russian Army and then surrender to Ukraine, a lot of these people are going to end up getting killed.
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 752

    Scott_xP said:

    "By the end of '23, we will see spades in the ground..." Truss says (re infrastructure projects)

    Meanwhile, a fair chunk of her MPs think the only hole in the ground she's currently digging is their political graves.


    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1576688758220820480

    She is about to cancel HS2. There's no bigger spade nor one more actually in the ground.

    Truss must want the Tories to get a shellacking in the West Midlands County. They'll be struggling to hold Sutton Coldfield way things are going.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,145

    pigeon said:

    Yokes said:

    Sean_F said:

    kyf_100 said:

    pigeon said:

    Yokes said:

    Jonathan said:

    If Putin is close to defeat, is now the time to offer him something if we think he might go postal planet killer?

    Not sure what. I guess that’s the trouble.

    No, because the odds on him going nuclear are still fairly long. 1. People within his own coterie will seek to stop him and 2. I believe the US when they have said they will do a very large retaliation, which will, in effect end Russias ability to win this. And if they lose, Putin is likely done anyway.

    In short even if he did, if the West sticks to that stance, Putin is finished
    FWIW, a report in the Graun quotes General Petraeus (the ex-CIA director and senior American general) suggesting that NATO would respond to the use of tactical nuclear weapons by wiping out the Russian occupation forces in Ukraine and sinking the Black Sea fleet.

    Besides which, a resort to nuclear weapons is the one atrocity so grave that the United States could use it as a wedge to separate China and India from Putin. In particular, if I were in Biden's place I'd be having conversations with Xi in such circumstances along the lines of (a) trade with Russia or trade with us, you can't have both; and then, if that doesn't force him to drop Putin like a red hot stove, (b) you back this shit using nuclear weapons to wage a war of conquest, and we'll both recognise Taiwanese independence and extend our own nuclear umbrella over the island. You will never, ever get it back.

    Putin knows that there are a few lines he can't cross without triggering total economic isolation and the consequent collapse of the Russian economy, and so will all his cronies. If he wants to survive defeat then his best option isn't to resort to the indiscriminate use of WMDs, it's to draw up a long list of internal enemies on whom to blame the Russian army's failures and have them all arrested and tried for treason. Evidence of corruption on the part of almost every soldier above the rank of corporal shouldn't be hard to find for starters.
    The Russians using even a single battlefield nuke will trigger mass panic in the west. Shelves cleared of tinned food, fighting in the aisles over the last roll of andrex. The markets will shit themselves. Like what happened last week - cascading margin calls - only much, much worse, and it will be much harder (and costlier) for the government to step in to stabilise things.

    Meanwhile, a conventional reply by NATO forces - wiping out Russian positions in Ukraine, Black Sea Fleet, etc, could potentially lead to a deadly escalation. It could, for example, make ordinary Russian soldiers in the chain of command more likely to agree to an order from Putin to use strategic nukes, as they feel as if they are responding to NATO aggression. It could also lead to a deadly miscalculation - Russian radar sees a dozen conventional missiles approaching, mistakes them for a nuclear first strike, responds in kind.

    "Strange game. The only winning move is not to play." That is the rational answer. The question is, is Putin rational? The other questions are: would his orders be followed, and what state is the Russian nuclear arsenal in? Questions I don't particularly want to find out the answers to. All I know is, this has the potential to escalate from here, very fast.
    The events of the past seven months have demonstrated that Western peoples are not pathetic cowards who will let the Russians roll over Ukraine for fear of their living standards being adversely affected.

    Putin is fucked, and there is nothing he can do about it now.
    Just a minor correction: The events of the past seven months have demonstrated that Western peoples (except for the German political establishment) are not pathetic cowards who will let the Russians roll over Ukraine for fear of their living standards being adversely affected.
    Just a major correction, it is neither pathetic, nor cowardice, to question the extent to which Britain should sacrifice the wellbeing of its own subjects in the cause of beating the Russians back from Kherson or Lyshansk. I suspect the same moralising arguments were used against contemporaries who questioned Richard the Lionheart emptying England's coffers to get the Saracens out of the Holy Land.
    The "faraway land, of which we know nothing" argument only holds any conceivable attraction if you believe that the conquest of Ukraine would represent Tsar Vlad's "final territorial demand."

    It's entirely reasonable to assume that the despot wants to absorb the whole of Europe east of Berlin directly into the Russian Empire, and reduce the rest of us to terrified, quivering satellites. It's the kind of bloke he is. The earlier we stop him in his tracks by insisting that he doesn't devour the neighbours, the better.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but if the collective West had acted decisively against Russia in 2014 then the situation would be a great deal less dangerous than it is now.
    I don't think that's a logical assumption at all. I think he wanted Ukraine to be a terrified quivering satellite, and he wants, in general, Russia to be surrounded by a buffer of terrified quivering satellites. It's not a nice, or a very justifiable doctrine, but it is at least a clear and unambiguous one.

    We (by which I mean America, 'we' have little to do with it) decided that Ukraine was going to be a Western satellite not a Russian one. It's dressed in language about Ukraine being a free democracy, but Victoria Nuland on tape deciding who the Ukrainian President is going to be doesn't smack much of a free democracy to me - nor could it ever really be. In such a strategic hotspot. Ukraine is always going to have a sponsor.

    Now, if America wants to support Ukraine to join the EU/NATO as a thorn in Russia's side, and Ukraine wants that too (as it now seems to) it is free to do that, and it is not wrong morally to do it, but if Russia has a clear and inviolable doctrine of being surrounded by terrified quivering satellites, and we know that, we can hardly claim to be 100% surprised by Russia doing what it has done. Nor should we invent some story about Putin's mad desire to drive a cavalcade of Trabants up the Mall to accept the surrender of the King, because he's never given the slightest indication of that.
    You're stunningly naive. Russia is an empire and Putin and his clique are imperialists. They'll keep inventing justifications to grab more territory until effectively opposed. Ukraine would never have been the end of it - if it had been overrun then Moldova would quickly have followed, and then the next round of sabre rattling would very likely have been over "oppressed" Russian speaking minorities in the Baltic States, or perhaps demands for a land corridor to Kaliningrad, and that situation would've been even worse than the predicament that we're in at the moment.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,093
    HYUFD said:

    So Liz Truss has almost certainly lost the Red Wall then. Conservatism is specifically the opposite of what they want.

    So where does a majority come from? Cameron approach but that's middle of the road, can someone educate me?

    More to the point libertarianism is not want the redwall wants, the redwall is quite socially conservative on backing immigration controls etc
    Matt Goodwin pointed out earlier on twitter that just 6% of voters actually want what is considered libertarianism/one market under god politics.

    The way Truss is going that might well be her total poll at next GE.

    Not that she will be there by then.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,035
    darkage said:

    pigeon said:

    darkage said:

    pigeon said:

    Leon said:

    PeterM said:
    This is a deeply malevolent regime probably in its death throes. Listen to the lack of enthusiasm

    Young Russians LIKE the West. They like the consumer goods, the internet, the media, the holidays in Spain, Italy, Turkey, the Maldives, and the elite like the flats in London, the villas in Provence, the jobs in California

    I have never met a Russian, rich or poor, who has ever expressed a desire for "Holy War" against the West. It is insane. Most of them personally *feel* Western , as compared to being Muslim or Chinese
    OTOH there's precious little evidence of Russian opposition to the programme of imperial conquest and brutalisation in Ukraine. It's not just that most of the protest inside the country looks suspiciously like moaning about forced conscriptions rather than the actual morality of the exercise; it's that there is precious little dissent being voiced outside of the country, amongst people who are both entirely free to speak and too unimportant to be pursued by FSB hit squads with glow in the dark teabags. A couple of out-of-favour oligarchs and Pussy Riot does not a mass movement make.

    The Russian population, collectively, is either indifferent to the suffering its Government inflicts upon its neighbours or actively approves. The main objections to Putin's campaigns aren't the result of their perceived immorality, but of their incompetent execution and its consequences.
    My sense is that the pro western Russians are essentially in an impossible position. There is nothing they can do because a majority of Russians support Putin. They've already tried protesting against the regime and the regime outwitted them. All they can do is make some kind of accommodation with the regime. But now things have taken a turn for the worse and they are basically being rounded up and sent off to Ukraine to be cannon fodder in the most brutal, deranged sense. So you can see why a lot of them are fleeing. I am personally very sympathetic, I think they should be accepted as refugees.
    The Poles, Balts and Finns all seem to have drawn the conclusion that most of the Russians running away are draft dodging to save their necks, rather than seeking political asylum. I sympathise with their arguments.

    There's no advantage to Europe in taking in destabilising quantities of young Russian men who are completely OK with Putin's savagery, but just don't want to be exposed to any physical risks themselves. Let them be packed off to Ukraine and take their chances - they've always got the option of surrendering to Ukrainian captivity if they don't want to fight.
    But the Ukranian men who fled the country at the start of the war were also 'draft dodging'. We aren't forcing them to go back to Ukraine to go and join the army, even though the Ukranian government has ordered them to return. And they are the people who we need to actually win the war. If everyone left Ukraine, then no progress would ever be made with the war.

    Given that we welcomed in these 'deserters', I think we should be a lot more sympathetic to the Russian draft dodgers. It isn't that easy to just be conscripted in the Russian Army and then surrender to Ukraine, a lot of these people are going to end up getting killed.
    Not many Ukrainian men did that, though. The numbers I saw for refugees to EU countries said c. 90% women and kids. This means a few thousand men per country in God knows what conditions.
  • HYUFD said:

    So Liz Truss has almost certainly lost the Red Wall then. Conservatism is specifically the opposite of what they want.

    So where does a majority come from? Cameron approach but that's middle of the road, can someone educate me?

    More to the point libertarianism is not want the redwall wants, the redwall is quite socially conservative on backing immigration controls etc
    Matt Goodwin pointed out earlier on twitter that just 6% of voters actually want what is considered libertarianism/one market under god politics.

    The way Truss is going that might well be her total poll at next GE.

    Not that she will be there by then.
    Who is going to remove her and how? I am failing to see the mechanics of how this will work.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,093

    Scott_xP said:

    "By the end of '23, we will see spades in the ground..." Truss says (re infrastructure projects)

    Meanwhile, a fair chunk of her MPs think the only hole in the ground she's currently digging is their political graves.


    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1576688758220820480

    She is about to cancel HS2. There's no bigger spade nor one more actually in the ground.

    Truss must want the Tories to get a shellacking in the West Midlands County. They'll be struggling to hold Sutton Coldfield way things are going.
    And ironically Midlands was the one region that held up as Boris imploded over parties and lying. He seemed to retain the magic touch there and it was commented on several times by OGH.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,093

    HYUFD said:

    So Liz Truss has almost certainly lost the Red Wall then. Conservatism is specifically the opposite of what they want.

    So where does a majority come from? Cameron approach but that's middle of the road, can someone educate me?

