A snippet: "What is the probability that Russia will use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine in the next MONTH? Aggregate probability: 0.0859 (8.6%) All probabilities: 0.27, 0.04, 0.02, 0.001, 0.09, 0.08, 0.07"
So those seven 'forecasters' (who are they btw?) think the probbility is between 27% and 0.1%. And these guys have taken the straight average. Right. Highly credible.
This thread is an example of the bleak stupid anti-Musk nihilism on Twitter
"There are a variety of problems with this proposal. There is no reason to think there would be a free and fair vote in areas occupied by Russian forces (as we just saw) and many Ukrainians who lived there were displaced when Russia invaded and wouldn't be able to vote."
It is followed by hundreds of comments telling Musk to shut up, stay in his lane, butt the fuck out, and so on
Sure his proposal is flawed, any proposal will be flawed. What, tho, is the alternative? Not one of these twitter warmongers addresses the very real possibility that Putin is about to drop a nuke. And if he does, what then?
I hinted at it last week but no one picked up on it. It’s what they deem a proportionate response - it would strike at something which Russia is immensely proud of, and regards as being of major strategic importance. But would be conventional in nature.
This. 100x.
I have posted the same.
It is just not true that: "Not one of these twitter warmongers addresses the very real possibility that Putin is about to drop a nuke. And if he does, what then?"
There is bucket loads of analyse from serious mil and diplomatic analysts about "what then".
It’s curious how Leon has gone overnight from gung-ho nuclear escalation to sailing on occasion close to offering Putin pretty much whatever he wants. Threads is indeed a powerful movie.
Clearly you don’t remember his posts from back in 2016
He is TROLLING to get a reaction. Why Dan nobody understand he doesn’t post anything he actually believes.
Average 5 ish degree temperature, they say much warmer than last year but I recall last winter being rather warm?
Last winter was the 15th warmest in the Central England Temperature record, back to 1659. That said, it was marginally colder than the winters of 2007, 2014, 2016 (all-time record warmest) and 2020.
So, although it was in the warmest ~4% of winters in the overall record, it was barely in the warmest third of winters in the last 16 years.
As they tend to span new year shouldn’t we say 14-15 for example.
That was a wet one wasn’t it?
The convention in meteorology is to use the year of the January to refer to the winter as a whole. This is much simpler, and then it also means you can calculate averages for a meteorological year that include a whole winter season, rather than parts of two winter seasons as you would for a calendar year average. So the meteorological year runs from December to November.
A snippet: "What is the probability that Russia will use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine in the next MONTH? Aggregate probability: 0.0859 (8.6%) All probabilities: 0.27, 0.04, 0.02, 0.001, 0.09, 0.08, 0.07"
So those seven 'forecasters' (who are they btw?) think the probbility is between 27% and 0.1%. And these guys have taken the straight average. Right. Highly credible.
It's an interesting thought experiment: is what it is. I've seen this technique used before with some success
Given all that Putin has said, and everything he has done, and the clear signs of desperation in the Russian military - including a very risky mobilisation - there is a non-trivial risk of him exploding a small nuke
8.6% chance over the next month is not outlandishly pessimistic
It’s curious how Leon has gone overnight from gung-ho nuclear escalation to sailing on occasion close to offering Putin pretty much whatever he wants. Threads is indeed a powerful movie.
Get it dubbed into Russian and streamed on the widescreen TV in Shoogu’s dacha.
Supposedly, Reagan became a serious advocate of nuclear disarmament after watching Threads (and The Day After)
If true, that makes it one of the most important movies of all time
Swedish authorities report that the gas leak from the Nord Stream 2 hole in the Swedish Economic Zone is increasing in strength.
It seems as if the Russians are pumping gas into the pipeline.
As long as there is gas, it won’t be possible to get close to investigate.
Do gas leaks cause similar problems to oil leaks?
No
Because gas is lighter than water, it will travel to the surface and dissipate.
Rubbish for global warming, but doesn't fuck up the ocean.
Different if it is flowing from a well as it often has lots of other nasty contaminants with it as well as some heavier hydrocarbons. But I assume what they are pumping through the pipeline has already been processed so will have all of that stuff removed.
A very good point. But the gas has to have been scrubbed long before it reached Nordstream, right? (Or one would assume so.)
Yep absolutely. The only immediate issue with this is going to be hazard to shipping (ships don't float on gassy water, as a number of drilling rigs have unfortunately found out in the past.
See also the Bermuda Triangle and gas releases from dissociating methane hydrate deposits.
Read that New Yorker article, we need to find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
One of those ways might be to assassinate Putin, but there are other ways, that may well be along the lines suggested by Musk.
I happen to think Musk’s intervention very poorly timed. It is really up to the Ukrainians right now, and they don’t need that twit weighing in, but it may indeed come to it that we need to find something Putin can sign up to.
Find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
OK, Russia departs Ukraine, apologises for the invasion, pays reparations, admits they were wrong to invade and begs for forgiveness.
That'd be a start.
Er ok. This is mere virtue signalling, frankly.
Not really, that's how vanquished aggressors are typically treated.
You have a better alternative?
If Putin wants to make peace he has a simple way to do it, depart every inch of Ukraine. Including Crimea and any other territory he has falsely and illegally annexed. Do that, and we have peace.
This is just garbage.
Personally I want the Ukrainians to march on Moscow, but it’s not going to happen.
We need to figure out ways for Putin (or his replacement) to step back.
When the time is right.
For now, it is really down to Ukraine’s ability to push them back as far as they can. Facts on the ground etc.
What's the garbage?
The way to step back is to say that Russia is withdrawing back into Russian territory.
That is the only sustainable way back. Staying in Ukraine's territory means a continuation of war. Going back to Russia, leaving Crimea and the other occupied territories, ends it.
In this, as with everything, you are a purist who cannot cope with shades of grey.
Ukraine may well accept something along the lines of Musk’s suggestion, just as India has accepted partition of Kashmir, and the Koreas accepted division of their country too.
India has most certainly NOT accepted the status quo in Kashmir. It claims the entire territory, including the bits occupied by China. It is still illegal to bring maps into India showing the de facto Indo-Pak border through Kashmir.
Ok, put quote marks around my “accepted”.
It doesn’t change my point though, which is that Barty can virtue signal about insisting on humiliating reparations imposed on Russia by the victors at Versailles-on-Don, but reality is likely to be rather more nuanced.
What makes it likely to be more nuanced? Russia is fucked, their Potemkin military can't win, can't equip their soldiers, has inferior technology and awful logistics.
Ukraine has access to better technology, vastly superior logistics, world class intelligence, an army prepared to fight to protect their homeland and leadership that is competent.
Ukraine can and will win this war, conventionally. No need for a stalemate, let alone a likely one.
However Russia also has the biggest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world. You assume Putin will fight only on conventional terms. He has already made clear he will launch a tactical nuclear weapon if Ukraine tries to push into the 4 regions he has now claimed as Russian.
Ukraine has already liberated most of the country, better to settle for stalemate for the time being than risk nuclear war
Ukraine has attacked Belgorod, actually Russia russia and no nukes happened in response.
Putin wasn't losing badly then. He is now, despite mobilisation. He is out of options
Surely the mobilisation has not led to any effect yet?
Not to say it will have a positive effect, from his point of view, but even with plenty of people rushed to the front it cannot be all that many of those mobilised?
This 'free for all' on policy is only happening because Truss has totally abandoned the manifesto the government was actually elected on.
Abandoned, or now at war with the declinist direction it was taking us?
For a LibDem you seem to take some strange positions.
Not my position. I’m just flagging up what I think this new government is explaining - 97 - 2010 pathetic declinest Labour government, 2010 - last month more pathetic declinist government by… um… it doesn’t matter by who only the policy is completely different at long last , lean mean taxes and state means aspiration, growth, productivity, growth, and a UK and flag you can be proud in once again.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s what they are saying.
97-2007 was a golden age compared to what came after. Time for a change.
You saying you don’t want your taxes back in your family’s housekeeping pot to spend how you wish, you don’t want the idle hooked on state hand outs to find a job, you don’t want growth, you don’t want Aspiration Britain, productivity and growth (and growth, did I mention growth?) you don’t want a UK and flag to be proud of once again? What sort of declinist traitor are you? 😠
PS apologies, forgot to boast about spending 8% of GDP on a market busting hand out, a lot of which goes to those who don’t even need it.
PPS I appreciate the appeal of change once in a while, but you have to accept, every time we have let a Labour government in they have wrecked the economy.
No they haven't. I lived through some. And none have achieved quite this level.
I was only explaining the mind of Liz Truss. Calm down.
Brave but doomed effort, I fear.
Meanwhile in "for freaks sake, read the freaking room" news...
A Conservative Treasury minister and one of Liz Truss’s major campaign donors both said they would like to abolish inheritance tax, as they urged the prime minister to continue with her “politically brave” agenda for wealth creation.
Andrew Griffith, a City minister under Kwasi Kwarteng, said tax was not his policy area but inheritance tax would be his top choice for a tax to abolish.
I thought I had nailed it. It’s hardly the most complicated pitch - much the same as Bolsonaro and Trump, only with fortified air of pretension and a messianic zeal.
Swedish authorities report that the gas leak from the Nord Stream 2 hole in the Swedish Economic Zone is increasing in strength.
It seems as if the Russians are pumping gas into the pipeline.
As long as there is gas, it won’t be possible to get close to investigate.
Do gas leaks cause similar problems to oil leaks?
No
Because gas is lighter than water, it will travel to the surface and dissipate.
Rubbish for global warming, but doesn't fuck up the ocean.
Different if it is flowing from a well as it often has lots of other nasty contaminants with it as well as some heavier hydrocarbons. But I assume what they are pumping through the pipeline has already been processed so will have all of that stuff removed.
A very good point. But the gas has to have been scrubbed long before it reached Nordstream, right? (Or one would assume so.)
Yep absolutely. The only immediate issue with this is going to be hazard to shipping (ships don't float on gassy water, as a number of drilling rigs have unfortunately found out in the past.
See also the Bermuda Triangle and gas releases from dissociating methane hydrate deposits.
This 'free for all' on policy is only happening because Truss has totally abandoned the manifesto the government was actually elected on.
Abandoned, or now at war with the declinist direction it was taking us?
For a LibDem you seem to take some strange positions.
Not my position. I’m just flagging up what I think this new government is explaining - 97 - 2010 pathetic declinest Labour government, 2010 - last month more pathetic declinist government by… um… it doesn’t matter by who only the policy is completely different at long last , lean mean taxes and state means aspiration, growth, productivity, growth, and a UK and flag you can be proud in once again.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s what they are saying.
97-2007 was a golden age compared to what came after. Time for a change.
You saying you don’t want your taxes back in your family’s housekeeping pot to spend how you wish, you don’t want the idle hooked on state hand outs to find a job, you don’t want growth, you don’t want Aspiration Britain, productivity and growth (and growth, did I mention growth?) you don’t want a UK and flag to be proud of once again? What sort of declinist traitor are you? 😠
PS apologies, forgot to boast about spending 8% of GDP on a market busting hand out, a lot of which goes to those who don’t even need it.
PPS I appreciate the appeal of change once in a while, but you have to accept, every time we have let a Labour government in they have wrecked the economy.
No they haven't. I lived through some. And none have achieved quite this level.
I was only explaining the mind of Liz Truss. Calm down.
Brave but doomed effort, I fear.
Meanwhile in "for freaks sake, read the freaking room" news...
A Conservative Treasury minister and one of Liz Truss’s major campaign donors both said they would like to abolish inheritance tax, as they urged the prime minister to continue with her “politically brave” agenda for wealth creation.
Andrew Griffith, a City minister under Kwasi Kwarteng, said tax was not his policy area but inheritance tax would be his top choice for a tax to abolish.
Could explain her big win amongst rich elderly tory members desperate to leave it all to the kids.
"What was it about Liz's plans for death duties that left your children with an extra £300,000 that first attracted you to her?"
Unless they have an estate over £1 million (which even most Tory members don't) they already effectively pay no IHT anyway thanks to Osborne's IHT raising of the IHT threshold on family homes
Worth remembering that the only reason we are talking about nuclear weapons is because Russia is losing on the battlefield.
And that is precisely why the next steps have to be taken with care, we have achieved our main aim which is ensuring most of Ukraine is freed of Russian forces. No point then going too far in provoking Putin given he is clearly unstable and in charge of the world's biggest nuclear missiles arsenal
No HYFUD, our aim is not to ensure 'most' of Ukraine is free. We should be helping Ukraine to be free of all Russian forces, prior to pre-2022 invasion limits (I can accept Crimea, sadly, as a fait accompli).
Let's put it this way. If France invaded England but it only took Kent and some chunks of East Anglia, would we put up with the view that "most of the country is free" and we should sue for peace?
Read that New Yorker article, we need to find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
One of those ways might be to assassinate Putin, but there are other ways, that may well be along the lines suggested by Musk.
I happen to think Musk’s intervention very poorly timed. It is really up to the Ukrainians right now, and they don’t need that twit weighing in, but it may indeed come to it that we need to find something Putin can sign up to.
Find ways that allow Russia to make peace.
OK, Russia departs Ukraine, apologises for the invasion, pays reparations, admits they were wrong to invade and begs for forgiveness.
That'd be a start.
Er ok. This is mere virtue signalling, frankly.
Not really, that's how vanquished aggressors are typically treated.
You have a better alternative?
If Putin wants to make peace he has a simple way to do it, depart every inch of Ukraine. Including Crimea and any other territory he has falsely and illegally annexed. Do that, and we have peace.
This is just garbage.
Personally I want the Ukrainians to march on Moscow, but it’s not going to happen.
We need to figure out ways for Putin (or his replacement) to step back.
When the time is right.
For now, it is really down to Ukraine’s ability to push them back as far as they can. Facts on the ground etc.
What's the garbage?
The way to step back is to say that Russia is withdrawing back into Russian territory.
That is the only sustainable way back. Staying in Ukraine's territory means a continuation of war. Going back to Russia, leaving Crimea and the other occupied territories, ends it.