    More to the point libertarianism is not want the redwall wants, the redwall is quite socially conservative on backing immigration controls etc
    Matt Goodwin pointed out earlier on twitter that just 6% of voters actually want what is considered libertarianism/one market under god politics.

    The way Truss is going that might well be her total poll at next GE.

    Not that she will be there by then.
    Who is going to remove her and how? I am failing to see the mechanics of how this will work.
    Tory MPs.

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,631

    eek said:

    It seems the cost of the energy bail out is going to be used to reduce the increase to the benefits of workers//

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1576684772130422785

    6% rather than 9.9% will be offered...

    Correct me where I misunderstand, but we are borrowing an awful lot of money to protect households from energy bill crisis - this was the good news Truss toured the studios with last week, RCS posted advert where they are boasting how much GDP the scheme actually costs - but some of the very poorest and needy won’t even get the benefit of it, as what they are given with one hand will largely be taken away by another? Really? 😢
    The rich need a carrot.
    The poor need a stick.

    It's the Tory way.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,944
    edited October 2

    Scott_xP said:

    "By the end of '23, we will see spades in the ground..." Truss says (re infrastructure projects)

    Meanwhile, a fair chunk of her MPs think the only hole in the ground she's currently digging is their political graves.


    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1576688758220820480

    She is about to cancel HS2. There's no bigger spade nor one more actually in the ground.

    Near where I live a lot of the work has already started and is at an advanced stage of development. Too late to cancel.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,944

    HYUFD said:

    So Liz Truss has almost certainly lost the Red Wall then. Conservatism is specifically the opposite of what they want.

    So where does a majority come from? Cameron approach but that's middle of the road, can someone educate me?

    More to the point libertarianism is not want the redwall wants, the redwall is quite socially conservative on backing immigration controls etc
    Matt Goodwin pointed out earlier on twitter that just 6% of voters actually want what is considered libertarianism/one market under god politics.

    The way Truss is going that might well be her total poll at next GE.

    Not that she will be there by then.
    James Callaghan famously said it's the job of governments to lead the public not follow.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,093

    eek said:

    It seems the cost of the energy bail out is going to be used to reduce the increase to the benefits of workers//

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1576684772130422785

    6% rather than 9.9% will be offered...

    Correct me where I misunderstand, but we are borrowing an awful lot of money to protect households from energy bill crisis - this was the good news Truss toured the studios with last week, RCS posted advert where they are boasting how much GDP the scheme actually costs - but some of the very poorest and needy won’t even get the benefit of it, as what they are given with one hand will largely be taken away by another? Really? 😢
    The rich need a carrot.
    The poor need a stick.

    It's the Tory way.
    It's weaselly nonsense. The ONS iirc have said they wont adjust the headline inflation rate for some aspects of the various energy bailouts as they aren't actually effecting the price e.g. the £400 we got donated through council tax earlier in year. That is a bung to use simple terms or helicopter money, not a direct effect on the price.

    This is now being used by the Truss Tendency to justify not giving the poor the full 10% inflation figure.

    Desperate and evil.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,093
    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Liz Truss has almost certainly lost the Red Wall then. Conservatism is specifically the opposite of what they want.

    So where does a majority come from? Cameron approach but that's middle of the road, can someone educate me?

    More to the point libertarianism is not want the redwall wants, the redwall is quite socially conservative on backing immigration controls etc
    Matt Goodwin pointed out earlier on twitter that just 6% of voters actually want what is considered libertarianism/one market under god politics.

    The way Truss is going that might well be her total poll at next GE.

    Not that she will be there by then.
    James Callaghan famously said it's the job of governments to lead the public not follow.
    How's that leady hopey changey thing going, Liz?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,093
    Andy_JS said:

    Scott_xP said:

    "By the end of '23, we will see spades in the ground..." Truss says (re infrastructure projects)

    Meanwhile, a fair chunk of her MPs think the only hole in the ground she's currently digging is their political graves.


    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1576688758220820480

    She is about to cancel HS2. There's no bigger spade nor one more actually in the ground.

    Near where I live a lot of the work has already started and is at an advanced stage of development. Too late to cancel.
    You would have thought. But anything is possible in the next half hour...
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,789
    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Liz Truss has almost certainly lost the Red Wall then. Conservatism is specifically the opposite of what they want.

    So where does a majority come from? Cameron approach but that's middle of the road, can someone educate me?

    More to the point libertarianism is not want the redwall wants, the redwall is quite socially conservative on backing immigration controls etc
    Matt Goodwin pointed out earlier on twitter that just 6% of voters actually want what is considered libertarianism/one market under god politics.

    The way Truss is going that might well be her total poll at next GE.

    Not that she will be there by then.
    James Callaghan famously said it's the job of governments to lead the public not follow.
    And have recent events made it more likely or less likely that the Great British Public are going to buy into Trussonimics?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,200
    EPG said:

    darkage said:

    pigeon said:

    darkage said:

    pigeon said:

    Leon said:

    PeterM said:
    This is a deeply malevolent regime probably in its death throes. Listen to the lack of enthusiasm

    Young Russians LIKE the West. They like the consumer goods, the internet, the media, the holidays in Spain, Italy, Turkey, the Maldives, and the elite like the flats in London, the villas in Provence, the jobs in California

    I have never met a Russian, rich or poor, who has ever expressed a desire for "Holy War" against the West. It is insane. Most of them personally *feel* Western , as compared to being Muslim or Chinese
    OTOH there's precious little evidence of Russian opposition to the programme of imperial conquest and brutalisation in Ukraine. It's not just that most of the protest inside the country looks suspiciously like moaning about forced conscriptions rather than the actual morality of the exercise; it's that there is precious little dissent being voiced outside of the country, amongst people who are both entirely free to speak and too unimportant to be pursued by FSB hit squads with glow in the dark teabags. A couple of out-of-favour oligarchs and Pussy Riot does not a mass movement make.

    The Russian population, collectively, is either indifferent to the suffering its Government inflicts upon its neighbours or actively approves. The main objections to Putin's campaigns aren't the result of their perceived immorality, but of their incompetent execution and its consequences.
    My sense is that the pro western Russians are essentially in an impossible position. There is nothing they can do because a majority of Russians support Putin. They've already tried protesting against the regime and the regime outwitted them. All they can do is make some kind of accommodation with the regime. But now things have taken a turn for the worse and they are basically being rounded up and sent off to Ukraine to be cannon fodder in the most brutal, deranged sense. So you can see why a lot of them are fleeing. I am personally very sympathetic, I think they should be accepted as refugees.
    The Poles, Balts and Finns all seem to have drawn the conclusion that most of the Russians running away are draft dodging to save their necks, rather than seeking political asylum. I sympathise with their arguments.

    There's no advantage to Europe in taking in destabilising quantities of young Russian men who are completely OK with Putin's savagery, but just don't want to be exposed to any physical risks themselves. Let them be packed off to Ukraine and take their chances - they've always got the option of surrendering to Ukrainian captivity if they don't want to fight.
    But the Ukranian men who fled the country at the start of the war were also 'draft dodging'. We aren't forcing them to go back to Ukraine to go and join the army, even though the Ukranian government has ordered them to return. And they are the people who we need to actually win the war. If everyone left Ukraine, then no progress would ever be made with the war.

    Given that we welcomed in these 'deserters', I think we should be a lot more sympathetic to the Russian draft dodgers. It isn't that easy to just be conscripted in the Russian Army and then surrender to Ukraine, a lot of these people are going to end up getting killed.
    Not many Ukrainian men did that, though. The numbers I saw for refugees to EU countries said c. 90% women and kids. This means a few thousand men per country in God knows what conditions.
    Really? I don't know what the statistics are. But the news articles always refer to men being housed as well as women and children, ie as part of the 'homes for Ukraine' scheme. I'm not condemning anyone though. People always flee wars.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-63061116
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,018
    pigeon said:

    Leon said:

    PeterM said:
    This is a deeply malevolent regime probably in its death throes. Listen to the lack of enthusiasm

    Young Russians LIKE the West. They like the consumer goods, the internet, the media, the holidays in Spain, Italy, Turkey, the Maldives, and the elite like the flats in London, the villas in Provence, the jobs in California

    I have never met a Russian, rich or poor, who has ever expressed a desire for "Holy War" against the West. It is insane. Most of them personally *feel* Western , as compared to being Muslim or Chinese
    OTOH there's precious little evidence of Russian opposition to the programme of imperial conquest and brutalisation in Ukraine. It's not just that most of the protest inside the country looks suspiciously like moaning about forced conscriptions rather than the actual morality of the exercise; it's that there is precious little dissent being voiced outside of the country, amongst people who are both entirely free to speak and too unimportant to be pursued by FSB hit squads with glow in the dark teabags. A couple of out-of-favour oligarchs and Pussy Riot does not a mass movement make.

    The Russian population, collectively, is either indifferent to the suffering its Government inflicts upon its neighbours or actively approves. The main objections to Putin's campaigns aren't the result of their perceived immorality, but of their incompetent execution and its consequences.
    Part of the problem is that many, many Russians haven’t come to terms with Russians actual place in the world.

    Their expectation is the propaganda version of the USSR - mightier than the whole West.

    Imagine a U.K. where the majority want the British Empire back. No, not some BREXIT joke. Re-conquer India and Africa. And think that the locals want us back….

    Some people say that the U.K. hasn’t come to terms with the loss of empire. Russia hasn’t acknowledged they’ve lost their empire, yet. They see the current state as an evil, immoral, temporary blip in their rightful Place In.The Order Of Things.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,934
    Poll - Ireland Thinks / Sunday Independent

    Q: "Would you be prepared to pay increased income tax to fund a United Ireland?"

    No: 52%
    Yes: 35%
    Unsure: 13%

    October 2022


    https://twitter.com/nextirishge/status/1576504700891193344
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 515
    darkage said:

    pigeon said:

    There's no advantage to Europe in taking in destabilising quantities of young Russian men who are completely OK with Putin's savagery, but just don't want to be exposed to any physical risks themselves. Let them be packed off to Ukraine and take their chances - they've always got the option of surrendering to Ukrainian captivity if they don't want to fight.

    But the Ukranian men who fled the country at the start of the war were also 'draft dodging'. We aren't forcing them to go back to Ukraine to go and join the army, even though the Ukranian government has ordered them to return. And they are the people who we need to actually win the war. If everyone left Ukraine, then no progress would ever be made with the war.

    Given that we welcomed in these 'deserters', I think we should be a lot more sympathetic to the Russian draft dodgers. It isn't that easy to just be conscripted in the Russian Army and then surrender to Ukraine, a lot of these people are going to end up getting killed.
    Plus there is a massive amount of ground between "completely OK with Putin's savagery" and "willing to risk themselves and their families in probably pretty futile protests", and I expect a lot of ordinary Russians are in that middle somewhere.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,493
    ...
    Yokes said:

    pigeon said:

    Yokes said:

    Sean_F said:

    kyf_100 said:

    pigeon said:

    Yokes said:

    Jonathan said:

    If Putin is close to defeat, is now the time to offer him something if we think he might go postal planet killer?

    Not sure what. I guess that’s the trouble.

    No, because the odds on him going nuclear are still fairly long. 1. People within his own coterie will seek to stop him and 2. I believe the US when they have said they will do a very large retaliation, which will, in effect end Russias ability to win this. And if they lose, Putin is likely done anyway.

    In short even if he did, if the West sticks to that stance, Putin is finished
    FWIW, a report in the Graun quotes General Petraeus (the ex-CIA director and senior American general) suggesting that NATO would respond to the use of tactical nuclear weapons by wiping out the Russian occupation forces in Ukraine and sinking the Black Sea fleet.

    Besides which, a resort to nuclear weapons is the one atrocity so grave that the United States could use it as a wedge to separate China and India from Putin. In particular, if I were in Biden's place I'd be having conversations with Xi in such circumstances along the lines of (a) trade with Russia or trade with us, you can't have both; and then, if that doesn't force him to drop Putin like a red hot stove, (b) you back this shit using nuclear weapons to wage a war of conquest, and we'll both recognise Taiwanese independence and extend our own nuclear umbrella over the island. You will never, ever get it back.

    Putin knows that there are a few lines he can't cross without triggering total economic isolation and the consequent collapse of the Russian economy, and so will all his cronies. If he wants to survive defeat then his best option isn't to resort to the indiscriminate use of WMDs, it's to draw up a long list of internal enemies on whom to blame the Russian army's failures and have them all arrested and tried for treason. Evidence of corruption on the part of almost every soldier above the rank of corporal shouldn't be hard to find for starters.
    The Russians using even a single battlefield nuke will trigger mass panic in the west. Shelves cleared of tinned food, fighting in the aisles over the last roll of andrex. The markets will shit themselves. Like what happened last week - cascading margin calls - only much, much worse, and it will be much harder (and costlier) for the government to step in to stabilise things.

    Meanwhile, a conventional reply by NATO forces - wiping out Russian positions in Ukraine, Black Sea Fleet, etc, could potentially lead to a deadly escalation. It could, for example, make ordinary Russian soldiers in the chain of command more likely to agree to an order from Putin to use strategic nukes, as they feel as if they are responding to NATO aggression. It could also lead to a deadly miscalculation - Russian radar sees a dozen conventional missiles approaching, mistakes them for a nuclear first strike, responds in kind.

    "Strange game. The only winning move is not to play." That is the rational answer. The question is, is Putin rational? The other questions are: would his orders be followed, and what state is the Russian nuclear arsenal in? Questions I don't particularly want to find out the answers to. All I know is, this has the potential to escalate from here, very fast.
    The events of the past seven months have demonstrated that Western peoples are not pathetic cowards who will let the Russians roll over Ukraine for fear of their living standards being adversely affected.

    Putin is fucked, and there is nothing he can do about it now.
    Just a minor correction: The events of the past seven months have demonstrated that Western peoples (except for the German political establishment) are not pathetic cowards who will let the Russians roll over Ukraine for fear of their living standards being adversely affected.
    Just a major correction, it is neither pathetic, nor cowardice, to question the extent to which Britain should sacrifice the wellbeing of its own subjects in the cause of beating the Russians back from Kherson or Lyshansk. I suspect the same moralising arguments were used against contemporaries who questioned Richard the Lionheart emptying England's coffers to get the Saracens out of the Holy Land.
    The "faraway land, of which we know nothing" argument only holds any conceivable attraction if you believe that the conquest of Ukraine would represent Tsar Vlad's "final territorial demand."

    It's entirely reasonable to assume that the despot wants to absorb the whole of Europe east of Berlin directly into the Russian Empire, and reduce the rest of us to terrified, quivering satellites. It's the kind of bloke he is. The earlier we stop him in his tracks by insisting that he doesn't devour the neighbours, the better.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but if the collective West had acted decisively against Russia in 2014 then the situation would be a great deal less dangerous than it is now.
    I don't think that's a logical assumption at all. I think he wanted Ukraine to be a terrified quivering satellite, and he wants, in general, Russia to be surrounded by a buffer of terrified quivering satellites. It's not a nice, or a very justifiable doctrine, but it is at least a clear and unambiguous one.

    We (by which I mean America, 'we' have little to do with it) decided that Ukraine was going to be a Western satellite not a Russian one. It's dressed in language about Ukraine being a free democracy, but Victoria Nuland on tape deciding who the Ukrainian President is going to be doesn't smack much of a free democracy to me - nor could it ever really be. In such a strategic hotspot. Ukraine is always going to have a sponsor.

    Now, if America wants to support Ukraine to join the EU/NATO as a thorn in Russia's side, and Ukraine wants that too (as it now seems to) it is free to do that, and it is not wrong morally to do it, but if Russia has a clear and inviolable doctrine of being surrounded by terrified quivering satellites, and we know that, we can hardly claim to be 100% surprised by Russia doing what it has done. Nor should we invent some story about Putin's mad desire to drive a cavalcade of Trabants up the Mall to accept the surrender of the King, because he's never given the slightest indication of that.
    I notice your analysis barely mentions the Ukrainian population and government own wishes. They seem to be remarkably up for fighting this war for themselves, not because the USA said so or bercause anyone said so. The West wanted the bad smell to go away whenever Russia went on ist 1st jaunt in 2014 and pretty much sat on its hands. Ukraine fought on. They are not a vassal state of the West, and never were, only one country wanted them to have that status and its Russia.

    Yes, many are up for it (with a small minority in the East fighting with the Russians), but they cannot fight, or even exist as a country, without American sponsorship. So America will always call the tune. I think as a realist, you probably know this. Ukraine has become a battleground between Russia and America, as with many other theatres.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,493
    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Yokes said:

    Sean_F said:

    kyf_100 said:

    pigeon said:

    Yokes said:

    Jonathan said:

    If Putin is close to defeat, is now the time to offer him something if we think he might go postal planet killer?

    Not sure what. I guess that’s the trouble.

    No, because the odds on him going nuclear are still fairly long. 1. People within his own coterie will seek to stop him and 2. I believe the US when they have said they will do a very large retaliation, which will, in effect end Russias ability to win this. And if they lose, Putin is likely done anyway.

    In short even if he did, if the West sticks to that stance, Putin is finished
    FWIW, a report in the Graun quotes General Petraeus (the ex-CIA director and senior American general) suggesting that NATO would respond to the use of tactical nuclear weapons by wiping out the Russian occupation forces in Ukraine and sinking the Black Sea fleet.

    Besides which, a resort to nuclear weapons is the one atrocity so grave that the United States could use it as a wedge to separate China and India from Putin. In particular, if I were in Biden's place I'd be having conversations with Xi in such circumstances along the lines of (a) trade with Russia or trade with us, you can't have both; and then, if that doesn't force him to drop Putin like a red hot stove, (b) you back this shit using nuclear weapons to wage a war of conquest, and we'll both recognise Taiwanese independence and extend our own nuclear umbrella over the island. You will never, ever get it back.

    Putin knows that there are a few lines he can't cross without triggering total economic isolation and the consequent collapse of the Russian economy, and so will all his cronies. If he wants to survive defeat then his best option isn't to resort to the indiscriminate use of WMDs, it's to draw up a long list of internal enemies on whom to blame the Russian army's failures and have them all arrested and tried for treason. Evidence of corruption on the part of almost every soldier above the rank of corporal shouldn't be hard to find for starters.
    The Russians using even a single battlefield nuke will trigger mass panic in the west. Shelves cleared of tinned food, fighting in the aisles over the last roll of andrex. The markets will shit themselves. Like what happened last week - cascading margin calls - only much, much worse, and it will be much harder (and costlier) for the government to step in to stabilise things.

    Meanwhile, a conventional reply by NATO forces - wiping out Russian positions in Ukraine, Black Sea Fleet, etc, could potentially lead to a deadly escalation. It could, for example, make ordinary Russian soldiers in the chain of command more likely to agree to an order from Putin to use strategic nukes, as they feel as if they are responding to NATO aggression. It could also lead to a deadly miscalculation - Russian radar sees a dozen conventional missiles approaching, mistakes them for a nuclear first strike, responds in kind.

    "Strange game. The only winning move is not to play." That is the rational answer. The question is, is Putin rational? The other questions are: would his orders be followed, and what state is the Russian nuclear arsenal in? Questions I don't particularly want to find out the answers to. All I know is, this has the potential to escalate from here, very fast.
    The events of the past seven months have demonstrated that Western peoples are not pathetic cowards who will let the Russians roll over Ukraine for fear of their living standards being adversely affected.

    Putin is fucked, and there is nothing he can do about it now.
    Just a minor correction: The events of the past seven months have demonstrated that Western peoples (except for the German political establishment) are not pathetic cowards who will let the Russians roll over Ukraine for fear of their living standards being adversely affected.
    Just a major correction, it is neither pathetic, nor cowardice, to question the extent to which Britain should sacrifice the wellbeing of its own subjects in the cause of beating the Russians back from Kherson or Lyshansk. I suspect the same moralising arguments were used against contemporaries who questioned Richard the Lionheart emptying England's coffers to get the Saracens out of the Holy Land.
    The "faraway land, of which we know nothing" argument only holds any conceivable attraction if you believe that the conquest of Ukraine would represent Tsar Vlad's "final territorial demand."

    It's entirely reasonable to assume that the despot wants to absorb the whole of Europe east of Berlin directly into the Russian Empire, and reduce the rest of us to terrified, quivering satellites. It's the kind of bloke he is. The earlier we stop him in his tracks by insisting that he doesn't devour the neighbours, the better.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but if the collective West had acted decisively against Russia in 2014 then the situation would be a great deal less dangerous than it is now.
    I don't think that's a logical assumption at all. I think he wanted Ukraine to be a terrified quivering satellite, and he wants, in general, Russia to be surrounded by a buffer of terrified quivering satellites. It's not a nice, or a very justifiable doctrine, but it is at least a clear and unambiguous one.

    We (by which I mean America, 'we' have little to do with it) decided that Ukraine was going to be a Western satellite not a Russian one. It's dressed in language about Ukraine being a free democracy, but Victoria Nuland on tape deciding who the Ukrainian President is going to be doesn't smack much of a free democracy to me - nor could it ever really be. In such a strategic hotspot. Ukraine is always going to have a sponsor.