In this, as with everything, you are a purist who cannot cope with shades of grey.
Ukraine may well accept something along the lines of Musk’s suggestion, just as India has accepted partition of Kashmir, and the Koreas accepted division of their country too.
India has most certainly NOT accepted the status quo in Kashmir. It claims the entire territory, including the bits occupied by China. It is still illegal to bring maps into India showing the de facto Indo-Pak border through Kashmir.
Ok, put quote marks around my “accepted”.
It doesn’t change my point though, which is that Barty can virtue signal about insisting on humiliating reparations imposed on Russia by the victors at Versailles-on-Don, but reality is likely to be rather more nuanced.
What makes it likely to be more nuanced? Russia is fucked, their Potemkin military can't win, can't equip their soldiers, has inferior technology and awful logistics.
Ukraine has access to better technology, vastly superior logistics, world class intelligence, an army prepared to fight to protect their homeland and leadership that is competent.
Ukraine can and will win this war, conventionally. No need for a stalemate, let alone a likely one.
However Russia also has the biggest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world. You assume Putin will fight only on conventional terms. He has already made clear he will launch a tactical nuclear weapon if Ukraine tries to push into the 4 regions he has now claimed as Russian.
Ukraine has already liberated most of the country, better to settle for stalemate for the time being than risk nuclear war
Ukraine has attacked Belgorod, actually Russia russia and no nukes happened in response.
Putin wasn't losing badly then. He is now, despite mobilisation. He is out of options
Surely the mobilisation has not led to any effect yet?
Not to say it will have a positive effect, from his point of view, but even with plenty of people rushed to the front it cannot be all that many of those mobilised?
They ARE being very quickly rushed. Proper cannon fodder stuff
It looks quite possible they won't have enough arms, kit, training, motivation, to make much of a difference
It's important to remember Ukraine is totally mobilised, and has a million men and women under arms. They ARE highly motivated, they are increasingly well trained, and they have NATO weapons
Labour 52% (+6) Conservative 24% (-5) Liberal Democrat 10% (-3) Green 5% (+1) SNP 5% (+2) Reform UK 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 28-29 Sept
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
Whoops
Lead below 30 points.
Conference bounce for Truss?
Why are Lib Dems taking a hammering - they didn’t aid and abet the bad budget! 😠
Libdems the only challengers throughout Blue wall so why don’t they share the Tory slump? Something whiffs about these polls to me, I think they are Mickey Mouse polls, I don’t trust them as being remotely permanent.
There has been ephemeral polling glitches before, Hague wiped out Blair’s lead during Labour conference week one year, voter frustration with not liking being unable to put petrol in car. It was all short lived, polls went straight back to normal a few weeks later.
Without that foundation in fact Lib Dems should not be dropping by a quarter, they should be going up with blue wall voters switching from Tory to them, I refuse to believe these polls are for keeps, I choose to believe it will be back to a Lab lead about 10 in a few weeks and Lib Dems back to 12+. You can’t believe something is for real when its not founded in fact. Do you see what I mean.
Suppose LibDems had a 20% share in every seat. They would get zero seats with a 20% share. Look at the Greens. 5% share, 1 seat.
Suppose LibDems had a 50% share in 50 seats and a 2% share in the other 600 seats. They would get 50 seat with an overall share of just 6%. Look at the SNP. 5% share, 51 seats.
As voters get wiser to tactical voting and Labour becomes more LibDem friendly, I think that LibDem supporters in Labour seats are declaring that they will vote Labour at a General Election, and in Tory/LibDem marginals, Labour supporters are declaring for the LibDems to get the Tories out.
That is why, as a LibDem, I'm pleased to see the national LibDem share remain around 10%. I know it is a LOT higher in Tory/LibDem marginals. So it must be a LOT lower in the many Tory/Labour marginals - which is good news for anti-Tory voters, who are the large majority.
I don’t really want to argue with this thought out piece of Barnesian thinking, but I don’t believe it as much as I want to.
Lib Dems jump from third to win with 30% swings because the people there just can’t make the leap to Labour, so why would they tell pollsters something different right now?
I have my own theory. I think the polls are wrong now for the same reason polls are always wrong, underestimating Trump and Bolsonaro for two recent examples - the pollsters are now struggling for balanced and honest samples, Truss and Tories have a lot more support than shown waiting in the polling station, it’s just hiding off grid now or lying to pollsters out of sense of embarrassment.
One poll today greens up 1 to 5 Lib Dem down 3 to 10? That tells you there’s inherent vice in the poll. I would believe your theory over mine if less of the Tory plunge broke for Labour and more of it to Lib Dem.
You're assuming people move along a left-right axis, so in departing from the Conservatives their natural next stop is the LibDems. Most people don't think in those orderly terms. They think "Tories, god, they've lost the plot, who else is there?" and they see a lot of Starmer and Reeves sounding sensible, and virtually nothing about the LibDems (who were profoundly unlucky to have their conference cancelled), so they say ":Labour". It's not mysterious, or necessarily permanent.
I don’t think that’s entirely right. A lot of moderate Conservative voters don’t see themselves as particularly political and are motivated more by dislike or even fear of a left-wing government than they are by anything positive that the Tories are advocating (partly explaining why negative campaigning from the Tories can be so very effective).
Whilst you’re right that when these Tories become unhappy with what their party is doing - usually when it has put its own political obsessions before common sense - sensible moderate Labourism can tempt some of these people over, there is still a considerable number who would never vote Labour, but would vote LibDem.
I know plenty of super eligible, for some unknown reason still single women in their 40s/50s. They go on tons of online apps to try to find dates and here are some observations they have made:
1. People lie. 2. It's always worth having a (daytime, very public) coffee with someone. 3. There are plenty of women per single men at that age and the men somehow manage to remind the women of that. 4. It is surprising perhaps (I have scrolled with them - not a euphemism) at how few actual "right" men there are when you dissect each one and apply what seemed to me to be reasonable criteria.
The whole dating paradigm has ISTM changed with the internet. As someone sensibly put it:
Before: before you went on a date with someone you knew there was a spark and you then worked out if you had common interests. Now: before you go on a date with someone you know all there is to know about common interests but you don't know whether there is a spark.
Super eligible in your 40s and 50s?
I've mostly posted about how selective women are (and they are a lot more selective than men), but the one thing the data absolutely demonstrates on male fussiness is that men prefer women under 40 (and, tbh, usually under 30), no matter how old they are. Let me repeat that. No matter how old they are.
While there are a myriad of reasons why women reject men - height, looks, status, employment, colour of his hair, whether or not he talks with an accent, god knows... men are almost universally alike in thinking younger = better, presumably for the evolutionary reason of fertility. Bluntly, men are programmed, at a genetic level, to find fertility attractive.
Yes sorry I should have been clearer in providing a definition of "eligible". I was taking it to mean gorgeous, intelligent, sophisticated (at least the ones I know are). But for making babies then not or much, much less "eligible".
Actually your comment made me look up the word eligible and it says "desirable or suitable for a partner in marriage". Nothing about children but I suppose that is taken as read.
Isn’t holy matrimony ordained for the purpose of procreation or however the 1662 put it?
Worth remembering that the only reason we are talking about nuclear weapons is because Russia is losing on the battlefield.
And that is precisely why the next steps have to be taken with care, we have achieved our main aim which is ensuring most of Ukraine is freed of Russian forces. No point then going too far in provoking Putin given he is clearly unstable and in charge of the world's biggest nuclear missiles arsenal
No HYFUD, our aim is not to ensure 'most' of Ukraine is free. We should be helping Ukraine to be free of all Russian forces, prior to pre-2022 invasion limits (I can accept Crimea, sadly, as a fait accompli).
Let's put it this way. If France invaded England but it only took Kent and some chunks of East Anglia, would we put up with the view that "most of the country is free" and we should sue for peace?
Pay them for their trouble if they take east Kent and Essex.
I know plenty of super eligible, for some unknown reason still single women in their 40s/50s. They go on tons of online apps to try to find dates and here are some observations they have made:
1. People lie. 2. It's always worth having a (daytime, very public) coffee with someone. 3. There are plenty of women per single men at that age and the men somehow manage to remind the women of that. 4. It is surprising perhaps (I have scrolled with them - not a euphemism) at how few actual "right" men there are when you dissect each one and apply what seemed to me to be reasonable criteria.
The whole dating paradigm has ISTM changed with the internet. As someone sensibly put it:
Before: before you went on a date with someone you knew there was a spark and you then worked out if you had common interests. Now: before you go on a date with someone you know all there is to know about common interests but you don't know whether there is a spark.
Super eligible in your 40s and 50s?
I've mostly posted about how selective women are (and they are a lot more selective than men), but the one thing the data absolutely demonstrates on male fussiness is that men prefer women under 40 (and, tbh, usually under 30), no matter how old they are. Let me repeat that. No matter how old they are.
While there are a myriad of reasons why women reject men - height, looks, status, employment, colour of his hair, whether or not he talks with an accent, god knows... men are almost universally alike in thinking younger = better, presumably for the evolutionary reason of fertility. Bluntly, men are programmed, at a genetic level, to find fertility attractive.
Yes sorry I should have been clearer in providing a definition of "eligible". I was taking it to mean gorgeous, intelligent, sophisticated (at least the ones I know are). But for making babies then not or much, much less "eligible".
Actually your comment made me look up the word eligible and it says "desirable or suitable for a partner in marriage". Nothing about children but I suppose that is taken as read.
Isn’t holy matrimony ordained for the purpose of procreation or however the 1662 put it?
More power to him, I say, We need to take the threat of Armageddon a lot more seriously. We are close
Giving into Putin might defer Armageddon this time, but it makes it more likely in future.
Better to stand up and a take the chance of being wiped off the planet.
so we ve gone from hide in your houses for 2 years for a disease with a 99% survival rate to risking nuclear apocolypse ....something is slightly awry in your judgement of risk
If you give into nuclear blackmail once, then don't you think there's a teeny-weeny chance that the blackmailer might just blackmail again?
So, we might all get wiped out. That would suck.
But the alternative is that we give into blackmail, and then next time Putin (or Kim Jong-un or whoever) knows we're going to back down. And therefore their incentive to escalate is much greater.
Giving into nuclear blackmail increases the risk of nuclear annihation.
If you - or @Leon - don't realise this, then you are genuinely retarded. And I don't use that word lightly.
Seems like Game Theory 101 to me.
Exactly: the only way to prevent your opponent escalating is to make it clear that you don't worry about the apocalypse.
Because you will rain the other apocalypse on them.
Mutual.
Is Putin suicidal? Who knows? Is the entire chain of command suicidal? I doubt it.
Putin does not have a red button as I understand it. He has a briefcase with some codes that allow him to confirm it is him ordering the use of nukes and then the senior generals get involved.
Which is why it doesn't start with a full strategic first strike.
The order of things goes something like this.
1. Putin orders battlefield nuclear weapon to be fired on a military target, e.g. a military base in Ukraine 2. Nato responds by intervening directly - e.g. its planes launching air strikes on Russian military targets inside Ukraine, blowing up the black sea fleet with cruise missiles, or destroying the Crimea bridge. 3. And here's the important one. This changes the opinion of the chain of command. Nato are now directly attacking Russian targets. So when... ...4 The order to go full strategic nuclear strike comes in, it's much more likely to be obeyed.
This is the problem with escalation. It doesn't start as a full strategic exchange, but that's where it ends up.
Our best course of action is probably to look tough and say we'll get involved militarily, while actually planning devastating sanctions - no Russian citizens allowed in or out of Russia, no trade, completely cut off from banks, the internet, all trade routes, etc - which would of course require China and others to be on side. But completely starving Russia of the spare parts it needs, trade goods it needs, even food it needs, is a better option than military escalation.
I agree that is what we should do. A massive conventional military response leads pretty quickly to all-out nuclear war, and we all die with our eyes melting
Avoid escalation
They should have you at Sandhurst or West Point teaching military theory. You are wasted writing articles on oysters and oddly named wines
Those last eight words weren’t really necessary, back there?
It’s curious how Leon has gone overnight from gung-ho nuclear escalation to sailing on occasion close to offering Putin pretty much whatever he wants. Threads is indeed a powerful movie.
Clearly you don’t remember his posts from back in 2016
He is TROLLING to get a reaction. Why Dan nobody understand he doesn’t post anything he actually believes.
He doesn’t have any real consistent beliefs, beyond some schoolboy bigotry best skipped quickly over, so most of us have already taken that as read. He mostly wants people to set fire to stuff so that he can laugh at the flames.
Worth remembering that the only reason we are talking about nuclear weapons is because Russia is losing on the battlefield.
And that is precisely why the next steps have to be taken with care, we have achieved our main aim which is ensuring most of Ukraine is freed of Russian forces. No point then going too far in provoking Putin given he is clearly unstable and in charge of the world's biggest nuclear missiles arsenal
No HYFUD, our aim is not to ensure 'most' of Ukraine is free. We should be helping Ukraine to be free of all Russian forces, prior to pre-2022 invasion limits (I can accept Crimea, sadly, as a fait accompli).
Let's put it this way. If France invaded England but it only took Kent and some chunks of East Anglia, would we put up with the view that "most of the country is free" and we should sue for peace?
No, our main aim now should be to avoid being wiped out in a nuclear holocaust.
France is also a nuclear weapons power, if say some mad dictator came to power in France and invaded us but we managed to force the French forces back to Kent and patches of East Anglia before the French dictator threatened to use nuclear missiles if we went any further then realpolitik would also force us to stop there and wait.
We had achieved our aim of liberating most of the country, better that than the risk of destroying it with nuclear holocaust.
Though hopefully the fact we had nukes ourselves would have deterred the French from invasion in the first place. Ukraine being told to give up its nukes in the 1990s was clearly one of the biggest diplomatic errors of the 20th century given Russia was keeping its nukes
A bit easier said than done though. What is gained from losing Trussonomics (writing off hope it doesn’t produce results and a late bounce back) is lost by asking the voters to accept the 4th cabinet within a year, and trying to say “but this change in personnel and direction and just about everything is actually what we really believe in.” You think that will help? Of course it won’t! Will still get the mauling on election night.
Nah. The only decision available is wait for Captain Truss to go down with her ship, and relaunch from the opposition front bench.
Worth remembering that the only reason we are talking about nuclear weapons is because Russia is losing on the battlefield.
And that is precisely why the next steps have to be taken with care, we have achieved our main aim which is ensuring most of Ukraine is freed of Russian forces. No point then going too far in provoking Putin given he is clearly unstable and in charge of the world's biggest nuclear missiles arsenal
No HYFUD, our aim is not to ensure 'most' of Ukraine is free. We should be helping Ukraine to be free of all Russian forces, prior to pre-2022 invasion limits (I can accept Crimea, sadly, as a fait accompli).
Let's put it this way. If France invaded England but it only took Kent and some chunks of East Anglia, would we put up with the view that "most of the country is free" and we should sue for peace?
Pay them for their trouble if they take east Kent and Essex.
What a generic comment, that also includes some of the most beautiful parts of the country around Canterbury or the marshes or Saffron Walden and Coggleshall etc
#BREAKING: The Japanese government is warning that North Korea appears to have launched at least one ballistic missile. There's a possibility it's heading toward Japan. The government is urging everyone in the country to take shelter immediately. - NHK
North Korea one of Putin's few allies, concerning and could be a tactic to distract the West
#BREAKING: Japan says North Korea has launched a missile, warns people to seek shelter immediately.
Message running on local TV: "North Korea appears to have launched a missile. Please evacuate to the inside of a building or go to the basement. Target area: Hokkaido"
just seen on talk tv that Putin may be planning a nuclear test on the ukraine border....missiles have reportedly been seen heading for the border
Why would they need to move the missiles to the border (where they could get hit by HIMARS/artillery)?
The whole point about missiles is that you can fire them a long way away from your opponent.
BREAKING: President Putin is set to demonstrate his willingness to use weapons of mass destruction with a nuclear test on Ukraine’s borders, defence sources have warned
Worth remembering that the only reason we are talking about nuclear weapons is because Russia is losing on the battlefield.
And that is precisely why the next steps have to be taken with care, we have achieved our main aim which is ensuring most of Ukraine is freed of Russian forces. No point then going too far in provoking Putin given he is clearly unstable and in charge of the world's biggest nuclear missiles arsenal
No HYFUD, our aim is not to ensure 'most' of Ukraine is free. We should be helping Ukraine to be free of all Russian forces, prior to pre-2022 invasion limits (I can accept Crimea, sadly, as a fait accompli).
Let's put it this way. If France invaded England but it only took Kent and some chunks of East Anglia, would we put up with the view that "most of the country is free" and we should sue for peace?
No, our main aim now should be to avoid being wiped out in a nuclear holocaust.
France is also a nuclear weapons power, if say some mad dictator came to power in France and invaded us but we managed to force the French forces back to Kent and patches of East Anglia before the French dictator threatened to use nuclear missiles if we went any further then realpolitik would also force us to stop there and wait.
We had achieved our aim of liberating most of the country, better that than the risk of destroying it with nuclear holocaust.
Though hopefully the fact we had nukes ourselves would have deterred the French from invasion in the first place. Ukraine being told to give up its nukes in the 1990s was clearly one of the biggest diplomatic errors of the 20th century given Russia was keeping its nukes
So what happens when Putin invades again in another three years, then threatens nukes again? Then when he does the same with the Baltics? Appeasement is madness, and it's always the right wing reactionaries that do it, just as in the 1930s.
Labour 52% (+6) Conservative 24% (-5) Liberal Democrat 10% (-3) Green 5% (+1) SNP 5% (+2) Reform UK 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 28-29 Sept
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
Whoops
Lead below 30 points.
Conference bounce for Truss?
Why are Lib Dems taking a hammering - they didn’t aid and abet the bad budget! 😠
Libdems the only challengers throughout Blue wall so why don’t they share the Tory slump? Something whiffs about these polls to me, I think they are Mickey Mouse polls, I don’t trust them as being remotely permanent.
There has been ephemeral polling glitches before, Hague wiped out Blair’s lead during Labour conference week one year, voter frustration with not liking being unable to put petrol in car. It was all short lived, polls went straight back to normal a few weeks later.
Without that foundation in fact Lib Dems should not be dropping by a quarter, they should be going up with blue wall voters switching from Tory to them, I refuse to believe these polls are for keeps, I choose to believe it will be back to a Lab lead about 10 in a few weeks and Lib Dems back to 12+. You can’t believe something is for real when its not founded in fact. Do you see what I mean.
Suppose LibDems had a 20% share in every seat. They would get zero seats with a 20% share. Look at the Greens. 5% share, 1 seat.
Suppose LibDems had a 50% share in 50 seats and a 2% share in the other 600 seats. They would get 50 seat with an overall share of just 6%. Look at the SNP. 5% share, 51 seats.
As voters get wiser to tactical voting and Labour becomes more LibDem friendly, I think that LibDem supporters in Labour seats are declaring that they will vote Labour at a General Election, and in Tory/LibDem marginals, Labour supporters are declaring for the LibDems to get the Tories out.
That is why, as a LibDem, I'm pleased to see the national LibDem share remain around 10%. I know it is a LOT higher in Tory/LibDem marginals. So it must be a LOT lower in the many Tory/Labour marginals - which is good news for anti-Tory voters, who are the large majority.
I don’t really want to argue with this thought out piece of Barnesian thinking, but I don’t believe it as much as I want to.
Lib Dems jump from third to win with 30% swings because the people there just can’t make the leap to Labour, so why would they tell pollsters something different right now?
I have my own theory. I think the polls are wrong now for the same reason polls are always wrong, underestimating Trump and Bolsonaro for two recent examples - the pollsters are now struggling for balanced and honest samples, Truss and Tories have a lot more support than shown waiting in the polling station, it’s just hiding off grid now or lying to pollsters out of sense of embarrassment.
One poll today greens up 1 to 5 Lib Dem down 3 to 10? That tells you there’s inherent vice in the poll. I would believe your theory over mine if less of the Tory plunge broke for Labour and more of it to Lib Dem.
You're assuming people move along a left-right axis, so in departing from the Conservatives their natural next stop is the LibDems. Most people don't think in those orderly terms. They think "Tories, god, they've lost the plot, who else is there?" and they see a lot of Starmer and Reeves sounding sensible, and virtually nothing about the LibDems (who were profoundly unlucky to have their conference cancelled), so they say ":Labour". It's not mysterious, or necessarily permanent.
I don’t think that’s entirely right. A lot of moderate Conservative voters don’t see themselves as particularly political and are motivated more by dislike or even fear of a left-wing government than they are by anything positive that the Tories are advocating (partly explaining why negative campaigning from the Tories can be so very effective).
Whilst you’re right that when these Tories become unhappy with what their party is doing - usually when it has put its own political obsessions before common sense - sensible moderate Labourism can tempt some of these people over, there is still a considerable number who would never vote Labour, but would vote LibDem.
Like me! I am living proof Nick and Barnsy have called this wrong - did you see Mick and Corbyn on the picket line the other day with all their donkey jacket goons, the Lynch Mob around them? Do you think I could go to a polling station and cast a vote for the party associated with that lot?
Swedish authorities report that the gas leak from the Nord Stream 2 hole in the Swedish Economic Zone is increasing in strength.
It seems as if the Russians are pumping gas into the pipeline.
As long as there is gas, it won’t be possible to get close to investigate.
Do gas leaks cause similar problems to oil leaks?
No
Because gas is lighter than water, it will travel to the surface and dissipate.
Rubbish for global warming, but doesn't fuck up the ocean.
Different if it is flowing from a well as it often has lots of other nasty contaminants with it as well as some heavier hydrocarbons. But I assume what they are pumping through the pipeline has already been processed so will have all of that stuff removed.
A very good point. But the gas has to have been scrubbed long before it reached Nordstream, right? (Or one would assume so.)
Yep absolutely. The only immediate issue with this is going to be hazard to shipping (ships don't float on gassy water, as a number of drilling rigs have unfortunately found out in the past.
See also the Bermuda Triangle and gas releases from dissociating methane hydrate deposits.
Bah! Don’t ruin the Bermuda Triangle!
Driving through Virginia last week, I came across Bermuda Triangle Road.
Labour 52% (+6) Conservative 24% (-5) Liberal Democrat 10% (-3) Green 5% (+1) SNP 5% (+2) Reform UK 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 28-29 Sept
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
Whoops
Lead below 30 points.
Conference bounce for Truss?
Why are Lib Dems taking a hammering - they didn’t aid and abet the bad budget! 😠
Libdems the only challengers throughout Blue wall so why don’t they share the Tory slump? Something whiffs about these polls to me, I think they are Mickey Mouse polls, I don’t trust them as being remotely permanent.
There has been ephemeral polling glitches before, Hague wiped out Blair’s lead during Labour conference week one year, voter frustration with not liking being unable to put petrol in car. It was all short lived, polls went straight back to normal a few weeks later.
Without that foundation in fact Lib Dems should not be dropping by a quarter, they should be going up with blue wall voters switching from Tory to them, I refuse to believe these polls are for keeps, I choose to believe it will be back to a Lab lead about 10 in a few weeks and Lib Dems back to 12+. You can’t believe something is for real when its not founded in fact. Do you see what I mean.
Suppose LibDems had a 20% share in every seat. They would get zero seats with a 20% share. Look at the Greens. 5% share, 1 seat.
Suppose LibDems had a 50% share in 50 seats and a 2% share in the other 600 seats. They would get 50 seat with an overall share of just 6%. Look at the SNP. 5% share, 51 seats.
As voters get wiser to tactical voting and Labour becomes more LibDem friendly, I think that LibDem supporters in Labour seats are declaring that they will vote Labour at a General Election, and in Tory/LibDem marginals, Labour supporters are declaring for the LibDems to get the Tories out.
That is why, as a LibDem, I'm pleased to see the national LibDem share remain around 10%. I know it is a LOT higher in Tory/LibDem marginals. So it must be a LOT lower in the many Tory/Labour marginals - which is good news for anti-Tory voters, who are the large majority.
I don’t really want to argue with this thought out piece of Barnesian thinking, but I don’t believe it as much as I want to.
Lib Dems jump from third to win with 30% swings because the people there just can’t make the leap to Labour, so why would they tell pollsters something different right now?
I have my own theory. I think the polls are wrong now for the same reason polls are always wrong, underestimating Trump and Bolsonaro for two recent examples - the pollsters are now struggling for balanced and honest samples, Truss and Tories have a lot more support than shown waiting in the polling station, it’s just hiding off grid now or lying to pollsters out of sense of embarrassment.
One poll today greens up 1 to 5 Lib Dem down 3 to 10? That tells you there’s inherent vice in the poll. I would believe your theory over mine if less of the Tory plunge broke for Labour and more of it to Lib Dem.
You're assuming people move along a left-right axis, so in departing from the Conservatives their natural next stop is the LibDems. Most people don't think in those orderly terms. They think "Tories, god, they've lost the plot, who else is there?" and they see a lot of Starmer and Reeves sounding sensible, and virtually nothing about the LibDems (who were profoundly unlucky to have their conference cancelled), so they say ":Labour". It's not mysterious, or necessarily permanent.
I don’t think that’s entirely right. A lot of moderate Conservative voters don’t see themselves as particularly political and are motivated more by dislike or even fear of a left-wing government than they are by anything positive that the Tories are advocating (partly explaining why negative campaigning from the Tories can be so very effective).
Whilst you’re right that when these Tories become unhappy with what their party is doing - usually when it has put its own political obsessions before common sense - sensible moderate Labourism can tempt some of these people over, there is still a considerable number who would never vote Labour, but would vote LibDem.
Perhaps, but you're positing that a lot of those 52% are lying or deceiving themselves. I do meet 2019 Tory voters who are prepared to switch to Labour as a sensible alternative, but not the LibDems as they think of them as an unknown quantity. Occam's Razor is that people are currently inclined to vote as they say they are. Doesn't mean they might not recoil at some point. But it's possible that two years of boring Starmerism has actually placed Labour as the centrist alternative in many Tory minds.
Worth remembering that the only reason we are talking about nuclear weapons is because Russia is losing on the battlefield.
And that is precisely why the next steps have to be taken with care, we have achieved our main aim which is ensuring most of Ukraine is freed of Russian forces. No point then going too far in provoking Putin given he is clearly unstable and in charge of the world's biggest nuclear missiles arsenal
No HYFUD, our aim is not to ensure 'most' of Ukraine is free. We should be helping Ukraine to be free of all Russian forces, prior to pre-2022 invasion limits (I can accept Crimea, sadly, as a fait accompli).
Let's put it this way. If France invaded England but it only took Kent and some chunks of East Anglia, would we put up with the view that "most of the country is free" and we should sue for peace?
No, our main aim now should be to avoid being wiped out in a nuclear holocaust.
France is also a nuclear weapons power, if say some mad dictator came to power in France and invaded us but we managed to force the French forces back to Kent and patches of East Anglia before the French dictator threatened to use nuclear missiles if we went any further then realpolitik would also force us to stop there and wait.
We had achieved our aim of liberating most of the country, better that than the risk of destroying it with nuclear holocaust.
Though hopefully the fact we had nukes ourselves would have deterred the French from invasion in the first place. Ukraine being told to give up its nukes in the 1990s was clearly one of the biggest diplomatic errors of the 20th century given Russia was keeping its nukes
So what happens when Putin invades again in another three years, then threatens nukes again? Then when he does the same with the Baltics? Appeasement is madness, and it's always the right wing reactionaries that do it, just as in the 1930s.
There was large chunk of the left that demanded unilateral disarmament in the 1930s, in the belief that armaments led to wars.
Worth remembering that the only reason we are talking about nuclear weapons is because Russia is losing on the battlefield.