    Now, if America wants to support Ukraine to join the EU/NATO as a thorn in Russia's side, and Ukraine wants that too (as it now seems to) it is free to do that, and it is not wrong morally to do it, but if Russia has a clear and inviolable doctrine of being surrounded by terrified quivering satellites, and we know that, we can hardly claim to be 100% surprised by Russia doing what it has done. Nor should we invent some story about Putin's mad desire to drive a cavalcade of Trabants up the Mall to accept the surrender of the King, because he's never given the slightest indication of that.
    You're stunningly naive. Russia is an empire and Putin and his clique are imperialists. They'll keep inventing justifications to grab more territory until effectively opposed. Ukraine would never have been the end of it - if it had been overrun then Moldova would quickly have followed, and then the next round of sabre rattling would very likely have been over "oppressed" Russian speaking minorities in the Baltic States, or perhaps demands for a land corridor to Kaliningrad, and that situation would've been even worse than the predicament that we're in at the moment.
    So where does the danger to UK interests start? Even in the fruitiest fantasies of the Russian nationalist crazies, we're not involved. They seem to care so little it's almost offensive.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660

    Dunno if Brazilian exit polls are any cop?


    Not an exit poll, just a regular poll from a couple of weeks ago.
  • pingping Posts: 3,177
    Students from Sharif University are under attack by security forces.
    They don’t hesitate to spill the blood of these bright students who shout “death to the dictator”

    #Mahsa_Amini
    #IranRevolution

    https://twitter.com/AlinejadMasih/status/1576593759483047938/video/1
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,934
    Bolsonaro is ahead with nearly half counted. Presumably the remaining districts are thought to favour Lula?

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2022/oct/02/brazil-election-2022-live-results-bolsonaro-lula-da-silva
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,493

    pigeon said:

    Leon said:

    PeterM said:
    This is a deeply malevolent regime probably in its death throes. Listen to the lack of enthusiasm

    Young Russians LIKE the West. They like the consumer goods, the internet, the media, the holidays in Spain, Italy, Turkey, the Maldives, and the elite like the flats in London, the villas in Provence, the jobs in California

    I have never met a Russian, rich or poor, who has ever expressed a desire for "Holy War" against the West. It is insane. Most of them personally *feel* Western , as compared to being Muslim or Chinese
    OTOH there's precious little evidence of Russian opposition to the programme of imperial conquest and brutalisation in Ukraine. It's not just that most of the protest inside the country looks suspiciously like moaning about forced conscriptions rather than the actual morality of the exercise; it's that there is precious little dissent being voiced outside of the country, amongst people who are both entirely free to speak and too unimportant to be pursued by FSB hit squads with glow in the dark teabags. A couple of out-of-favour oligarchs and Pussy Riot does not a mass movement make.

    The Russian population, collectively, is either indifferent to the suffering its Government inflicts upon its neighbours or actively approves. The main objections to Putin's campaigns aren't the result of their perceived immorality, but of their incompetent execution and its consequences.
    Part of the problem is that many, many Russians haven’t come to terms with Russians actual place in the world.

    Their expectation is the propaganda version of the USSR - mightier than the whole West.

    Imagine a U.K. where the majority want the British Empire back. No, not some BREXIT joke. Re-conquer India and Africa. And think that the locals want us back….

    Some people say that the U.K. hasn’t come to terms with the loss of empire. Russia hasn’t acknowledged they’ve lost their empire, yet. They see the current state as an evil, immoral, temporary blip in their rightful Place In.The Order Of Things.
    You're describing Erdogan in Turkey.
  • BournvilleBournville Posts: 237
    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    So Liz Truss has almost certainly lost the Red Wall then. Conservatism is specifically the opposite of what they want.

    So where does a majority come from? Cameron approach but that's middle of the road, can someone educate me?

    More to the point libertarianism is not want the redwall wants, the redwall is quite socially conservative on backing immigration controls etc
    Matt Goodwin pointed out earlier on twitter that just 6% of voters actually want what is considered libertarianism/one market under god politics.

    The way Truss is going that might well be her total poll at next GE.

    Not that she will be there by then.
    James Callaghan famously said it's the job of governments to lead the public not follow.
    This is completely right - there was a way to sell this to the "Red Wall". If Truss had given a speech outside Downing Street and said some variation of "we're entering an energy crisis, the most efficient way to deal with this is by not taking so much of your money, so we're going to cut the basic rate of tax" she would have been fine. She probably could have gone even further and said "also, we want businesses to expand and pay you more, so we're going to stop the corporation tax increase and cut taxes for wealthy people that live and invest here" and I reckon it could have been saleable.

    How they did it - announcing a bunch of tax cuts without explaining why, and then justifying it by saying they'd cut spending on desperately needed public services - made it impossible to sell to the "Red Wall" and has probably discredited the idea of tax cuts for a generation.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,200
    pm215 said:

    darkage said:

    pigeon said:

    There's no advantage to Europe in taking in destabilising quantities of young Russian men who are completely OK with Putin's savagery, but just don't want to be exposed to any physical risks themselves. Let them be packed off to Ukraine and take their chances - they've always got the option of surrendering to Ukrainian captivity if they don't want to fight.

    But the Ukranian men who fled the country at the start of the war were also 'draft dodging'. We aren't forcing them to go back to Ukraine to go and join the army, even though the Ukranian government has ordered them to return. And they are the people who we need to actually win the war. If everyone left Ukraine, then no progress would ever be made with the war.

    Given that we welcomed in these 'deserters', I think we should be a lot more sympathetic to the Russian draft dodgers. It isn't that easy to just be conscripted in the Russian Army and then surrender to Ukraine, a lot of these people are going to end up getting killed.
    Plus there is a massive amount of ground between "completely OK with Putin's savagery" and "willing to risk themselves and their families in probably pretty futile protests", and I expect a lot of ordinary Russians are in that middle somewhere.
    Thinking back to the Iraq war, I protested against that (lawfully), but then shrugged my shoulders and got on with my life. I would imagine people in Russia are not all that different.

    I acknowledge it is difficult to establish the credibility of people fleeing military service in Russia, but I am just pointing out that we didn't have any such qualms about taking in people from Ukraine.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,018

    TimS said:

    Yokes said:

    Sean_F said:

    kyf_100 said:

    pigeon said:

    Yokes said:

    Jonathan said:

    If Putin is close to defeat, is now the time to offer him something if we think he might go postal planet killer?

    Not sure what. I guess that’s the trouble.

    No, because the odds on him going nuclear are still fairly long. 1. People within his own coterie will seek to stop him and 2. I believe the US when they have said they will do a very large retaliation, which will, in effect end Russias ability to win this. And if they lose, Putin is likely done anyway.

    In short even if he did, if the West sticks to that stance, Putin is finished
    FWIW, a report in the Graun quotes General Petraeus (the ex-CIA director and senior American general) suggesting that NATO would respond to the use of tactical nuclear weapons by wiping out the Russian occupation forces in Ukraine and sinking the Black Sea fleet.

    Besides which, a resort to nuclear weapons is the one atrocity so grave that the United States could use it as a wedge to separate China and India from Putin. In particular, if I were in Biden's place I'd be having conversations with Xi in such circumstances along the lines of (a) trade with Russia or trade with us, you can't have both; and then, if that doesn't force him to drop Putin like a red hot stove, (b) you back this shit using nuclear weapons to wage a war of conquest, and we'll both recognise Taiwanese independence and extend our own nuclear umbrella over the island. You will never, ever get it back.

    Putin knows that there are a few lines he can't cross without triggering total economic isolation and the consequent collapse of the Russian economy, and so will all his cronies. If he wants to survive defeat then his best option isn't to resort to the indiscriminate use of WMDs, it's to draw up a long list of internal enemies on whom to blame the Russian army's failures and have them all arrested and tried for treason. Evidence of corruption on the part of almost every soldier above the rank of corporal shouldn't be hard to find for starters.
    The Russians using even a single battlefield nuke will trigger mass panic in the west. Shelves cleared of tinned food, fighting in the aisles over the last roll of andrex. The markets will shit themselves. Like what happened last week - cascading margin calls - only much, much worse, and it will be much harder (and costlier) for the government to step in to stabilise things.

    Meanwhile, a conventional reply by NATO forces - wiping out Russian positions in Ukraine, Black Sea Fleet, etc, could potentially lead to a deadly escalation. It could, for example, make ordinary Russian soldiers in the chain of command more likely to agree to an order from Putin to use strategic nukes, as they feel as if they are responding to NATO aggression. It could also lead to a deadly miscalculation - Russian radar sees a dozen conventional missiles approaching, mistakes them for a nuclear first strike, responds in kind.

    "Strange game. The only winning move is not to play." That is the rational answer. The question is, is Putin rational? The other questions are: would his orders be followed, and what state is the Russian nuclear arsenal in? Questions I don't particularly want to find out the answers to. All I know is, this has the potential to escalate from here, very fast.
    The events of the past seven months have demonstrated that Western peoples are not pathetic cowards who will let the Russians roll over Ukraine for fear of their living standards being adversely affected.

    Putin is fucked, and there is nothing he can do about it now.
    Just a minor correction: The events of the past seven months have demonstrated that Western peoples (except for the German political establishment) are not pathetic cowards who will let the Russians roll over Ukraine for fear of their living standards being adversely affected.
    Just a major correction, it is neither pathetic, nor cowardice, to question the extent to which Britain should sacrifice the wellbeing of its own subjects in the cause of beating the Russians back from Kherson or Lyshansk. I suspect the same moralising arguments were used against contemporaries who questioned Richard the Lionheart emptying England's coffers to get the Saracens out of the Holy Land.
    Or indeed those who might have questioned Chamberlain emptying Britain’s coffers to get the Nazis out of Poland.

    Our support for Ukraine is a piffling rounding error compared with that.
    Or those who questioned us getting into a national virility competition with the Kaiser - a war which finished us as the pre-eminent world power, and lead to the Nazis in the first place.
    If we had stayed out if the WWI and the Germans had won, then WWII would have happened.

    We know this, because of the explicit statements of German strategists in 1914 that they needed to grab chunks of France and Belgium, so as to be in a good position when they started the next war.

    Imagine Greater Germany in 1930 odd, with the War Is Good, War is God religion still in full swing. Then the scientists at the Kasier Wilhelm Institute for Physics report really, really good news…..
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,347

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    Yokes said:

    Sean_F said:

    kyf_100 said:

    pigeon said:

    Yokes said:

    Jonathan said:

    If Putin is close to defeat, is now the time to offer him something if we think he might go postal planet killer?

    Not sure what. I guess that’s the trouble.

    No, because the odds on him going nuclear are still fairly long. 1. People within his own coterie will seek to stop him and 2. I believe the US when they have said they will do a very large retaliation, which will, in effect end Russias ability to win this. And if they lose, Putin is likely done anyway.

    In short even if he did, if the West sticks to that stance, Putin is finished
    FWIW, a report in the Graun quotes General Petraeus (the ex-CIA director and senior American general) suggesting that NATO would respond to the use of tactical nuclear weapons by wiping out the Russian occupation forces in Ukraine and sinking the Black Sea fleet.

    Besides which, a resort to nuclear weapons is the one atrocity so grave that the United States could use it as a wedge to separate China and India from Putin. In particular, if I were in Biden's place I'd be having conversations with Xi in such circumstances along the lines of (a) trade with Russia or trade with us, you can't have both; and then, if that doesn't force him to drop Putin like a red hot stove, (b) you back this shit using nuclear weapons to wage a war of conquest, and we'll both recognise Taiwanese independence and extend our own nuclear umbrella over the island. You will never, ever get it back.