And that is precisely why the next steps have to be taken with care, we have achieved our main aim which is ensuring most of Ukraine is freed of Russian forces. No point then going too far in provoking Putin given he is clearly unstable and in charge of the world's biggest nuclear missiles arsenal
No HYFUD, our aim is not to ensure 'most' of Ukraine is free. We should be helping Ukraine to be free of all Russian forces, prior to pre-2022 invasion limits (I can accept Crimea, sadly, as a fait accompli).
Let's put it this way. If France invaded England but it only took Kent and some chunks of East Anglia, would we put up with the view that "most of the country is free" and we should sue for peace?
No, our main aim now should be to avoid being wiped out in a nuclear holocaust.
France is also a nuclear weapons power, if say some mad dictator came to power in France and invaded us but we managed to force the French forces back to Kent and patches of East Anglia before the French dictator threatened to use nuclear missiles if we went any further then realpolitik would also force us to stop there and wait.
We had achieved our aim of liberating most of the country, better that than the risk of destroying it with nuclear holocaust.
Though hopefully the fact we had nukes ourselves would have deterred the French from invasion in the first place. Ukraine being told to give up its nukes in the 1990s was clearly one of the biggest diplomatic errors of the 20th century given Russia was keeping its nukes
So what happens when Putin invades again in another three years, then threatens nukes again? Then when he does the same with the Baltics? Appeasement is madness, and it's always the right wing reactionaries that do it, just as in the 1930s.
Then Ukraine takes action to force him back again. If he invades the Baltics then we really are at war as they are in NATO.
However even Hitler didn't have nuclear weapons. This is a whole new ball game. You don't go to war with a nuclear missile armed state for anything other than an absolute last resort
Labour 52% (+6) Conservative 24% (-5) Liberal Democrat 10% (-3) Green 5% (+1) SNP 5% (+2) Reform UK 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 28-29 Sept
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
Whoops
Lead below 30 points.
Conference bounce for Truss?
Why are Lib Dems taking a hammering - they didn’t aid and abet the bad budget! 😠
Libdems the only challengers throughout Blue wall so why don’t they share the Tory slump? Something whiffs about these polls to me, I think they are Mickey Mouse polls, I don’t trust them as being remotely permanent.
There has been ephemeral polling glitches before, Hague wiped out Blair’s lead during Labour conference week one year, voter frustration with not liking being unable to put petrol in car. It was all short lived, polls went straight back to normal a few weeks later.
Without that foundation in fact Lib Dems should not be dropping by a quarter, they should be going up with blue wall voters switching from Tory to them, I refuse to believe these polls are for keeps, I choose to believe it will be back to a Lab lead about 10 in a few weeks and Lib Dems back to 12+. You can’t believe something is for real when its not founded in fact. Do you see what I mean.
Suppose LibDems had a 20% share in every seat. They would get zero seats with a 20% share. Look at the Greens. 5% share, 1 seat.
Suppose LibDems had a 50% share in 50 seats and a 2% share in the other 600 seats. They would get 50 seat with an overall share of just 6%. Look at the SNP. 5% share, 51 seats.
As voters get wiser to tactical voting and Labour becomes more LibDem friendly, I think that LibDem supporters in Labour seats are declaring that they will vote Labour at a General Election, and in Tory/LibDem marginals, Labour supporters are declaring for the LibDems to get the Tories out.
That is why, as a LibDem, I'm pleased to see the national LibDem share remain around 10%. I know it is a LOT higher in Tory/LibDem marginals. So it must be a LOT lower in the many Tory/Labour marginals - which is good news for anti-Tory voters, who are the large majority.
I don’t really want to argue with this thought out piece of Barnesian thinking, but I don’t believe it as much as I want to.
Lib Dems jump from third to win with 30% swings because the people there just can’t make the leap to Labour, so why would they tell pollsters something different right now?
I have my own theory. I think the polls are wrong now for the same reason polls are always wrong, underestimating Trump and Bolsonaro for two recent examples - the pollsters are now struggling for balanced and honest samples, Truss and Tories have a lot more support than shown waiting in the polling station, it’s just hiding off grid now or lying to pollsters out of sense of embarrassment.
One poll today greens up 1 to 5 Lib Dem down 3 to 10? That tells you there’s inherent vice in the poll. I would believe your theory over mine if less of the Tory plunge broke for Labour and more of it to Lib Dem.
You're assuming people move along a left-right axis, so in departing from the Conservatives their natural next stop is the LibDems. Most people don't think in those orderly terms. They think "Tories, god, they've lost the plot, who else is there?" and they see a lot of Starmer and Reeves sounding sensible, and virtually nothing about the LibDems (who were profoundly unlucky to have their conference cancelled), so they say ":Labour". It's not mysterious, or necessarily permanent.
I don’t think that’s entirely right. A lot of moderate Conservative voters don’t see themselves as particularly political and are motivated more by dislike or even fear of a left-wing government than they are by anything positive that the Tories are advocating (partly explaining why negative campaigning from the Tories can be so very effective).
Whilst you’re right that when these Tories become unhappy with what their party is doing - usually when it has put its own political obsessions before common sense - sensible moderate Labourism can tempt some of these people over, there is still a considerable number who would never vote Labour, but would vote LibDem.
Like me! I am living proof Nick and Barnsy have called this wrong - did you see Mick and Corbyn on the picket line the other day with all their donkey jacket goons, the Lynch Mob around them? Do you think I could go to a polling station and cast a vote for the party associated with that lot?
You can correlate the share of the Conservative vote since the 70s pretty well with how scary the Labour Party are. What the Conservatives do appears to be relatively unimportant in the size of the Conservative vote. People will vote Conservative if they fear Labour.
Labour 52% (+6) Conservative 24% (-5) Liberal Democrat 10% (-3) Green 5% (+1) SNP 5% (+2) Reform UK 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 28-29 Sept
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
Whoops
Lead below 30 points.
Conference bounce for Truss?
Why are Lib Dems taking a hammering - they didn’t aid and abet the bad budget! 😠
Libdems the only challengers throughout Blue wall so why don’t they share the Tory slump? Something whiffs about these polls to me, I think they are Mickey Mouse polls, I don’t trust them as being remotely permanent.
There has been ephemeral polling glitches before, Hague wiped out Blair’s lead during Labour conference week one year, voter frustration with not liking being unable to put petrol in car. It was all short lived, polls went straight back to normal a few weeks later.
Without that foundation in fact Lib Dems should not be dropping by a quarter, they should be going up with blue wall voters switching from Tory to them, I refuse to believe these polls are for keeps, I choose to believe it will be back to a Lab lead about 10 in a few weeks and Lib Dems back to 12+. You can’t believe something is for real when its not founded in fact. Do you see what I mean.
Suppose LibDems had a 20% share in every seat. They would get zero seats with a 20% share. Look at the Greens. 5% share, 1 seat.
Suppose LibDems had a 50% share in 50 seats and a 2% share in the other 600 seats. They would get 50 seat with an overall share of just 6%. Look at the SNP. 5% share, 51 seats.
As voters get wiser to tactical voting and Labour becomes more LibDem friendly, I think that LibDem supporters in Labour seats are declaring that they will vote Labour at a General Election, and in Tory/LibDem marginals, Labour supporters are declaring for the LibDems to get the Tories out.
That is why, as a LibDem, I'm pleased to see the national LibDem share remain around 10%. I know it is a LOT higher in Tory/LibDem marginals. So it must be a LOT lower in the many Tory/Labour marginals - which is good news for anti-Tory voters, who are the large majority.
I don’t really want to argue with this thought out piece of Barnesian thinking, but I don’t believe it as much as I want to.
Lib Dems jump from third to win with 30% swings because the people there just can’t make the leap to Labour, so why would they tell pollsters something different right now?
I have my own theory. I think the polls are wrong now for the same reason polls are always wrong, underestimating Trump and Bolsonaro for two recent examples - the pollsters are now struggling for balanced and honest samples, Truss and Tories have a lot more support than shown waiting in the polling station, it’s just hiding off grid now or lying to pollsters out of sense of embarrassment.
One poll today greens up 1 to 5 Lib Dem down 3 to 10? That tells you there’s inherent vice in the poll. I would believe your theory over mine if less of the Tory plunge broke for Labour and more of it to Lib Dem.
You're assuming people move along a left-right axis, so in departing from the Conservatives their natural next stop is the LibDems. Most people don't think in those orderly terms. They think "Tories, god, they've lost the plot, who else is there?" and they see a lot of Starmer and Reeves sounding sensible, and virtually nothing about the LibDems (who were profoundly unlucky to have their conference cancelled), so they say ":Labour". It's not mysterious, or necessarily permanent.
I don’t think that’s entirely right. A lot of moderate Conservative voters don’t see themselves as particularly political and are motivated more by dislike or even fear of a left-wing government than they are by anything positive that the Tories are advocating (partly explaining why negative campaigning from the Tories can be so very effective).
Whilst you’re right that when these Tories become unhappy with what their party is doing - usually when it has put its own political obsessions before common sense - sensible moderate Labourism can tempt some of these people over, there is still a considerable number who would never vote Labour, but would vote LibDem.
Like me! I am living proof Nick and Barnsy have called this wrong - did you see Mick and Corbyn on the picket line the other day with all their donkey jacket goons, the Lynch Mob around them? Do you think I could go to a polling station and cast a vote for the party associated with that lot?
But you will go and cast a vote for a Party that tried to use borrowing to fund tax cuts for the wealthy and whose incompetence nearly wrecked the UK pensions industry and then pushed up mortgage repayments for the entire nation.
Obviously far less dangerous than voting for a leftie union rep that wants more pay for his members. Like all union reps.
North Korea one of Putin's few allies, concerning and could be a tactic to distract the West
#BREAKING: Japan says North Korea has launched a missile, warns people to seek shelter immediately.
Message running on local TV: "North Korea appears to have launched a missile. Please evacuate to the inside of a building or go to the basement. Target area: Hokkaido"
The most interesting thing about the reaction to Elon Musk’s peace plan might be what it says about Russian and Ukrainian views of how the war is going. Russian media broadcast news of Musk’s ideas without criticism.
Whereas in Ukraine there is universal condemnation, which has even reached to Zelensky.
I am the father of daughters, btw, so I'm not talking my book. It astounds me: the misanthrophy on here. "These men are stupid dim misogynist layabouts who deserve to have no sex"
No, a lot of them are perfectly pleasant and would really like a nice girlfriend - just one - but technology and society have evolved in a pernicious way that really harms their chances. How is this difficult to understand, and why is sympathy so limited?!
Low status men have always struggled to find partners. This is not a new phenomenon. It's just that in the Internet age, they get to see high status men having sex with beautiful women.
But you are wrong. The numbers of men going without sex have surged
"About 1 in 3 men ages 18 to 24 years reported no sexual activity in the past year, according to a new study
Between 2000-2002 and 2016-2018, past-year sexual inactivity rose from almost 19 percent to almost 31 percent among men ages 18 to 24, according to researchers led by Dr. Peter Ueda, a postdoctoral researcher at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden."
lol so we were 14 minutes from the world ending and almost everyone was entirely unaware
.... except everyone in Japan, who must be having a fucking heart attack
Way to frighten everyone. Surely co-ordinated with Putin
On the grounds that the big dramatic gesture went almost unnoticed around the world until it was over? Are we at the stage now where any tactical cock-up implies Putin was involved?
That'sthe stage I'm at. My assumption is that any nuclear strike by Russia will, if it detonates at all, will fail to leave Russian territory before doing so, with any fallout blown back over Russia in a way causing most self-harm. It just appears to be the way things are going.
All these Armchair Azovs on here who are apparently ready to die for Lugansk would 100% be Goida! Goida! Goida! Putinists if they were Russian. Because they are susceptible to having their emotions manipulated by propoganda and psyops.
If they go down that route then surely we've got to have a general election in early 2023?
I doubt they would do that on the likelihood of a general election soon after, theoretically Tory MPs could change the PM every 6 months until a general election in January 2025
Labour 52% (+6) Conservative 24% (-5) Liberal Democrat 10% (-3) Green 5% (+1) SNP 5% (+2) Reform UK 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 28-29 Sept
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
Whoops
Lead below 30 points.
Conference bounce for Truss?
Why are Lib Dems taking a hammering - they didn’t aid and abet the bad budget! 😠
Libdems the only challengers throughout Blue wall so why don’t they share the Tory slump? Something whiffs about these polls to me, I think they are Mickey Mouse polls, I don’t trust them as being remotely permanent.
There has been ephemeral polling glitches before, Hague wiped out Blair’s lead during Labour conference week one year, voter frustration with not liking being unable to put petrol in car. It was all short lived, polls went straight back to normal a few weeks later.
Without that foundation in fact Lib Dems should not be dropping by a quarter, they should be going up with blue wall voters switching from Tory to them, I refuse to believe these polls are for keeps, I choose to believe it will be back to a Lab lead about 10 in a few weeks and Lib Dems back to 12+. You can’t believe something is for real when its not founded in fact. Do you see what I mean.
Suppose LibDems had a 20% share in every seat. They would get zero seats with a 20% share. Look at the Greens. 5% share, 1 seat.
Suppose LibDems had a 50% share in 50 seats and a 2% share in the other 600 seats. They would get 50 seat with an overall share of just 6%. Look at the SNP. 5% share, 51 seats.
As voters get wiser to tactical voting and Labour becomes more LibDem friendly, I think that LibDem supporters in Labour seats are declaring that they will vote Labour at a General Election, and in Tory/LibDem marginals, Labour supporters are declaring for the LibDems to get the Tories out.
That is why, as a LibDem, I'm pleased to see the national LibDem share remain around 10%. I know it is a LOT higher in Tory/LibDem marginals. So it must be a LOT lower in the many Tory/Labour marginals - which is good news for anti-Tory voters, who are the large majority.
I don’t really want to argue with this thought out piece of Barnesian thinking, but I don’t believe it as much as I want to.
Lib Dems jump from third to win with 30% swings because the people there just can’t make the leap to Labour, so why would they tell pollsters something different right now?