    Putin knows that there are a few lines he can't cross without triggering total economic isolation and the consequent collapse of the Russian economy, and so will all his cronies. If he wants to survive defeat then his best option isn't to resort to the indiscriminate use of WMDs, it's to draw up a long list of internal enemies on whom to blame the Russian army's failures and have them all arrested and tried for treason. Evidence of corruption on the part of almost every soldier above the rank of corporal shouldn't be hard to find for starters.
    The Russians using even a single battlefield nuke will trigger mass panic in the west. Shelves cleared of tinned food, fighting in the aisles over the last roll of andrex. The markets will shit themselves. Like what happened last week - cascading margin calls - only much, much worse, and it will be much harder (and costlier) for the government to step in to stabilise things.

    Meanwhile, a conventional reply by NATO forces - wiping out Russian positions in Ukraine, Black Sea Fleet, etc, could potentially lead to a deadly escalation. It could, for example, make ordinary Russian soldiers in the chain of command more likely to agree to an order from Putin to use strategic nukes, as they feel as if they are responding to NATO aggression. It could also lead to a deadly miscalculation - Russian radar sees a dozen conventional missiles approaching, mistakes them for a nuclear first strike, responds in kind.

    "Strange game. The only winning move is not to play." That is the rational answer. The question is, is Putin rational? The other questions are: would his orders be followed, and what state is the Russian nuclear arsenal in? Questions I don't particularly want to find out the answers to. All I know is, this has the potential to escalate from here, very fast.
    The events of the past seven months have demonstrated that Western peoples are not pathetic cowards who will let the Russians roll over Ukraine for fear of their living standards being adversely affected.

    Putin is fucked, and there is nothing he can do about it now.
    Just a minor correction: The events of the past seven months have demonstrated that Western peoples (except for the German political establishment) are not pathetic cowards who will let the Russians roll over Ukraine for fear of their living standards being adversely affected.
    Just a major correction, it is neither pathetic, nor cowardice, to question the extent to which Britain should sacrifice the wellbeing of its own subjects in the cause of beating the Russians back from Kherson or Lyshansk. I suspect the same moralising arguments were used against contemporaries who questioned Richard the Lionheart emptying England's coffers to get the Saracens out of the Holy Land.
    The "faraway land, of which we know nothing" argument only holds any conceivable attraction if you believe that the conquest of Ukraine would represent Tsar Vlad's "final territorial demand."

    It's entirely reasonable to assume that the despot wants to absorb the whole of Europe east of Berlin directly into the Russian Empire, and reduce the rest of us to terrified, quivering satellites. It's the kind of bloke he is. The earlier we stop him in his tracks by insisting that he doesn't devour the neighbours, the better.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but if the collective West had acted decisively against Russia in 2014 then the situation would be a great deal less dangerous than it is now.
    I don't think that's a logical assumption at all. I think he wanted Ukraine to be a terrified quivering satellite, and he wants, in general, Russia to be surrounded by a buffer of terrified quivering satellites. It's not a nice, or a very justifiable doctrine, but it is at least a clear and unambiguous one.

    We (by which I mean America, 'we' have little to do with it) decided that Ukraine was going to be a Western satellite not a Russian one. It's dressed in language about Ukraine being a free democracy, but Victoria Nuland on tape deciding who the Ukrainian President is going to be doesn't smack much of a free democracy to me - nor could it ever really be. In such a strategic hotspot. Ukraine is always going to have a sponsor.

    Now, if America wants to support Ukraine to join the EU/NATO as a thorn in Russia's side, and Ukraine wants that too (as it now seems to) it is free to do that, and it is not wrong morally to do it, but if Russia has a clear and inviolable doctrine of being surrounded by terrified quivering satellites, and we know that, we can hardly claim to be 100% surprised by Russia doing what it has done. Nor should we invent some story about Putin's mad desire to drive a cavalcade of Trabants up the Mall to accept the surrender of the King, because he's never given the slightest indication of that.
    You're stunningly naive. Russia is an empire and Putin and his clique are imperialists. They'll keep inventing justifications to grab more territory until effectively opposed. Ukraine would never have been the end of it - if it had been overrun then Moldova would quickly have followed, and then the next round of sabre rattling would very likely have been over "oppressed" Russian speaking minorities in the Baltic States, or perhaps demands for a land corridor to Kaliningrad, and that situation would've been even worse than the predicament that we're in at the moment.
    So where does the danger to UK interests start? Even in the fruitiest fantasies of the Russian nationalist crazies, we're not involved. They seem to care so little it's almost offensive.
    Well I’m not a fan of multiple poisonings on British soil. That’s a clear danger to our interests. For a start.
  • pingping Posts: 3,177
    edited October 2
    Lula 1.42
    Bols 3.35

    Liquidity much thinner than earlier in the night.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,934
    @andrew_lilico
    A real go-for-broke option here would be to render the entire current debate irrelevant by having a major income tax reform. Ditch the entire current structure & have 2 rates, 25p & 50p, with no tapers or clawbacks, & set the thresholds to raise about the same overall as now.


    https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1576698583327608832
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,944
  • pingping Posts: 3,177
    edited October 2
    Andy_JS said:
    If it stays like this, then yes the pollsters fked up. But the expectation is Lula will pull ahead considerably with the remaining votes. We’ll see if so, and how far.

    I’d be surprised to see a polling error of more than 5% points.

    Fascinating election!
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 11,225
    edited October 2

    pigeon said:

    Leon said:

    PeterM said:
    This is a deeply malevolent regime probably in its death throes. Listen to the lack of enthusiasm

    Young Russians LIKE the West. They like the consumer goods, the internet, the media, the holidays in Spain, Italy, Turkey, the Maldives, and the elite like the flats in London, the villas in Provence, the jobs in California

    I have never met a Russian, rich or poor, who has ever expressed a desire for "Holy War" against the West. It is insane. Most of them personally *feel* Western , as compared to being Muslim or Chinese
    OTOH there's precious little evidence of Russian opposition to the programme of imperial conquest and brutalisation in Ukraine. It's not just that most of the protest inside the country looks suspiciously like moaning about forced conscriptions rather than the actual morality of the exercise; it's that there is precious little dissent being voiced outside of the country, amongst people who are both entirely free to speak and too unimportant to be pursued by FSB hit squads with glow in the dark teabags. A couple of out-of-favour oligarchs and Pussy Riot does not a mass movement make.

    The Russian population, collectively, is either indifferent to the suffering its Government inflicts upon its neighbours or actively approves. The main objections to Putin's campaigns aren't the result of their perceived immorality, but of their incompetent execution and its consequences.
    Part of the problem is that many, many Russians haven’t come to terms with Russians actual place in the world.

    Their expectation is the propaganda version of the USSR - mightier than the whole West.

    Imagine a U.K. where the majority want the British Empire back. No, not some BREXIT joke. Re-conquer India and Africa. And think that the locals want us back….

    Some people say that the U.K. hasn’t come to terms with the loss of empire. Russia hasn’t acknowledged they’ve lost their empire, yet. They see the current state as an evil, immoral, temporary blip in their rightful Place In.The Order Of Things.
    When were the Russians ever top of the European pecking order? Haven't they tended to be looked down upon, sneered at even, amongst the European aristocracies? 'Bit peasanty, no?'

    I recall the line from the Waste Land: 'Bin gar keine Russin, stamm aus Litauen, echt Deutsch.' [I'm not a Russian, I come from Lithuania, true German.] It smacks of snobbery, of course, and the assumption that Russians are somehow at the bottom of the pile.

    It must breed a sense of inferiority and a desperate desire to show the world that you are better than that. The fact that Putin is rendering the stereotype true would be lost on loyal Russians who get their truth from Pravda. They'll sup up any narrative that puts them at top table, or attribute their failures to wicked conspiracies in Western capitals.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,018
    darkage said:

    pigeon said:

    darkage said:

    pigeon said:

    Leon said:

    PeterM said:
    This is a deeply malevolent regime probably in its death throes. Listen to the lack of enthusiasm

    Young Russians LIKE the West. They like the consumer goods, the internet, the media, the holidays in Spain, Italy, Turkey, the Maldives, and the elite like the flats in London, the villas in Provence, the jobs in California

    I have never met a Russian, rich or poor, who has ever expressed a desire for "Holy War" against the West. It is insane. Most of them personally *feel* Western , as compared to being Muslim or Chinese
    OTOH there's precious little evidence of Russian opposition to the programme of imperial conquest and brutalisation in Ukraine. It's not just that most of the protest inside the country looks suspiciously like moaning about forced conscriptions rather than the actual morality of the exercise; it's that there is precious little dissent being voiced outside of the country, amongst people who are both entirely free to speak and too unimportant to be pursued by FSB hit squads with glow in the dark teabags. A couple of out-of-favour oligarchs and Pussy Riot does not a mass movement make.

    The Russian population, collectively, is either indifferent to the suffering its Government inflicts upon its neighbours or actively approves. The main objections to Putin's campaigns aren't the result of their perceived immorality, but of their incompetent execution and its consequences.
    My sense is that the pro western Russians are essentially in an impossible position. There is nothing they can do because a majority of Russians support Putin. They've already tried protesting against the regime and the regime outwitted them. All they can do is make some kind of accommodation with the regime. But now things have taken a turn for the worse and they are basically being rounded up and sent off to Ukraine to be cannon fodder in the most brutal, deranged sense. So you can see why a lot of them are fleeing. I am personally very sympathetic, I think they should be accepted as refugees.
    The Poles, Balts and Finns all seem to have drawn the conclusion that most of the Russians running away are draft dodging to save their necks, rather than seeking political asylum. I sympathise with their arguments.

    There's no advantage to Europe in taking in destabilising quantities of young Russian men who are completely OK with Putin's savagery, but just don't want to be exposed to any physical risks themselves. Let them be packed off to Ukraine and take their chances - they've always got the option of surrendering to Ukrainian captivity if they don't want to fight.
    But the Ukranian men who fled the country at the start of the war were also 'draft dodging'. We aren't forcing them to go back to Ukraine to go and join the army, even though the Ukranian government has ordered them to return. And they are the people who we need to actually win the war. If everyone left Ukraine, then no progress would ever be made with the war.

    Given that we welcomed in these 'deserters', I think we should be a lot more sympathetic to the Russian draft dodgers. It isn't that easy to just be conscripted in the Russian Army and then surrender to Ukraine, a lot of these people are going to end up getting killed.
    The number of men of military age among the Ukrainian refugees is remarkably tiny.
  • DoubleCarpetDoubleCarpet Posts: 516
    edited October 2
    ping said:

    Andy_JS said:
    If it stays like this, then yes the pollsters fked up. But the expectation is Lula will pull ahead considerably with the remaining votes. We’ll see if so, and how far.

    I’d be surprised to see a polling error of more than 5% points.

    Fascinating election!
    So the count is clearly trending towards Lula but Bolsonaro's vote has held up well and looks like he will finish in the 40s, don't think Lula will reach 50%.

    Now 60% in, B 46.0, L 45.2
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,493

    TimS said:

    Yokes said:

    Sean_F said:

    kyf_100 said:

    pigeon said:

    Yokes said:

    Jonathan said:

    If Putin is close to defeat, is now the time to offer him something if we think he might go postal planet killer?

    Not sure what. I guess that’s the trouble.

    No, because the odds on him going nuclear are still fairly long. 1. People within his own coterie will seek to stop him and 2. I believe the US when they have said they will do a very large retaliation, which will, in effect end Russias ability to win this. And if they lose, Putin is likely done anyway.

    In short even if he did, if the West sticks to that stance, Putin is finished
    FWIW, a report in the Graun quotes General Petraeus (the ex-CIA director and senior American general) suggesting that NATO would respond to the use of tactical nuclear weapons by wiping out the Russian occupation forces in Ukraine and sinking the Black Sea fleet.

    Besides which, a resort to nuclear weapons is the one atrocity so grave that the United States could use it as a wedge to separate China and India from Putin. In particular, if I were in Biden's place I'd be having conversations with Xi in such circumstances along the lines of (a) trade with Russia or trade with us, you can't have both; and then, if that doesn't force him to drop Putin like a red hot stove, (b) you back this shit using nuclear weapons to wage a war of conquest, and we'll both recognise Taiwanese independence and extend our own nuclear umbrella over the island. You will never, ever get it back.

    Putin knows that there are a few lines he can't cross without triggering total economic isolation and the consequent collapse of the Russian economy, and so will all his cronies. If he wants to survive defeat then his best option isn't to resort to the indiscriminate use of WMDs, it's to draw up a long list of internal enemies on whom to blame the Russian army's failures and have them all arrested and tried for treason. Evidence of corruption on the part of almost every soldier above the rank of corporal shouldn't be hard to find for starters.
    The Russians using even a single battlefield nuke will trigger mass panic in the west. Shelves cleared of tinned food, fighting in the aisles over the last roll of andrex. The markets will shit themselves. Like what happened last week - cascading margin calls - only much, much worse, and it will be much harder (and costlier) for the government to step in to stabilise things.

    Meanwhile, a conventional reply by NATO forces - wiping out Russian positions in Ukraine, Black Sea Fleet, etc, could potentially lead to a deadly escalation. It could, for example, make ordinary Russian soldiers in the chain of command more likely to agree to an order from Putin to use strategic nukes, as they feel as if they are responding to NATO aggression. It could also lead to a deadly miscalculation - Russian radar sees a dozen conventional missiles approaching, mistakes them for a nuclear first strike, responds in kind.

    "Strange game. The only winning move is not to play." That is the rational answer. The question is, is Putin rational? The other questions are: would his orders be followed, and what state is the Russian nuclear arsenal in? Questions I don't particularly want to find out the answers to. All I know is, this has the potential to escalate from here, very fast.
    The events of the past seven months have demonstrated that Western peoples are not pathetic cowards who will let the Russians roll over Ukraine for fear of their living standards being adversely affected.

    Putin is fucked, and there is nothing he can do about it now.
    Just a minor correction: The events of the past seven months have demonstrated that Western peoples (except for the German political establishment) are not pathetic cowards who will let the Russians roll over Ukraine for fear of their living standards being adversely affected.
    Just a major correction, it is neither pathetic, nor cowardice, to question the extent to which Britain should sacrifice the wellbeing of its own subjects in the cause of beating the Russians back from Kherson or Lyshansk. I suspect the same moralising arguments were used against contemporaries who questioned Richard the Lionheart emptying England's coffers to get the Saracens out of the Holy Land.
    Or indeed those who might have questioned Chamberlain emptying Britain’s coffers to get the Nazis out of Poland.

    Our support for Ukraine is a piffling rounding error compared with that.
    Or those who questioned us getting into a national virility competition with the Kaiser - a war which finished us as the pre-eminent world power, and lead to the Nazis in the first place.
    If we had stayed out if the WWI and the Germans had won, then WWII would have happened.

    We know this, because of the explicit statements of German strategists in 1914 that they needed to grab chunks of France and Belgium, so as to be in a good position when they started the next war.

    Imagine Greater Germany in 1930 odd, with the War Is Good, War is God religion still in full swing. Then the scientists at the Kasier Wilhelm Institute for Physics report really, really good news…..
    He wanted to re-invade America. Can't say I really care.
  • pingping Posts: 3,177
    edited October 2
    Lula 1.37
    Bols 3.65
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 11,225
    Anyway, it's bed time. Gute Nacht everybody.

    Sleep well.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,476
    ...

    Scott_xP said:

    "By the end of '23, we will see spades in the ground..." Truss says (re infrastructure projects)

    Meanwhile, a fair chunk of her MPs think the only hole in the ground she's currently digging is their political graves.


    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1576688758220820480

    She is about to cancel HS2. There's no bigger spade nor one more actually in the ground.

    Truss must want the Tories to get a shellacking in the West Midlands County. They'll be struggling to hold Sutton Coldfield way things are going.
    And ironically Midlands was the one region that held up as Boris imploded over parties and lying. He seemed to retain the magic touch there and it was commented on several times by OGH.
    TV channels were interviewing Maureen and Doreen in West Bromwich yesterday and they seemed fine with Truss. It was Labour they weren't very happy with.

    A moment to contemplate the wisdom of universal suffrage?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,018

    pigeon said:

    Leon said:

    PeterM said:
    This is a deeply malevolent regime probably in its death throes. Listen to the lack of enthusiasm

    Young Russians LIKE the West. They like the consumer goods, the internet, the media, the holidays in Spain, Italy, Turkey, the Maldives, and the elite like the flats in London, the villas in Provence, the jobs in California

    I have never met a Russian, rich or poor, who has ever expressed a desire for "Holy War" against the West. It is insane. Most of them personally *feel* Western , as compared to being Muslim or Chinese
    OTOH there's precious little evidence of Russian opposition to the programme of imperial conquest and brutalisation in Ukraine. It's not just that most of the protest inside the country looks suspiciously like moaning about forced conscriptions rather than the actual morality of the exercise; it's that there is precious little dissent being voiced outside of the country, amongst people who are both entirely free to speak and too unimportant to be pursued by FSB hit squads with glow in the dark teabags. A couple of out-of-favour oligarchs and Pussy Riot does not a mass movement make.

    The Russian population, collectively, is either indifferent to the suffering its Government inflicts upon its neighbours or actively approves. The main objections to Putin's campaigns aren't the result of their perceived immorality, but of their incompetent execution and its consequences.
    Part of the problem is that many, many Russians haven’t come to terms with Russians actual place in the world.

    Their expectation is the propaganda version of the USSR - mightier than the whole West.

    Imagine a U.K. where the majority want the British Empire back. No, not some BREXIT joke. Re-conquer India and Africa. And think that the locals want us back….

    Some people say that the U.K. hasn’t come to terms with the loss of empire. Russia hasn’t acknowledged they’ve lost their empire, yet. They see the current state as an evil, immoral, temporary blip in their rightful Place In.The Order Of Things.
    When were the Russians ever top of the European pecking order? Haven't they tended to be looked down upon, sneered at even, amongst the European aristocracies? 'Bit peasanty, no?'

    I recall the line from the Waste Land: 'Bin gar keine Russin, stamm aus Litauen, echt Deutsch.' [I'm not a Russian, I come from Lithuania, true German.] It smacks of snobbery, of course, and the assumption that Russians are somehow at the bottom of the pile.

    It must breed a sense of inferiority and a desperate desire to show the world that you are better than that. The fact that Putin is rendering the stereotype true would be lost on loyal Russians who get their truth from Pravda. They'll sup up any narrative that puts them at top table, or attribute their failures to wicked conspiracies in Western capitals.
    The internal view of the USSR was

    - We Are The Greatest Empire Ever
    - Morally perfect as well - racism was only for Capitalists etc.
    - The West is decadent, fearful and in awe of Us
    - The minor problems with consumer goods will be fixed soon.

    The external reality wasn’t relevant to this. It only impinges on a tiny minority of Russians who are culturally interested in how others see Russia.

    Putin was bought up with this. He lived in the Great Days. He believes that he is restoring The Order Of Things.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,476

    eek said:

    It seems the cost of the energy bail out is going to be used to reduce the increase to the benefits of workers//

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1576684772130422785

    6% rather than 9.9% will be offered...

    Correct me where I misunderstand, but we are borrowing an awful lot of money to protect households from energy bill crisis - this was the good news Truss toured the studios with last week, RCS posted advert where they are boasting how much GDP the scheme actually costs - but some of the very poorest and needy won’t even get the benefit of it, as what they are given with one hand will largely be taken away by another? Really? 😢
    The rich need a carrot.
    The poor need a stick.

    It's the Tory way.
    It's weaselly nonsense. The ONS iirc have said they wont adjust the headline inflation rate for some aspects of the various energy bailouts as they aren't actually effecting the price e.g. the £400 we got donated through council tax earlier in year. That is a bung to use simple terms or helicopter money, not a direct effect on the price.

    This is now being used by the Truss Tendency to justify not giving the poor the full 10% inflation figure.

    Desperate and evil.

    "The nasty Party" Theresa May (circa 2006).
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,944
    ping said:

    Andy_JS said:
    If it stays like this, then yes the pollsters fked up. But the expectation is Lula will pull ahead considerably with the remaining votes. We’ll see if so, and how far.

    I’d be surprised to see a polling error of more than 5% points.

    Fascinating election!
    I never like to see pollsters getting it wrong.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,018
    edited October 2

    TimS said:

    Yokes said:

    Sean_F said:

    kyf_100 said:

    pigeon said:

    Yokes said:

    Jonathan said:

    If Putin is close to defeat, is now the time to offer him something if we think he might go postal planet killer?

    Not sure what. I guess that’s the trouble.

    No, because the odds on him going nuclear are still fairly long. 1. People within his own coterie will seek to stop him and 2. I believe the US when they have said they will do a very large retaliation, which will, in effect end Russias ability to win this. And if they lose, Putin is likely done anyway.

    In short even if he did, if the West sticks to that stance, Putin is finished
    FWIW, a report in the Graun quotes General Petraeus (the ex-CIA director and senior American general) suggesting that NATO would respond to the use of tactical nuclear weapons by wiping out the Russian occupation forces in Ukraine and sinking the Black Sea fleet.

    Besides which, a resort to nuclear weapons is the one atrocity so grave that the United States could use it as a wedge to separate China and India from Putin. In particular, if I were in Biden's place I'd be having conversations with Xi in such circumstances along the lines of (a) trade with Russia or trade with us, you can't have both; and then, if that doesn't force him to drop Putin like a red hot stove, (b) you back this shit using nuclear weapons to wage a war of conquest, and we'll both recognise Taiwanese independence and extend our own nuclear umbrella over the island. You will never, ever get it back.