I have my own theory. I think the polls are wrong now for the same reason polls are always wrong, underestimating Trump and Bolsonaro for two recent examples - the pollsters are now struggling for balanced and honest samples, Truss and Tories have a lot more support than shown waiting in the polling station, it’s just hiding off grid now or lying to pollsters out of sense of embarrassment.
One poll today greens up 1 to 5 Lib Dem down 3 to 10? That tells you there’s inherent vice in the poll. I would believe your theory over mine if less of the Tory plunge broke for Labour and more of it to Lib Dem.
You're assuming people move along a left-right axis, so in departing from the Conservatives their natural next stop is the LibDems. Most people don't think in those orderly terms. They think "Tories, god, they've lost the plot, who else is there?" and they see a lot of Starmer and Reeves sounding sensible, and virtually nothing about the LibDems (who were profoundly unlucky to have their conference cancelled), so they say ":Labour". It's not mysterious, or necessarily permanent.
I don’t think that’s entirely right. A lot of moderate Conservative voters don’t see themselves as particularly political and are motivated more by dislike or even fear of a left-wing government than they are by anything positive that the Tories are advocating (partly explaining why negative campaigning from the Tories can be so very effective).
Whilst you’re right that when these Tories become unhappy with what their party is doing - usually when it has put its own political obsessions before common sense - sensible moderate Labourism can tempt some of these people over, there is still a considerable number who would never vote Labour, but would vote LibDem.
Like me! I am living proof Nick and Barnsy have called this wrong - did you see Mick and Corbyn on the picket line the other day with all their donkey jacket goons, the Lynch Mob around them? Do you think I could go to a polling station and cast a vote for the party associated with that lot?
But you will go and cast a vote for a Party that tried to use borrowing to fund tax cuts for the wealthy and whose incompetence nearly wrecked the UK pensions industry and then pushed up mortgage repayments for the entire nation.
Obviously far less dangerous than voting for a leftie union rep that wants more pay for his members. Like all union reps.
You have a very odd set of priorities.
You what? I’m voting Lib Dem.
Interesting how you mistook my gently satirising the pitch of Team Truss as real, and it got under your skin earlier. I conclude the mind of Truss is the very antithesis of your own views.
All these Armchair Azovs on here who are apparently ready to die for Lugansk would 100% be Goida! Goida! Goida! Putinists if they were Russian. Because they are susceptible to having their emotions manipulated by propoganda and psyops.
Everybody on here is an armchair something, it's a ludicrous expression and always has been.
Labour 52% (+6) Conservative 24% (-5) Liberal Democrat 10% (-3) Green 5% (+1) SNP 5% (+2) Reform UK 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 28-29 Sept
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
Whoops
Lead below 30 points.
Conference bounce for Truss?
Why are Lib Dems taking a hammering - they didn’t aid and abet the bad budget! 😠
Libdems the only challengers throughout Blue wall so why don’t they share the Tory slump? Something whiffs about these polls to me, I think they are Mickey Mouse polls, I don’t trust them as being remotely permanent.
There has been ephemeral polling glitches before, Hague wiped out Blair’s lead during Labour conference week one year, voter frustration with not liking being unable to put petrol in car. It was all short lived, polls went straight back to normal a few weeks later.
Without that foundation in fact Lib Dems should not be dropping by a quarter, they should be going up with blue wall voters switching from Tory to them, I refuse to believe these polls are for keeps, I choose to believe it will be back to a Lab lead about 10 in a few weeks and Lib Dems back to 12+. You can’t believe something is for real when its not founded in fact. Do you see what I mean.
Suppose LibDems had a 20% share in every seat. They would get zero seats with a 20% share. Look at the Greens. 5% share, 1 seat.
Suppose LibDems had a 50% share in 50 seats and a 2% share in the other 600 seats. They would get 50 seat with an overall share of just 6%. Look at the SNP. 5% share, 51 seats.
As voters get wiser to tactical voting and Labour becomes more LibDem friendly, I think that LibDem supporters in Labour seats are declaring that they will vote Labour at a General Election, and in Tory/LibDem marginals, Labour supporters are declaring for the LibDems to get the Tories out.
That is why, as a LibDem, I'm pleased to see the national LibDem share remain around 10%. I know it is a LOT higher in Tory/LibDem marginals. So it must be a LOT lower in the many Tory/Labour marginals - which is good news for anti-Tory voters, who are the large majority.
I don’t really want to argue with this thought out piece of Barnesian thinking, but I don’t believe it as much as I want to.
Lib Dems jump from third to win with 30% swings because the people there just can’t make the leap to Labour, so why would they tell pollsters something different right now?
I have my own theory. I think the polls are wrong now for the same reason polls are always wrong, underestimating Trump and Bolsonaro for two recent examples - the pollsters are now struggling for balanced and honest samples, Truss and Tories have a lot more support than shown waiting in the polling station, it’s just hiding off grid now or lying to pollsters out of sense of embarrassment.
One poll today greens up 1 to 5 Lib Dem down 3 to 10? That tells you there’s inherent vice in the poll. I would believe your theory over mine if less of the Tory plunge broke for Labour and more of it to Lib Dem.
You're assuming people move along a left-right axis, so in departing from the Conservatives their natural next stop is the LibDems. Most people don't think in those orderly terms. They think "Tories, god, they've lost the plot, who else is there?" and they see a lot of Starmer and Reeves sounding sensible, and virtually nothing about the LibDems (who were profoundly unlucky to have their conference cancelled), so they say ":Labour". It's not mysterious, or necessarily permanent.
I don’t think that’s entirely right. A lot of moderate Conservative voters don’t see themselves as particularly political and are motivated more by dislike or even fear of a left-wing government than they are by anything positive that the Tories are advocating (partly explaining why negative campaigning from the Tories can be so very effective).
Whilst you’re right that when these Tories become unhappy with what their party is doing - usually when it has put its own political obsessions before common sense - sensible moderate Labourism can tempt some of these people over, there is still a considerable number who would never vote Labour, but would vote LibDem.
Like me! I am living proof Nick and Barnsy have called this wrong - did you see Mick and Corbyn on the picket line the other day with all their donkey jacket goons, the Lynch Mob around them? Do you think I could go to a polling station and cast a vote for the party associated with that lot?
You can correlate the share of the Conservative vote since the 70s pretty well with how scary the Labour Party are. What the Conservatives do appears to be relatively unimportant in the size of the Conservative vote. People will vote Conservative if they fear Labour.
Is Starmers Labour really out the woods on that count?
Labour 52% (+6) Conservative 24% (-5) Liberal Democrat 10% (-3) Green 5% (+1) SNP 5% (+2) Reform UK 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 28-29 Sept
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
Whoops
Lead below 30 points.
Conference bounce for Truss?
Why are Lib Dems taking a hammering - they didn’t aid and abet the bad budget! 😠
Libdems the only challengers throughout Blue wall so why don’t they share the Tory slump? Something whiffs about these polls to me, I think they are Mickey Mouse polls, I don’t trust them as being remotely permanent.
There has been ephemeral polling glitches before, Hague wiped out Blair’s lead during Labour conference week one year, voter frustration with not liking being unable to put petrol in car. It was all short lived, polls went straight back to normal a few weeks later.
Without that foundation in fact Lib Dems should not be dropping by a quarter, they should be going up with blue wall voters switching from Tory to them, I refuse to believe these polls are for keeps, I choose to believe it will be back to a Lab lead about 10 in a few weeks and Lib Dems back to 12+. You can’t believe something is for real when its not founded in fact. Do you see what I mean.
Suppose LibDems had a 20% share in every seat. They would get zero seats with a 20% share. Look at the Greens. 5% share, 1 seat.
Suppose LibDems had a 50% share in 50 seats and a 2% share in the other 600 seats. They would get 50 seat with an overall share of just 6%. Look at the SNP. 5% share, 51 seats.
As voters get wiser to tactical voting and Labour becomes more LibDem friendly, I think that LibDem supporters in Labour seats are declaring that they will vote Labour at a General Election, and in Tory/LibDem marginals, Labour supporters are declaring for the LibDems to get the Tories out.
That is why, as a LibDem, I'm pleased to see the national LibDem share remain around 10%. I know it is a LOT higher in Tory/LibDem marginals. So it must be a LOT lower in the many Tory/Labour marginals - which is good news for anti-Tory voters, who are the large majority.
I don’t really want to argue with this thought out piece of Barnesian thinking, but I don’t believe it as much as I want to.
Lib Dems jump from third to win with 30% swings because the people there just can’t make the leap to Labour, so why would they tell pollsters something different right now?
I have my own theory. I think the polls are wrong now for the same reason polls are always wrong, underestimating Trump and Bolsonaro for two recent examples - the pollsters are now struggling for balanced and honest samples, Truss and Tories have a lot more support than shown waiting in the polling station, it’s just hiding off grid now or lying to pollsters out of sense of embarrassment.
One poll today greens up 1 to 5 Lib Dem down 3 to 10? That tells you there’s inherent vice in the poll. I would believe your theory over mine if less of the Tory plunge broke for Labour and more of it to Lib Dem.
You're assuming people move along a left-right axis, so in departing from the Conservatives their natural next stop is the LibDems. Most people don't think in those orderly terms. They think "Tories, god, they've lost the plot, who else is there?" and they see a lot of Starmer and Reeves sounding sensible, and virtually nothing about the LibDems (who were profoundly unlucky to have their conference cancelled), so they say ":Labour". It's not mysterious, or necessarily permanent.
I don’t think that’s entirely right. A lot of moderate Conservative voters don’t see themselves as particularly political and are motivated more by dislike or even fear of a left-wing government than they are by anything positive that the Tories are advocating (partly explaining why negative campaigning from the Tories can be so very effective).
Whilst you’re right that when these Tories become unhappy with what their party is doing - usually when it has put its own political obsessions before common sense - sensible moderate Labourism can tempt some of these people over, there is still a considerable number who would never vote Labour, but would vote LibDem.
Like me! I am living proof Nick and Barnsy have called this wrong - did you see Mick and Corbyn on the picket line the other day with all their donkey jacket goons, the Lynch Mob around them? Do you think I could go to a polling station and cast a vote for the party associated with that lot?
You can correlate the share of the Conservative vote since the 70s pretty well with how scary the Labour Party are. What the Conservatives do appears to be relatively unimportant in the size of the Conservative vote. People will vote Conservative if they fear Labour.
Is Starmers Labour really out the woods on that count?
Pretty much, Starmer is the least scary Labour leader since Blair for middle England.
However they still might not give his party an overall majority just in case, even if they give him most seats and enough to become PM
BREAKING: North Korean missile has flown over Japan, warning canceled, government says
Nothing on the main news channels about this.
It's all true
U.S. Embassy Tokyo, ACS @ACSTokyo · 21m ALERT: The Japanese government is warning that North Korea appears to have launched at least one ballistic missile. There's a possibility it's heading toward Japan. The government is urging everyone in the country to monitor news media.
Labour 52% (+6) Conservative 24% (-5) Liberal Democrat 10% (-3) Green 5% (+1) SNP 5% (+2) Reform UK 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 28-29 Sept
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
Whoops
Lead below 30 points.
Conference bounce for Truss?
Why are Lib Dems taking a hammering - they didn’t aid and abet the bad budget! 😠
Libdems the only challengers throughout Blue wall so why don’t they share the Tory slump? Something whiffs about these polls to me, I think they are Mickey Mouse polls, I don’t trust them as being remotely permanent.
There has been ephemeral polling glitches before, Hague wiped out Blair’s lead during Labour conference week one year, voter frustration with not liking being unable to put petrol in car. It was all short lived, polls went straight back to normal a few weeks later.
Without that foundation in fact Lib Dems should not be dropping by a quarter, they should be going up with blue wall voters switching from Tory to them, I refuse to believe these polls are for keeps, I choose to believe it will be back to a Lab lead about 10 in a few weeks and Lib Dems back to 12+. You can’t believe something is for real when its not founded in fact. Do you see what I mean.
Suppose LibDems had a 20% share in every seat. They would get zero seats with a 20% share. Look at the Greens. 5% share, 1 seat.
Suppose LibDems had a 50% share in 50 seats and a 2% share in the other 600 seats. They would get 50 seat with an overall share of just 6%. Look at the SNP. 5% share, 51 seats.
As voters get wiser to tactical voting and Labour becomes more LibDem friendly, I think that LibDem supporters in Labour seats are declaring that they will vote Labour at a General Election, and in Tory/LibDem marginals, Labour supporters are declaring for the LibDems to get the Tories out.
That is why, as a LibDem, I'm pleased to see the national LibDem share remain around 10%. I know it is a LOT higher in Tory/LibDem marginals. So it must be a LOT lower in the many Tory/Labour marginals - which is good news for anti-Tory voters, who are the large majority.
I don’t really want to argue with this thought out piece of Barnesian thinking, but I don’t believe it as much as I want to.
Lib Dems jump from third to win with 30% swings because the people there just can’t make the leap to Labour, so why would they tell pollsters something different right now?
I have my own theory. I think the polls are wrong now for the same reason polls are always wrong, underestimating Trump and Bolsonaro for two recent examples - the pollsters are now struggling for balanced and honest samples, Truss and Tories have a lot more support than shown waiting in the polling station, it’s just hiding off grid now or lying to pollsters out of sense of embarrassment.
One poll today greens up 1 to 5 Lib Dem down 3 to 10? That tells you there’s inherent vice in the poll. I would believe your theory over mine if less of the Tory plunge broke for Labour and more of it to Lib Dem.
You're assuming people move along a left-right axis, so in departing from the Conservatives their natural next stop is the LibDems. Most people don't think in those orderly terms. They think "Tories, god, they've lost the plot, who else is there?" and they see a lot of Starmer and Reeves sounding sensible, and virtually nothing about the LibDems (who were profoundly unlucky to have their conference cancelled), so they say ":Labour". It's not mysterious, or necessarily permanent.
I don’t think that’s entirely right. A lot of moderate Conservative voters don’t see themselves as particularly political and are motivated more by dislike or even fear of a left-wing government than they are by anything positive that the Tories are advocating (partly explaining why negative campaigning from the Tories can be so very effective).