    Putin knows that there are a few lines he can't cross without triggering total economic isolation and the consequent collapse of the Russian economy, and so will all his cronies. If he wants to survive defeat then his best option isn't to resort to the indiscriminate use of WMDs, it's to draw up a long list of internal enemies on whom to blame the Russian army's failures and have them all arrested and tried for treason. Evidence of corruption on the part of almost every soldier above the rank of corporal shouldn't be hard to find for starters.
    The Russians using even a single battlefield nuke will trigger mass panic in the west. Shelves cleared of tinned food, fighting in the aisles over the last roll of andrex. The markets will shit themselves. Like what happened last week - cascading margin calls - only much, much worse, and it will be much harder (and costlier) for the government to step in to stabilise things.

    Meanwhile, a conventional reply by NATO forces - wiping out Russian positions in Ukraine, Black Sea Fleet, etc, could potentially lead to a deadly escalation. It could, for example, make ordinary Russian soldiers in the chain of command more likely to agree to an order from Putin to use strategic nukes, as they feel as if they are responding to NATO aggression. It could also lead to a deadly miscalculation - Russian radar sees a dozen conventional missiles approaching, mistakes them for a nuclear first strike, responds in kind.

    "Strange game. The only winning move is not to play." That is the rational answer. The question is, is Putin rational? The other questions are: would his orders be followed, and what state is the Russian nuclear arsenal in? Questions I don't particularly want to find out the answers to. All I know is, this has the potential to escalate from here, very fast.
    The events of the past seven months have demonstrated that Western peoples are not pathetic cowards who will let the Russians roll over Ukraine for fear of their living standards being adversely affected.

    Putin is fucked, and there is nothing he can do about it now.
    Just a minor correction: The events of the past seven months have demonstrated that Western peoples (except for the German political establishment) are not pathetic cowards who will let the Russians roll over Ukraine for fear of their living standards being adversely affected.
    Just a major correction, it is neither pathetic, nor cowardice, to question the extent to which Britain should sacrifice the wellbeing of its own subjects in the cause of beating the Russians back from Kherson or Lyshansk. I suspect the same moralising arguments were used against contemporaries who questioned Richard the Lionheart emptying England's coffers to get the Saracens out of the Holy Land.
    Or indeed those who might have questioned Chamberlain emptying Britain’s coffers to get the Nazis out of Poland.

    Our support for Ukraine is a piffling rounding error compared with that.
    Or those who questioned us getting into a national virility competition with the Kaiser - a war which finished us as the pre-eminent world power, and lead to the Nazis in the first place.
    If we had stayed out if the WWI and the Germans had won, then WWII would have happened.

    We know this, because of the explicit statements of German strategists in 1914 that they needed to grab chunks of France and Belgium, so as to be in a good position when they started the next war.

    Imagine Greater Germany in 1930 odd, with the War Is Good, War is God religion still in full swing. Then the scientists at the Kasier Wilhelm Institute for Physics report really, really good news…..
    He wanted to re-invade America. Can't say I really care.
    The Germans were pretty clear that we were in the way.

    One hysterically funny article, written by a German Admiral of the period, complained that the British accused the Germans of ill intent. In the next paragraph it complained at the unfair scheme of Distant Blockade, which rendered all the German destroyers and cruisers obsolete. Since they had been designed to attack British ships much closer to Germany…
  • YokesYokes Posts: 987

    Poll - Ireland Thinks / Sunday Independent

    Q: "Would you be prepared to pay increased income tax to fund a United Ireland?"

    No: 52%
    Yes: 35%
    Unsure: 13%

    October 2022


    https://twitter.com/nextirishge/status/1576504700891193344

    Well thats the end of that then, because we need a lot of subsidy.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 987

    ...

    Yokes said:

    pigeon said:

    Yokes said:

    Sean_F said:

    kyf_100 said:

    pigeon said:

    Yokes said:

    Jonathan said:

    If Putin is close to defeat, is now the time to offer him something if we think he might go postal planet killer?

    Not sure what. I guess that’s the trouble.

    No, because the odds on him going nuclear are still fairly long. 1. People within his own coterie will seek to stop him and 2. I believe the US when they have said they will do a very large retaliation, which will, in effect end Russias ability to win this. And if they lose, Putin is likely done anyway.

    In short even if he did, if the West sticks to that stance, Putin is finished
    FWIW, a report in the Graun quotes General Petraeus (the ex-CIA director and senior American general) suggesting that NATO would respond to the use of tactical nuclear weapons by wiping out the Russian occupation forces in Ukraine and sinking the Black Sea fleet.

    Besides which, a resort to nuclear weapons is the one atrocity so grave that the United States could use it as a wedge to separate China and India from Putin. In particular, if I were in Biden's place I'd be having conversations with Xi in such circumstances along the lines of (a) trade with Russia or trade with us, you can't have both; and then, if that doesn't force him to drop Putin like a red hot stove, (b) you back this shit using nuclear weapons to wage a war of conquest, and we'll both recognise Taiwanese independence and extend our own nuclear umbrella over the island. You will never, ever get it back.

    Putin knows that there are a few lines he can't cross without triggering total economic isolation and the consequent collapse of the Russian economy, and so will all his cronies. If he wants to survive defeat then his best option isn't to resort to the indiscriminate use of WMDs, it's to draw up a long list of internal enemies on whom to blame the Russian army's failures and have them all arrested and tried for treason. Evidence of corruption on the part of almost every soldier above the rank of corporal shouldn't be hard to find for starters.
    The Russians using even a single battlefield nuke will trigger mass panic in the west. Shelves cleared of tinned food, fighting in the aisles over the last roll of andrex. The markets will shit themselves. Like what happened last week - cascading margin calls - only much, much worse, and it will be much harder (and costlier) for the government to step in to stabilise things.

    Meanwhile, a conventional reply by NATO forces - wiping out Russian positions in Ukraine, Black Sea Fleet, etc, could potentially lead to a deadly escalation. It could, for example, make ordinary Russian soldiers in the chain of command more likely to agree to an order from Putin to use strategic nukes, as they feel as if they are responding to NATO aggression. It could also lead to a deadly miscalculation - Russian radar sees a dozen conventional missiles approaching, mistakes them for a nuclear first strike, responds in kind.

    "Strange game. The only winning move is not to play." That is the rational answer. The question is, is Putin rational? The other questions are: would his orders be followed, and what state is the Russian nuclear arsenal in? Questions I don't particularly want to find out the answers to. All I know is, this has the potential to escalate from here, very fast.
    The events of the past seven months have demonstrated that Western peoples are not pathetic cowards who will let the Russians roll over Ukraine for fear of their living standards being adversely affected.

    Putin is fucked, and there is nothing he can do about it now.
    Just a minor correction: The events of the past seven months have demonstrated that Western peoples (except for the German political establishment) are not pathetic cowards who will let the Russians roll over Ukraine for fear of their living standards being adversely affected.
    Just a major correction, it is neither pathetic, nor cowardice, to question the extent to which Britain should sacrifice the wellbeing of its own subjects in the cause of beating the Russians back from Kherson or Lyshansk. I suspect the same moralising arguments were used against contemporaries who questioned Richard the Lionheart emptying England's coffers to get the Saracens out of the Holy Land.
    The "faraway land, of which we know nothing" argument only holds any conceivable attraction if you believe that the conquest of Ukraine would represent Tsar Vlad's "final territorial demand."

    It's entirely reasonable to assume that the despot wants to absorb the whole of Europe east of Berlin directly into the Russian Empire, and reduce the rest of us to terrified, quivering satellites. It's the kind of bloke he is. The earlier we stop him in his tracks by insisting that he doesn't devour the neighbours, the better.

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but if the collective West had acted decisively against Russia in 2014 then the situation would be a great deal less dangerous than it is now.
    I don't think that's a logical assumption at all. I think he wanted Ukraine to be a terrified quivering satellite, and he wants, in general, Russia to be surrounded by a buffer of terrified quivering satellites. It's not a nice, or a very justifiable doctrine, but it is at least a clear and unambiguous one.

    We (by which I mean America, 'we' have little to do with it) decided that Ukraine was going to be a Western satellite not a Russian one. It's dressed in language about Ukraine being a free democracy, but Victoria Nuland on tape deciding who the Ukrainian President is going to be doesn't smack much of a free democracy to me - nor could it ever really be. In such a strategic hotspot. Ukraine is always going to have a sponsor.

    Now, if America wants to support Ukraine to join the EU/NATO as a thorn in Russia's side, and Ukraine wants that too (as it now seems to) it is free to do that, and it is not wrong morally to do it, but if Russia has a clear and inviolable doctrine of being surrounded by terrified quivering satellites, and we know that, we can hardly claim to be 100% surprised by Russia doing what it has done. Nor should we invent some story about Putin's mad desire to drive a cavalcade of Trabants up the Mall to accept the surrender of the King, because he's never given the slightest indication of that.
    I notice your analysis barely mentions the Ukrainian population and government own wishes. They seem to be remarkably up for fighting this war for themselves, not because the USA said so or bercause anyone said so. The West wanted the bad smell to go away whenever Russia went on ist 1st jaunt in 2014 and pretty much sat on its hands. Ukraine fought on. They are not a vassal state of the West, and never were, only one country wanted them to have that status and its Russia.

    Yes, many are up for it (with a small minority in the East fighting with the Russians), but they cannot fight, or even exist as a country, without American sponsorship. So America will always call the tune. I think as a realist, you probably know this. Ukraine has become a battleground between Russia and America, as with many other theatres.
    So when it had a moderately Russian leaning leader did it exist and survive?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508

    eek said:

    It seems the cost of the energy bail out is going to be used to reduce the increase to the benefits of workers//

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1576684772130422785

    6% rather than 9.9% will be offered...

    Correct me where I misunderstand, but we are borrowing an awful lot of money to protect households from energy bill crisis - this was the good news Truss toured the studios with last week, RCS posted advert where they are boasting how much GDP the scheme actually costs - but some of the very poorest and needy won’t even get the benefit of it, as what they are given with one hand will largely be taken away by another? Really? 😢
    The rich need a carrot.
    The poor need a stick.

    It's the Tory way.
    It's weaselly nonsense. The ONS iirc have said they wont adjust the headline inflation rate for some aspects of the various energy bailouts as they aren't actually effecting the price e.g. the £400 we got donated through council tax earlier in year. That is a bung to use simple terms or helicopter money, not a direct effect on the price.

    This is now being used by the Truss Tendency to justify not giving the poor the full 10% inflation figure.

    Desperate and evil.

    I’m not normally angry, but I suddenly feel so angry 😡
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,551
    If Lula doesn’t make 50% those who self indulgently voted for Tebet and Gomes have only themselves to blame if Bolsonaro embarks on a month of mayhem before the second round vote .