Whilst you’re right that when these Tories become unhappy with what their party is doing - usually when it has put its own political obsessions before common sense - sensible moderate Labourism can tempt some of these people over, there is still a considerable number who would never vote Labour, but would vote LibDem.
Like me! I am living proof Nick and Barnsy have called this wrong - did you see Mick and Corbyn on the picket line the other day with all their donkey jacket goons, the Lynch Mob around them? Do you think I could go to a polling station and cast a vote for the party associated with that lot?
You can correlate the share of the Conservative vote since the 70s pretty well with how scary the Labour Party are. What the Conservatives do appears to be relatively unimportant in the size of the Conservative vote. People will vote Conservative if they fear Labour.
Is Starmers Labour really out the woods on that count?
Not by your standars or mine. But I think Labour scare fewer people than any iteration of the party since 2007. SKS has been just so bland and dull in a way that few of his predecessors have managed. Now I still see the SKS who called incessantly for more lockdowns. I'm still pretty sore about that. But for most voters I think that's probably ancient history they would rather forget about.
If they go down that route then surely we've got to have a general election in early 2023?
I doubt they would do that on the likelihood of a general election soon after, theoretically Tory MPs could change the PM every 6 months until a general election in January 2025
Yes I know that's theoretically the case, however, realistically if they change leader again in this Parliament they will have to go to country soon afterwards as the outrage at the lack of democracy and accountability will far out weigh any gains the Tories might get from changing leaders.
The Tories may think this country is their personal plaything and they can change leaders without bothering to consult the public like they we're back in the 18th century but the voters will have other ideas.
We didn't vote leave to take back control to then have the useless Tory Party inflict whatever losers they want to inflict on us every few months!
Labour 52% (+6) Conservative 24% (-5) Liberal Democrat 10% (-3) Green 5% (+1) SNP 5% (+2) Reform UK 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 28-29 Sept
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
Whoops
Lead below 30 points.
Conference bounce for Truss?
Why are Lib Dems taking a hammering - they didn’t aid and abet the bad budget! 😠
Libdems the only challengers throughout Blue wall so why don’t they share the Tory slump? Something whiffs about these polls to me, I think they are Mickey Mouse polls, I don’t trust them as being remotely permanent.
There has been ephemeral polling glitches before, Hague wiped out Blair’s lead during Labour conference week one year, voter frustration with not liking being unable to put petrol in car. It was all short lived, polls went straight back to normal a few weeks later.
Without that foundation in fact Lib Dems should not be dropping by a quarter, they should be going up with blue wall voters switching from Tory to them, I refuse to believe these polls are for keeps, I choose to believe it will be back to a Lab lead about 10 in a few weeks and Lib Dems back to 12+. You can’t believe something is for real when its not founded in fact. Do you see what I mean.
Suppose LibDems had a 20% share in every seat. They would get zero seats with a 20% share. Look at the Greens. 5% share, 1 seat.
Suppose LibDems had a 50% share in 50 seats and a 2% share in the other 600 seats. They would get 50 seat with an overall share of just 6%. Look at the SNP. 5% share, 51 seats.
As voters get wiser to tactical voting and Labour becomes more LibDem friendly, I think that LibDem supporters in Labour seats are declaring that they will vote Labour at a General Election, and in Tory/LibDem marginals, Labour supporters are declaring for the LibDems to get the Tories out.
That is why, as a LibDem, I'm pleased to see the national LibDem share remain around 10%. I know it is a LOT higher in Tory/LibDem marginals. So it must be a LOT lower in the many Tory/Labour marginals - which is good news for anti-Tory voters, who are the large majority.
I don’t really want to argue with this thought out piece of Barnesian thinking, but I don’t believe it as much as I want to.
Lib Dems jump from third to win with 30% swings because the people there just can’t make the leap to Labour, so why would they tell pollsters something different right now?
I have my own theory. I think the polls are wrong now for the same reason polls are always wrong, underestimating Trump and Bolsonaro for two recent examples - the pollsters are now struggling for balanced and honest samples, Truss and Tories have a lot more support than shown waiting in the polling station, it’s just hiding off grid now or lying to pollsters out of sense of embarrassment.
One poll today greens up 1 to 5 Lib Dem down 3 to 10? That tells you there’s inherent vice in the poll. I would believe your theory over mine if less of the Tory plunge broke for Labour and more of it to Lib Dem.
You're assuming people move along a left-right axis, so in departing from the Conservatives their natural next stop is the LibDems. Most people don't think in those orderly terms. They think "Tories, god, they've lost the plot, who else is there?" and they see a lot of Starmer and Reeves sounding sensible, and virtually nothing about the LibDems (who were profoundly unlucky to have their conference cancelled), so they say ":Labour". It's not mysterious, or necessarily permanent.
I don’t think that’s entirely right. A lot of moderate Conservative voters don’t see themselves as particularly political and are motivated more by dislike or even fear of a left-wing government than they are by anything positive that the Tories are advocating (partly explaining why negative campaigning from the Tories can be so very effective).
Whilst you’re right that when these Tories become unhappy with what their party is doing - usually when it has put its own political obsessions before common sense - sensible moderate Labourism can tempt some of these people over, there is still a considerable number who would never vote Labour, but would vote LibDem.
Perhaps, but you're positing that a lot of those 52% are lying or deceiving themselves. I do meet 2019 Tory voters who are prepared to switch to Labour as a sensible alternative, but not the LibDems as they think of them as an unknown quantity. Occam's Razor is that people are currently inclined to vote as they say they are. Doesn't mean they might not recoil at some point. But it's possible that two years of boring Starmerism has actually placed Labour as the centrist alternative in many Tory minds.
I think you may be over complicating something very simple, for example how then do you explain Bolsonaro and Trump massively over performing their polls, if it’s not unwillingness to be identified as supporting them driving voters off grid - out of sight and out of mind of pollsters who then underestimate them?
This is a betting site, it would be good for betting to keep in mind certain candidates or views may be woefully unrepresented in opinion polling.
Another example I used, 2000, during Labours conference Hague wiped out Tony Blair’s opinion poll lead didn’t he, ephemerally based on single issue that was resolved and things reverted back.
If they go down that route then surely we've got to have a general election in early 2023?
I doubt they would do that on the likelihood of a general election soon after, theoretically Tory MPs could change the PM every 6 months until a general election in January 2025
Yes I know that's theoretically the case, however, realistically if they change leader again in this Parliament they will have to go to country soon afterwards as the outrage at the lack of democracy and accountability will far out weigh any gains the Tories might get from changing leaders.
The Tories may think this country is their personal plaything and they can change leaders without bothering to consult the public like they we're back in the 18th century but the voters will have other ideas.
We didn't vote leave to take back control to then have the useless Tory Party inflict whatever losers they want to inflict on us every few months!
I must disagree. It appears that is more or less exactly what we have done
If they go down that route then surely we've got to have a general election in early 2023?
I doubt they would do that on the likelihood of a general election soon after, theoretically Tory MPs could change the PM every 6 months until a general election in January 2025
Yes I know that's theoretically the case, however, realistically if they change leader again in this Parliament they will have to go to country soon afterwards as the outrage at the lack of democracy and accountability will far out weigh any gains the Tories might get from changing leaders.
The Tories may think this country is their personal plaything and they can change leaders without bothering to consult the public like they we're back in the 18th century but the voters will have other ideas.
We didn't vote leave to take back control to then have the useless Tory Party inflict whatever losers they want to inflict on us every few months!
I must disagree. It appears that is more or less exactly what we have done
Well maybe... but the Tories should beware the voters wrath when they do eventually have to face the electorate...
Japanese PM will do press conference in imminently.
It's an effective means of instilling terror
"The missile flew over our land, and it could have a grave impact on the lives and livelihood of the Japanese people. We are collecting information on whether there is falling debris, Minister Matsuno says. Cooperating with relevant countries, is gathering information on the launch."
Imagine this in the UK. Imagine if we all got a sudden warning from the Home Office. on our phones, social media, etc, to "run to the nearest shelter because Russia has launched a ballistic missile at the UK". Sirens go off in the streets. We all wait, tensed, to see if the missile lands...
Labour 52% (+6) Conservative 24% (-5) Liberal Democrat 10% (-3) Green 5% (+1) SNP 5% (+2) Reform UK 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 28-29 Sept
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
Whoops
Lead below 30 points.
Conference bounce for Truss?
Why are Lib Dems taking a hammering - they didn’t aid and abet the bad budget! 😠
Libdems the only challengers throughout Blue wall so why don’t they share the Tory slump? Something whiffs about these polls to me, I think they are Mickey Mouse polls, I don’t trust them as being remotely permanent.
There has been ephemeral polling glitches before, Hague wiped out Blair’s lead during Labour conference week one year, voter frustration with not liking being unable to put petrol in car. It was all short lived, polls went straight back to normal a few weeks later.
Without that foundation in fact Lib Dems should not be dropping by a quarter, they should be going up with blue wall voters switching from Tory to them, I refuse to believe these polls are for keeps, I choose to believe it will be back to a Lab lead about 10 in a few weeks and Lib Dems back to 12+. You can’t believe something is for real when its not founded in fact. Do you see what I mean.
Suppose LibDems had a 20% share in every seat. They would get zero seats with a 20% share. Look at the Greens. 5% share, 1 seat.
Suppose LibDems had a 50% share in 50 seats and a 2% share in the other 600 seats. They would get 50 seat with an overall share of just 6%. Look at the SNP. 5% share, 51 seats.
As voters get wiser to tactical voting and Labour becomes more LibDem friendly, I think that LibDem supporters in Labour seats are declaring that they will vote Labour at a General Election, and in Tory/LibDem marginals, Labour supporters are declaring for the LibDems to get the Tories out.
That is why, as a LibDem, I'm pleased to see the national LibDem share remain around 10%. I know it is a LOT higher in Tory/LibDem marginals. So it must be a LOT lower in the many Tory/Labour marginals - which is good news for anti-Tory voters, who are the large majority.
I don’t really want to argue with this thought out piece of Barnesian thinking, but I don’t believe it as much as I want to.
Lib Dems jump from third to win with 30% swings because the people there just can’t make the leap to Labour, so why would they tell pollsters something different right now?
I have my own theory. I think the polls are wrong now for the same reason polls are always wrong, underestimating Trump and Bolsonaro for two recent examples - the pollsters are now struggling for balanced and honest samples, Truss and Tories have a lot more support than shown waiting in the polling station, it’s just hiding off grid now or lying to pollsters out of sense of embarrassment.
One poll today greens up 1 to 5 Lib Dem down 3 to 10? That tells you there’s inherent vice in the poll. I would believe your theory over mine if less of the Tory plunge broke for Labour and more of it to Lib Dem.
You're assuming people move along a left-right axis, so in departing from the Conservatives their natural next stop is the LibDems. Most people don't think in those orderly terms. They think "Tories, god, they've lost the plot, who else is there?" and they see a lot of Starmer and Reeves sounding sensible, and virtually nothing about the LibDems (who were profoundly unlucky to have their conference cancelled), so they say ":Labour". It's not mysterious, or necessarily permanent.
I don’t think that’s entirely right. A lot of moderate Conservative voters don’t see themselves as particularly political and are motivated more by dislike or even fear of a left-wing government than they are by anything positive that the Tories are advocating (partly explaining why negative campaigning from the Tories can be so very effective).
Whilst you’re right that when these Tories become unhappy with what their party is doing - usually when it has put its own political obsessions before common sense - sensible moderate Labourism can tempt some of these people over, there is still a considerable number who would never vote Labour, but would vote LibDem.
Like me! I am living proof Nick and Barnsy have called this wrong - did you see Mick and Corbyn on the picket line the other day with all their donkey jacket goons, the Lynch Mob around them? Do you think I could go to a polling station and cast a vote for the party associated with that lot?
You can correlate the share of the Conservative vote since the 70s pretty well with how scary the Labour Party are. What the Conservatives do appears to be relatively unimportant in the size of the Conservative vote. People will vote Conservative if they fear Labour.
Is Starmers Labour really out the woods on that count?
Not by your standars or mine. But I think Labour scare fewer people than any iteration of the party since 2007. SKS has been just so bland and dull in a way that few of his predecessors have managed. Now I still see the SKS who called incessantly for more lockdowns. I'm still pretty sore about that. But for most voters I think that's probably ancient history they would rather forget about.
Interestingly, the last two May’s, Tory HQ and their friends in the media really have been able to put the squeeze on Team Starmer and move the polls and election results away from him. They don’t need a smoking gun, a steaming curry has been enough to whip up Clinton level “lock her up” outrage and dent Labour.
Labour 52% (+6) Conservative 24% (-5) Liberal Democrat 10% (-3) Green 5% (+1) SNP 5% (+2) Reform UK 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 28-29 Sept
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
Whoops
Lead below 30 points.
Conference bounce for Truss?
Why are Lib Dems taking a hammering - they didn’t aid and abet the bad budget! 😠
Libdems the only challengers throughout Blue wall so why don’t they share the Tory slump? Something whiffs about these polls to me, I think they are Mickey Mouse polls, I don’t trust them as being remotely permanent.
There has been ephemeral polling glitches before, Hague wiped out Blair’s lead during Labour conference week one year, voter frustration with not liking being unable to put petrol in car. It was all short lived, polls went straight back to normal a few weeks later.
Without that foundation in fact Lib Dems should not be dropping by a quarter, they should be going up with blue wall voters switching from Tory to them, I refuse to believe these polls are for keeps, I choose to believe it will be back to a Lab lead about 10 in a few weeks and Lib Dems back to 12+. You can’t believe something is for real when its not founded in fact. Do you see what I mean.
Suppose LibDems had a 20% share in every seat. They would get zero seats with a 20% share. Look at the Greens. 5% share, 1 seat.
Suppose LibDems had a 50% share in 50 seats and a 2% share in the other 600 seats. They would get 50 seat with an overall share of just 6%. Look at the SNP. 5% share, 51 seats.
As voters get wiser to tactical voting and Labour becomes more LibDem friendly, I think that LibDem supporters in Labour seats are declaring that they will vote Labour at a General Election, and in Tory/LibDem marginals, Labour supporters are declaring for the LibDems to get the Tories out.
That is why, as a LibDem, I'm pleased to see the national LibDem share remain around 10%. I know it is a LOT higher in Tory/LibDem marginals. So it must be a LOT lower in the many Tory/Labour marginals - which is good news for anti-Tory voters, who are the large majority.
I don’t really want to argue with this thought out piece of Barnesian thinking, but I don’t believe it as much as I want to.
Lib Dems jump from third to win with 30% swings because the people there just can’t make the leap to Labour, so why would they tell pollsters something different right now?
I have my own theory. I think the polls are wrong now for the same reason polls are always wrong, underestimating Trump and Bolsonaro for two recent examples - the pollsters are now struggling for balanced and honest samples, Truss and Tories have a lot more support than shown waiting in the polling station, it’s just hiding off grid now or lying to pollsters out of sense of embarrassment.
One poll today greens up 1 to 5 Lib Dem down 3 to 10? That tells you there’s inherent vice in the poll. I would believe your theory over mine if less of the Tory plunge broke for Labour and more of it to Lib Dem.
You're assuming people move along a left-right axis, so in departing from the Conservatives their natural next stop is the LibDems. Most people don't think in those orderly terms. They think "Tories, god, they've lost the plot, who else is there?" and they see a lot of Starmer and Reeves sounding sensible, and virtually nothing about the LibDems (who were profoundly unlucky to have their conference cancelled), so they say ":Labour". It's not mysterious, or necessarily permanent.
I don’t think that’s entirely right. A lot of moderate Conservative voters don’t see themselves as particularly political and are motivated more by dislike or even fear of a left-wing government than they are by anything positive that the Tories are advocating (partly explaining why negative campaigning from the Tories can be so very effective).
Whilst you’re right that when these Tories become unhappy with what their party is doing - usually when it has put its own political obsessions before common sense - sensible moderate Labourism can tempt some of these people over, there is still a considerable number who would never vote Labour, but would vote LibDem.
Like me! I am living proof Nick and Barnsy have called this wrong - did you see Mick and Corbyn on the picket line the other day with all their donkey jacket goons, the Lynch Mob around them? Do you think I could go to a polling station and cast a vote for the party associated with that lot?
But you will go and cast a vote for a Party that tried to use borrowing to fund tax cuts for the wealthy and whose incompetence nearly wrecked the UK pensions industry and then pushed up mortgage repayments for the entire nation.
Obviously far less dangerous than voting for a leftie union rep that wants more pay for his members. Like all union reps.
You have a very odd set of priorities.
You what? I’m voting Lib Dem.
Interesting how you mistook my gently satirising the pitch of Team Truss as real, and it got under your skin earlier. I conclude the mind of Truss is the very antithesis of your own views.
Sometimes we can't tell Rabbit fact from Rabbit satire.
Today is Tuesday I am a LibDem Rabbit, yesterday I was a Conservative Rabbit and tomorrow I will be a Rabbit supporting Starmer. Entirely your call, but elections fall on Thursdays, is that a Green day?
Labour 52% (+6) Conservative 24% (-5) Liberal Democrat 10% (-3) Green 5% (+1) SNP 5% (+2) Reform UK 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 28-29 Sept
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
Whoops
Lead below 30 points.
Conference bounce for Truss?
Why are Lib Dems taking a hammering - they didn’t aid and abet the bad budget! 😠
Libdems the only challengers throughout Blue wall so why don’t they share the Tory slump? Something whiffs about these polls to me, I think they are Mickey Mouse polls, I don’t trust them as being remotely permanent.
There has been ephemeral polling glitches before, Hague wiped out Blair’s lead during Labour conference week one year, voter frustration with not liking being unable to put petrol in car. It was all short lived, polls went straight back to normal a few weeks later.
Without that foundation in fact Lib Dems should not be dropping by a quarter, they should be going up with blue wall voters switching from Tory to them, I refuse to believe these polls are for keeps, I choose to believe it will be back to a Lab lead about 10 in a few weeks and Lib Dems back to 12+. You can’t believe something is for real when its not founded in fact. Do you see what I mean.
Suppose LibDems had a 20% share in every seat. They would get zero seats with a 20% share. Look at the Greens. 5% share, 1 seat.
Suppose LibDems had a 50% share in 50 seats and a 2% share in the other 600 seats. They would get 50 seat with an overall share of just 6%. Look at the SNP. 5% share, 51 seats.
As voters get wiser to tactical voting and Labour becomes more LibDem friendly, I think that LibDem supporters in Labour seats are declaring that they will vote Labour at a General Election, and in Tory/LibDem marginals, Labour supporters are declaring for the LibDems to get the Tories out.
That is why, as a LibDem, I'm pleased to see the national LibDem share remain around 10%. I know it is a LOT higher in Tory/LibDem marginals. So it must be a LOT lower in the many Tory/Labour marginals - which is good news for anti-Tory voters, who are the large majority.
I don’t really want to argue with this thought out piece of Barnesian thinking, but I don’t believe it as much as I want to.
Lib Dems jump from third to win with 30% swings because the people there just can’t make the leap to Labour, so why would they tell pollsters something different right now?
I have my own theory. I think the polls are wrong now for the same reason polls are always wrong, underestimating Trump and Bolsonaro for two recent examples - the pollsters are now struggling for balanced and honest samples, Truss and Tories have a lot more support than shown waiting in the polling station, it’s just hiding off grid now or lying to pollsters out of sense of embarrassment.
One poll today greens up 1 to 5 Lib Dem down 3 to 10? That tells you there’s inherent vice in the poll. I would believe your theory over mine if less of the Tory plunge broke for Labour and more of it to Lib Dem.
You're assuming people move along a left-right axis, so in departing from the Conservatives their natural next stop is the LibDems. Most people don't think in those orderly terms. They think "Tories, god, they've lost the plot, who else is there?" and they see a lot of Starmer and Reeves sounding sensible, and virtually nothing about the LibDems (who were profoundly unlucky to have their conference cancelled), so they say ":Labour". It's not mysterious, or necessarily permanent.
I don’t think that’s entirely right. A lot of moderate Conservative voters don’t see themselves as particularly political and are motivated more by dislike or even fear of a left-wing government than they are by anything positive that the Tories are advocating (partly explaining why negative campaigning from the Tories can be so very effective).
Whilst you’re right that when these Tories become unhappy with what their party is doing - usually when it has put its own political obsessions before common sense - sensible moderate Labourism can tempt some of these people over, there is still a considerable number who would never vote Labour, but would vote LibDem.
Like me! I am living proof Nick and Barnsy have called this wrong - did you see Mick and Corbyn on the picket line the other day with all their donkey jacket goons, the Lynch Mob around them? Do you think I could go to a polling station and cast a vote for the party associated with that lot?
But you will go and cast a vote for a Party that tried to use borrowing to fund tax cuts for the wealthy and whose incompetence nearly wrecked the UK pensions industry and then pushed up mortgage repayments for the entire nation.
Obviously far less dangerous than voting for a leftie union rep that wants more pay for his members. Like all union reps.
You have a very odd set of priorities.
You what? I’m voting Lib Dem.
Interesting how you mistook my gently satirising the pitch of Team Truss as real, and it got under your skin earlier. I conclude the mind of Truss is the very antithesis of your own views.
Yes. Truss irritates me greatly because she is so bl**dy stupid and has made it to the top job. It is a searing indictment of how seriously stuffed the UK has become. That the Leader of the country can be so woefully inadequate should annoy the whole country.
My apologies to you for mistaking you as a Tory voter. You do a convincing job of putting yourself over as one.
Swedish authorities report that the gas leak from the Nord Stream 2 hole in the Swedish Economic Zone is increasing in strength.
It seems as if the Russians are pumping gas into the pipeline.
As long as there is gas, it won’t be possible to get close to investigate.
Do gas leaks cause similar problems to oil leaks?
No
Because gas is lighter than water, it will travel to the surface and dissipate.
Rubbish for global warming, but doesn't fuck up the ocean.
Different if it is flowing from a well as it often has lots of other nasty contaminants with it as well as some heavier hydrocarbons. But I assume what they are pumping through the pipeline has already been processed so will have all of that stuff removed.
A very good point. But the gas has to have been scrubbed long before it reached Nordstream, right? (Or one would assume so.)
Yep absolutely. The only immediate issue with this is going to be hazard to shipping (ships don't float on gassy water, as a number of drilling rigs have unfortunately found out in the past.
See also the Bermuda Triangle and gas releases from dissociating methane hydrate deposits.
Labour 52% (+6) Conservative 24% (-5) Liberal Democrat 10% (-3) Green 5% (+1) SNP 5% (+2) Reform UK 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 28-29 Sept
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
Whoops
Lead below 30 points.
Conference bounce for Truss?
Why are Lib Dems taking a hammering - they didn’t aid and abet the bad budget! 😠
Libdems the only challengers throughout Blue wall so why don’t they share the Tory slump? Something whiffs about these polls to me, I think they are Mickey Mouse polls, I don’t trust them as being remotely permanent.
There has been ephemeral polling glitches before, Hague wiped out Blair’s lead during Labour conference week one year, voter frustration with not liking being unable to put petrol in car. It was all short lived, polls went straight back to normal a few weeks later.
Without that foundation in fact Lib Dems should not be dropping by a quarter, they should be going up with blue wall voters switching from Tory to them, I refuse to believe these polls are for keeps, I choose to believe it will be back to a Lab lead about 10 in a few weeks and Lib Dems back to 12+. You can’t believe something is for real when its not founded in fact. Do you see what I mean.
Suppose LibDems had a 20% share in every seat. They would get zero seats with a 20% share. Look at the Greens. 5% share, 1 seat.
Suppose LibDems had a 50% share in 50 seats and a 2% share in the other 600 seats. They would get 50 seat with an overall share of just 6%. Look at the SNP. 5% share, 51 seats.
As voters get wiser to tactical voting and Labour becomes more LibDem friendly, I think that LibDem supporters in Labour seats are declaring that they will vote Labour at a General Election, and in Tory/LibDem marginals, Labour supporters are declaring for the LibDems to get the Tories out.
That is why, as a LibDem, I'm pleased to see the national LibDem share remain around 10%. I know it is a LOT higher in Tory/LibDem marginals. So it must be a LOT lower in the many Tory/Labour marginals - which is good news for anti-Tory voters, who are the large majority.
I don’t really want to argue with this thought out piece of Barnesian thinking, but I don’t believe it as much as I want to.
Lib Dems jump from third to win with 30% swings because the people there just can’t make the leap to Labour, so why would they tell pollsters something different right now?
I have my own theory. I think the polls are wrong now for the same reason polls are always wrong, underestimating Trump and Bolsonaro for two recent examples - the pollsters are now struggling for balanced and honest samples, Truss and Tories have a lot more support than shown waiting in the polling station, it’s just hiding off grid now or lying to pollsters out of sense of embarrassment.
One poll today greens up 1 to 5 Lib Dem down 3 to 10? That tells you there’s inherent vice in the poll. I would believe your theory over mine if less of the Tory plunge broke for Labour and more of it to Lib Dem.
You're assuming people move along a left-right axis, so in departing from the Conservatives their natural next stop is the LibDems. Most people don't think in those orderly terms. They think "Tories, god, they've lost the plot, who else is there?" and they see a lot of Starmer and Reeves sounding sensible, and virtually nothing about the LibDems (who were profoundly unlucky to have their conference cancelled), so they say ":Labour". It's not mysterious, or necessarily permanent.
I don’t think that’s entirely right. A lot of moderate Conservative voters don’t see themselves as particularly political and are motivated more by dislike or even fear of a left-wing government than they are by anything positive that the Tories are advocating (partly explaining why negative campaigning from the Tories can be so very effective).
Whilst you’re right that when these Tories become unhappy with what their party is doing - usually when it has put its own political obsessions before common sense - sensible moderate Labourism can tempt some of these people over, there is still a considerable number who would never vote Labour, but would vote LibDem.
Like me! I am living proof Nick and Barnsy have called this wrong - did you see Mick and Corbyn on the picket line the other day with all their donkey jacket goons, the Lynch Mob around them? Do you think I could go to a polling station and cast a vote for the party associated with that lot?
But you will go and cast a vote for a Party that tried to use borrowing to fund tax cuts for the wealthy and whose incompetence nearly wrecked the UK pensions industry and then pushed up mortgage repayments for the entire nation.
Obviously far less dangerous than voting for a leftie union rep that wants more pay for his members. Like all union reps.
You have a very odd set of priorities.
You what? I’m voting Lib Dem.
Interesting how you mistook my gently satirising the pitch of Team Truss as real, and it got under your skin earlier. I conclude the mind of Truss is the very antithesis of your own views.
Yes. Truss irritates me greatly because she is so bl**dy stupid and has made it to the top job. It is a searing indictment of how seriously stuffed the UK has become. That the Leader of the country can be so woefully inadequate should annoy the whole country.
My apologies to you for mistaking you as a Tory voter. You do a convincing job of putting yourself over as one.
It was quite clear from the posts I was explaining what the pitch is. That same pitch had worked well for Trump and Bolsonaro hasn’t it? Let’s take another look
From highest tax take since the war your taxes back in your family’s housekeeping pot to spend how you wish, you want the idle hooked on state hand outs to find a job, as they are in bed as you go out for your first job of the day to come back to news tte country is unproductive, you want growth, you want Aspiration Britain, productivity and growth (and growth, did I mention growth?) You want an end to our nations decline, you want a UK punching it’s weight in world again.
Surely opinion polls putting this pitch at under 33% are under estimating the appeal of this message amongst all those who will vote at the next election?
Labour 52% (+6) Conservative 24% (-5) Liberal Democrat 10% (-3) Green 5% (+1) SNP 5% (+2) Reform UK 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 28-29 Sept
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
Whoops
Lead below 30 points.
Conference bounce for Truss?