  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,575

    ping said:

    TimS said:

    ping said:

    ping said:

    Lula 1.57
    Bols 2.72

    Is it beginning to look like the strangely confident Bolsonaro camp may have pulled off a shock win? 😕
    I think the polls are broadly right and the betting markets, wrong.

    But we’ll soon find out if in fact it is me that is the idiot. ;)
    Seems to be a similar dynamic to the US where the rural right wing votes come in first. Opposite to Britain.

    Of course that gives Bolsonaro the opportunity to create an arc of hope then betrayal, setting up his followers perfectly for a Jan 6th style coup attempt.
    Hmm. Not sure about that - they have electronic voting, so I’m not sure there’s much read across from our paper-vote elections.

    Are there any sites which show the geographical breakdown of results?
    I have been comparing the results in so far of some states with 2018 totals. I think Lula is going to win the first round by about 10% on that basis.
    resultsdos.tse.jus.br
    That is what gives a breakdown. Sorry I can't post a hyperlink
    Resultados.tsw.jus.br
    Sorry editors it is tse not tsw
    Resultados - predictico flamingo.

    Bolsonaro, homo del vulva, globular pukus,
    Lula, jailbreaky - secondo cumminglingus, breastycino!

    Boutros boutros.
    Cumulonimbus!
  • pingping Posts: 3,177
    edited October 2
    🇧🇷🗳️ As expected, the end of the count is quite violent for Bolsonaro. At this rate, the final gap between the two should be around 4.5 to 5 points - less than expected, but very difficult for the incumbent to make up for. pic.twitter.com/orWP5ef3Ju

    https://twitter.com/mathieugallard/status/1576721757285003265

    (Via Google translate)
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508

    ping said:

    TimS said:

    ping said:

    ping said:

    Lula 1.57
    Bols 2.72

    Is it beginning to look like the strangely confident Bolsonaro camp may have pulled off a shock win? 😕
    I think the polls are broadly right and the betting markets, wrong.

    But we’ll soon find out if in fact it is me that is the idiot. ;)
    Seems to be a similar dynamic to the US where the rural right wing votes come in first. Opposite to Britain.

    Of course that gives Bolsonaro the opportunity to create an arc of hope then betrayal, setting up his followers perfectly for a Jan 6th style coup attempt.
    Hmm. Not sure about that - they have electronic voting, so I’m not sure there’s much read across from our paper-vote elections.

    Are there any sites which show the geographical breakdown of results?
    I have been comparing the results in so far of some states with 2018 totals. I think Lula is going to win the first round by about 10% on that basis.
    resultsdos.tse.jus.br
    That is what gives a breakdown. Sorry I can't post a hyperlink
    Resultados.tsw.jus.br
    Sorry editors it is tse not tsw
    Resultados - predictico flamingo.

    Bolsonaro, homo del vulva, globular pukus,
    Lula, jailbreaky - secondo cumminglingus, breastycino!

    Boutros boutros.
    Cumulonimbus!
    Resultados - predictico flamingo.

    uma chuva de sapos chegando!
    de nada! Brrrrr 🥶

  • pingping Posts: 3,177
    edited October 3
    So, looks like the polls underestimated Bolsonaro, but not by enough for him to get close enough to win.

    The betting markets had this not far wrong.

    Still, the value was on the polls being more right than wrong.

    I don’t regret my bets on Lula. I made a small profit. I can see Lula shortening to 1.24-1.33 ish before the 2nd round, but I’m not going to stay for the ride.

    Now fully unwound my position, all green.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,452
    nico679 said:

    If Lula doesn’t make 50% those who self indulgently voted for Tebet and Gomes have only themselves to blame if Bolsonaro embarks on a month of mayhem before the second round vote .



    IIUC the new guy doesn't take over until the new year with or without the runoff so they've got 3 months of mayhem ahead of them either way...
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,944
    nico679 said:

    If Lula doesn’t make 50% those who self indulgently voted for Tebet and Gomes have only themselves to blame if Bolsonaro embarks on a month of mayhem before the second round vote .



    Isn't Tebet a centre-right candidate?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508
    nico679 said:

    If Lula doesn’t make 50% those who self indulgently voted for Tebet and Gomes have only themselves to blame if Bolsonaro embarks on a month of mayhem before the second round vote .



    Tebet has beaten Gomes. Thronicke, d avilia and Kelmon votes all go to Bolsonaro, Lula could still lose the run off quite comfortably from here. Lula supporters were right to be nervous, the right and centre parties have defied the polls to win this election the only caveat being enough Tebet centre votes breaking for Lula to pip him over the line at the end of the month.

    The drift in Brazilian Politics is clearly rightward, not even an error strewn first term from Balsonaro could stem that.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508
    Andy_JS said:

    nico679 said:

    If Lula doesn’t make 50% those who self indulgently voted for Tebet and Gomes have only themselves to blame if Bolsonaro embarks on a month of mayhem before the second round vote .



    Isn't Tebet a centre-right candidate?
    Yes. She has come third, what her supporters do decides this election in the run off.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,222
    edited October 3
    These noises off about various banks, Credit Suisse and Deutschebank, to be more specific, don't sound good. There could be a financial crisis in the offing, I have a slight worry.

    Then Truss could be saved by talking about a global crisis.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508
    edited October 3

    nico679 said:

    If Lula doesn’t make 50% those who self indulgently voted for Tebet and Gomes have only themselves to blame if Bolsonaro embarks on a month of mayhem before the second round vote .



    Tebet has beaten Gomes. Thronicke, d avilia and Kelmon votes all go to Bolsonaro, Lula could still lose the run off quite comfortably from here. Lula supporters were right to be nervous, the right and centre parties have defied the polls to win this election the only caveat being enough Tebet centre votes breaking for Lula to pip him over the line at the end of the month.

    The drift in Brazilian Politics is clearly rightward, not even an error strewn first term from Balsonaro could stem that.
    Was it also,a mixed night for Lula’s PT in senate?


    Andrew Downie reports for the Guardian from São Paulo:

    Two big Senate wins in the south of Brazil for Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro. In Paraná state, Sergio Moro won election with 33.6% of the votes and in Rio Grande do Sul, Hamilton Mourão, also romped home with 44.3%.

    A former army general, Mourão was Bolsonaro’s vice president, while Moro was the judge who spearheaded the Car Wash investigation that led to the jailing of Lula in 2017.

    Bolsonaro appointed Moro as his justice minister but his image as an anti-corruption crusader was damaged when more senior courts annulled his decision to jail Lula and set the former president free.

    An investigation by The Intercept showed that Moro colluded with prosecutors to prejudice Lula’s defence.

    He tried to run for president but his campaign never got off the ground and after back-and-forth talks with parties in at least two different states he opted to run for Senate in his home state.

    Mourão, meanwhile, defeated veteran PT figure Olivio Dutra, a former governor of Rio Grande do Sul.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 987

    These noises off about various banks, Credit Suisse and Deutschebank, to be more specific, don't sound good. There could be a financial crisis in the offing, I have a slight worry.

    This the Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank stuff?
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,222
    edited October 3
    Yokes said:

    These noises off about various banks, Credit Suisse and Deutschebank, to be more specific, don't sound good. There could be a financial crisis in the offing, I have a slight worry.

    This the Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank stuff?
    https://news.bitcoin.com/trading-like-a-lehman-moment-credit-suisse-deutsche-bank-suffer-from-distressed-valuations-as-the-banks-credit-default-insurance-nears-2008-levels/

    <<Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank, two of the world’s largest banks, are suffering from distressed valuations and the banks’ credit default insurance levels are approaching degrees not seen since 2008.>>

  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508

    Andy_JS said:

    nico679 said:

    If Lula doesn’t make 50% those who self indulgently voted for Tebet and Gomes have only themselves to blame if Bolsonaro embarks on a month of mayhem before the second round vote .



    Isn't Tebet a centre-right candidate?
    Yes. She has come third, what her supporters do decides this election in the run off.
    a first-round win looks out of reach for Lula, which means that he is likely to go head-to-head with Bolsonaro in run-off elections on 30 October.A win for Lula in that round is by no means guaranteed.

    Political economist Filipe Campante:

    https://twitter.com/FilipeCampante/status/1576716930882625536?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1576716930882625536|twgr^57957fb2cd5fca4fbfe8ac4c578504fc50088593|twcon^s1_&amp;ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/oct/03/brazil-elections-2022-jair-bolsonaro-lula-latest-results-live-updates
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508
    ping said:

    So, looks like the polls underestimated Bolsonaro, but not by enough for him to get close enough to win.

    The betting markets had this not far wrong.

    Still, the value was on the polls being more right than wrong.

    I don’t regret my bets on Lula. I made a small profit. I can see Lula shortening to 1.24-1.33 ish before the 2nd round, but I’m not going to stay for the ride.

    Now fully unwound my position, all green.

    “So, looks like the polls underestimated Bolsonaro”

    That statement is spot on. As well as your decision to back out of this completely it looks a very very divided and bitter election 😕

    Here is some analysis of what is happening tonight, via the Associated press.

    It appears increasingly likely neither of the top two candidates in Brazil’s national elections will receive more than 50% of the valid votes, which exclude spoiled and blank ballots, which would mean a second round vote will be scheduled for 30 October.

    “We will most likely have a second round,” said Nara Pavão, who teaches political science at the Federal University of Pernambuco. “The probability of ending the election now (in the first round) is too small.”

    “The far-right has shown great resilience in the presidential and in the state races,” said Carlos Melo, a political science professor at Insper University in São Paulo.

    “It is too soon to go too deep, but this election shows Bolsonaro’s victory in 2018 was not a hiccup,” he added.

    Bolsonaro outperformed in Brazil’s southeast region, which includes populous São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais states, according to Rafael Cortez, who oversees political risk at consultancy Tendencias Consultoria.

    “The polls didn’t capture that growth,” Cortez said.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 987
    edited October 3

    Yokes said:

    These noises off about various banks, Credit Suisse and Deutschebank, to be more specific, don't sound good. There could be a financial crisis in the offing, I have a slight worry.

    This the Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank stuff?
    https://news.bitcoin.com/trading-like-a-lehman-moment-credit-suisse-deutsche-bank-suffer-from-distressed-valuations-as-the-banks-credit-default-insurance-nears-2008-levels/

    <<Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank, two of the world’s largest banks, are suffering from distressed valuations and the banks’ credit default insurance levels are approaching degrees not seen since 2008.>>

    Deutsche hasnt said much but Credit Suisse seems to be confirmed that they are working to calm investors over the weekend, so that, at least, along with what we know from CDS and the ever shrinking share price does suggest its in diffs. Question is, is it fatal and would the Swiss authorities not move to address the fallout?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508
    edited October 3
    With Bolsonaro coming back into play, maybe UK Tories were too quick to write Boris Johnson off?

    Maybe Brazilian election shows us too quick to write Truss off as well - this aspirational, not giving in to the long term decline caused by too much handouts, pride in your country and flag messaging seems successful the world over at the moment.
This discussion has been closed.