Why are Lib Dems taking a hammering - they didn’t aid and abet the bad budget! 😠
Libdems the only challengers throughout Blue wall so why don’t they share the Tory slump? Something whiffs about these polls to me, I think they are Mickey Mouse polls, I don’t trust them as being remotely permanent.
There has been ephemeral polling glitches before, Hague wiped out Blair’s lead during Labour conference week one year, voter frustration with not liking being unable to put petrol in car. It was all short lived, polls went straight back to normal a few weeks later.
Without that foundation in fact Lib Dems should not be dropping by a quarter, they should be going up with blue wall voters switching from Tory to them, I refuse to believe these polls are for keeps, I choose to believe it will be back to a Lab lead about 10 in a few weeks and Lib Dems back to 12+. You can’t believe something is for real when its not founded in fact. Do you see what I mean.
Suppose LibDems had a 20% share in every seat. They would get zero seats with a 20% share. Look at the Greens. 5% share, 1 seat.
Suppose LibDems had a 50% share in 50 seats and a 2% share in the other 600 seats. They would get 50 seat with an overall share of just 6%. Look at the SNP. 5% share, 51 seats.
As voters get wiser to tactical voting and Labour becomes more LibDem friendly, I think that LibDem supporters in Labour seats are declaring that they will vote Labour at a General Election, and in Tory/LibDem marginals, Labour supporters are declaring for the LibDems to get the Tories out.
That is why, as a LibDem, I'm pleased to see the national LibDem share remain around 10%. I know it is a LOT higher in Tory/LibDem marginals. So it must be a LOT lower in the many Tory/Labour marginals - which is good news for anti-Tory voters, who are the large majority.
I don’t really want to argue with this thought out piece of Barnesian thinking, but I don’t believe it as much as I want to.
Lib Dems jump from third to win with 30% swings because the people there just can’t make the leap to Labour, so why would they tell pollsters something different right now?
I have my own theory. I think the polls are wrong now for the same reason polls are always wrong, underestimating Trump and Bolsonaro for two recent examples - the pollsters are now struggling for balanced and honest samples, Truss and Tories have a lot more support than shown waiting in the polling station, it’s just hiding off grid now or lying to pollsters out of sense of embarrassment.
One poll today greens up 1 to 5 Lib Dem down 3 to 10? That tells you there’s inherent vice in the poll. I would believe your theory over mine if less of the Tory plunge broke for Labour and more of it to Lib Dem.
You're assuming people move along a left-right axis, so in departing from the Conservatives their natural next stop is the LibDems. Most people don't think in those orderly terms. They think "Tories, god, they've lost the plot, who else is there?" and they see a lot of Starmer and Reeves sounding sensible, and virtually nothing about the LibDems (who were profoundly unlucky to have their conference cancelled), so they say ":Labour". It's not mysterious, or necessarily permanent.
I don’t think that’s entirely right. A lot of moderate Conservative voters don’t see themselves as particularly political and are motivated more by dislike or even fear of a left-wing government than they are by anything positive that the Tories are advocating (partly explaining why negative campaigning from the Tories can be so very effective).
Whilst you’re right that when these Tories become unhappy with what their party is doing - usually when it has put its own political obsessions before common sense - sensible moderate Labourism can tempt some of these people over, there is still a considerable number who would never vote Labour, but would vote LibDem.
Like me! I am living proof Nick and Barnsy have called this wrong - did you see Mick and Corbyn on the picket line the other day with all their donkey jacket goons, the Lynch Mob around them? Do you think I could go to a polling station and cast a vote for the party associated with that lot?
But you will go and cast a vote for a Party that tried to use borrowing to fund tax cuts for the wealthy and whose incompetence nearly wrecked the UK pensions industry and then pushed up mortgage repayments for the entire nation.
Obviously far less dangerous than voting for a leftie union rep that wants more pay for his members. Like all union reps.
You have a very odd set of priorities.
You what? I’m voting Lib Dem.
Interesting how you mistook my gently satirising the pitch of Team Truss as real, and it got under your skin earlier. I conclude the mind of Truss is the very antithesis of your own views.
Sometimes we can't tell Rabbit fact from Rabbit satire.
Today is Tuesday I am a LibDem Rabbit, yesterday I was a Conservative Rabbit and tomorrow I will be a Rabbit supporting Starmer. Entirely your call, but elections fall on Thursdays, is that a Green day?
No no MexPets you’ve already outed yourself as too intelligent to believe that mischief you’ve just posted. I always post from the centre ground and you know it.
If I type this
From highest tax take since the war your taxes back in your family’s housekeeping pot to spend how you wish, you want the idle hooked on state hand outs to find a job, as they are in bed as you go out for your first job of the day to come back to news the country is unproductive, you want growth, you want Aspiration Britain, productivity and growth (and growth, did I mention growth?) You want an end to our nations decline, you want a UK punching it’s weight in world again.
That’s not me as a Tory, worse than that on Team Truss, that is me asking you, is this the Truss Pitch? Will this pitch have more votes than opinion polling will find, to tie it in with my second point of the night.
Labour 52% (+6) Conservative 24% (-5) Liberal Democrat 10% (-3) Green 5% (+1) SNP 5% (+2) Reform UK 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 28-29 Sept
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
Whoops
Lead below 30 points.
Conference bounce for Truss?
Why are Lib Dems taking a hammering - they didn’t aid and abet the bad budget! 😠
Libdems the only challengers throughout Blue wall so why don’t they share the Tory slump? Something whiffs about these polls to me, I think they are Mickey Mouse polls, I don’t trust them as being remotely permanent.
There has been ephemeral polling glitches before, Hague wiped out Blair’s lead during Labour conference week one year, voter frustration with not liking being unable to put petrol in car. It was all short lived, polls went straight back to normal a few weeks later.
Without that foundation in fact Lib Dems should not be dropping by a quarter, they should be going up with blue wall voters switching from Tory to them, I refuse to believe these polls are for keeps, I choose to believe it will be back to a Lab lead about 10 in a few weeks and Lib Dems back to 12+. You can’t believe something is for real when its not founded in fact. Do you see what I mean.
Suppose LibDems had a 20% share in every seat. They would get zero seats with a 20% share. Look at the Greens. 5% share, 1 seat.
Suppose LibDems had a 50% share in 50 seats and a 2% share in the other 600 seats. They would get 50 seat with an overall share of just 6%. Look at the SNP. 5% share, 51 seats.
As voters get wiser to tactical voting and Labour becomes more LibDem friendly, I think that LibDem supporters in Labour seats are declaring that they will vote Labour at a General Election, and in Tory/LibDem marginals, Labour supporters are declaring for the LibDems to get the Tories out.
That is why, as a LibDem, I'm pleased to see the national LibDem share remain around 10%. I know it is a LOT higher in Tory/LibDem marginals. So it must be a LOT lower in the many Tory/Labour marginals - which is good news for anti-Tory voters, who are the large majority.
I don’t really want to argue with this thought out piece of Barnesian thinking, but I don’t believe it as much as I want to.
Lib Dems jump from third to win with 30% swings because the people there just can’t make the leap to Labour, so why would they tell pollsters something different right now?
I have my own theory. I think the polls are wrong now for the same reason polls are always wrong, underestimating Trump and Bolsonaro for two recent examples - the pollsters are now struggling for balanced and honest samples, Truss and Tories have a lot more support than shown waiting in the polling station, it’s just hiding off grid now or lying to pollsters out of sense of embarrassment.
One poll today greens up 1 to 5 Lib Dem down 3 to 10? That tells you there’s inherent vice in the poll. I would believe your theory over mine if less of the Tory plunge broke for Labour and more of it to Lib Dem.
You're assuming people move along a left-right axis, so in departing from the Conservatives their natural next stop is the LibDems. Most people don't think in those orderly terms. They think "Tories, god, they've lost the plot, who else is there?" and they see a lot of Starmer and Reeves sounding sensible, and virtually nothing about the LibDems (who were profoundly unlucky to have their conference cancelled), so they say ":Labour". It's not mysterious, or necessarily permanent.
I don’t think that’s entirely right. A lot of moderate Conservative voters don’t see themselves as particularly political and are motivated more by dislike or even fear of a left-wing government than they are by anything positive that the Tories are advocating (partly explaining why negative campaigning from the Tories can be so very effective).
Whilst you’re right that when these Tories become unhappy with what their party is doing - usually when it has put its own political obsessions before common sense - sensible moderate Labourism can tempt some of these people over, there is still a considerable number who would never vote Labour, but would vote LibDem.
Like me! I am living proof Nick and Barnsy have called this wrong - did you see Mick and Corbyn on the picket line the other day with all their donkey jacket goons, the Lynch Mob around them? Do you think I could go to a polling station and cast a vote for the party associated with that lot?
But you will go and cast a vote for a Party that tried to use borrowing to fund tax cuts for the wealthy and whose incompetence nearly wrecked the UK pensions industry and then pushed up mortgage repayments for the entire nation.
Obviously far less dangerous than voting for a leftie union rep that wants more pay for his members. Like all union reps.
You have a very odd set of priorities.
You what? I’m voting Lib Dem.
Interesting how you mistook my gently satirising the pitch of Team Truss as real, and it got under your skin earlier. I conclude the mind of Truss is the very antithesis of your own views.
Yes. Truss irritates me greatly because she is so bl**dy stupid and has made it to the top job. It is a searing indictment of how seriously stuffed the UK has become. That the Leader of the country can be so woefully inadequate should annoy the whole country.
My apologies to you for mistaking you as a Tory voter. You do a convincing job of putting yourself over as one.
It was quite clear from the posts I was explaining what the pitch is. That same pitch had worked well for Trump and Bolsonaro hasn’t it? Let’s take another look
From highest tax take since the war your taxes back in your family’s housekeeping pot to spend how you wish, you want the idle hooked on state hand outs to find a job, as they are in bed as you go out for your first job of the day to come back to news tte country is unproductive, you want growth, you want Aspiration Britain, productivity and growth (and growth, did I mention growth?) You want an end to our nations decline, you want a UK punching it’s weight in world again.
Surely opinion polls putting this pitch at under 33% are under estimating the appeal of this message amongst all those who will vote at the next election?
You are projecting what you think I want rather than knowing what I actually do want. How sad.
BREAKING: North Korean missile has flown over Japan, warning canceled, government says
Nothing on the main news channels about this.
It's all true
U.S. Embassy Tokyo, ACS @ACSTokyo · 21m ALERT: The Japanese government is warning that North Korea appears to have launched at least one ballistic missile. There's a possibility it's heading toward Japan. The government is urging everyone in the country to monitor news media.
A lot of eminent people seem to have gone slightly.... (choose whatever word you like) over the last few years.
Wouldn’t surprise me if it was the Americans. More likely than not, Russia. But it’s possible it was us wot dun it.
Inadvisable for Sachs to make those comments, though.
Thing is, if it was Russia, I would expect them to go big on them being attacked, then respond by attacking some of our inter-European pipelines, maybe one or more of the Norway ones.
Maybe they’ve been trying that plan and it hasn’t worked? Maybe we’ve scared off their subs? Maybe there are explosives with ticking timers on our pipelines?
It’s all very mysterious.
But yeah, it would be foolish to discount us/the Americans.
It's a bit like Covid: ultimately there are very few people who actually know. In fact, the only people who actually know - in the case of the pipeline - will be the people who did it
We will, hopefully, find out who did it after the war is over. And that's what gives me pause over it being the Americans: because it's a pretty serious attack on an ally when you start blowing up their pipelines.
It's a bit like Covid: ultimately there are very few people who actually know. In fact, the only people who actually know - in the case of the pipeline - will be the people who did it
We will, hopefully, find out who did it after the war is over. And that's what gives me pause over it being the Americans: because it's a pretty serious attack on an ally when you start blowing up their pipelines.
If it wasn't the Russians, why are the Russians still pumping gas into it?
It's a bit like Covid: ultimately there are very few people who actually know. In fact, the only people who actually know - in the case of the pipeline - will be the people who did it
We will, hopefully, find out who did it after the war is over. And that's what gives me pause over it being the Americans: because it's a pretty serious attack on an ally when you start blowing up their pipelines.
If it wasn't the Russians, why are the Russians still pumping gas into it?
Worth remembering that the only reason we are talking about nuclear weapons is because Russia is losing on the battlefield.
And that is precisely why the next steps have to be taken with care, we have achieved our main aim which is ensuring most of Ukraine is freed of Russian forces. No point then going too far in provoking Putin given he is clearly unstable and in charge of the world's biggest nuclear missiles arsenal
No HYFUD, our aim is not to ensure 'most' of Ukraine is free. We should be helping Ukraine to be free of all Russian forces, prior to pre-2022 invasion limits (I can accept Crimea, sadly, as a fait accompli).
Let's put it this way. If France invaded England but it only took Kent and some chunks of East Anglia, would we put up with the view that "most of the country is free" and we should sue for peace?
No, our main aim now should be to avoid being wiped out in a nuclear holocaust.
France is also a nuclear weapons power, if say some mad dictator came to power in France and invaded us but we managed to force the French forces back to Kent and patches of East Anglia before the French dictator threatened to use nuclear missiles if we went any further then realpolitik would also force us to stop there and wait.
We had achieved our aim of liberating most of the country, better that than the risk of destroying it with nuclear holocaust.
Though hopefully the fact we had nukes ourselves would have deterred the French from invasion in the first place. Ukraine being told to give up its nukes in the 1990s was clearly one of the biggest diplomatic errors of the 20th century given Russia was keeping its nukes
So what happens when Putin invades again in another three years, then threatens nukes again? Then when he does the same with the Baltics? Appeasement is madness, and it's always the right wing reactionaries that do it, just as in the 1930s.
Then Ukraine takes action to force him back again. If he invades the Baltics then we really are at war as they are in NATO.
However even Hitler didn't have nuclear weapons. This is a whole new ball game. You don't go to war with a nuclear missile armed state for anything other than an absolute last resort
But Ukraine won't be able to force him back again because he can engage in another round of nuclear blackmail. Just as he can with NATO states.
Comments
A snippet:
"What is the probability that Russia will use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine in the next MONTH?
Aggregate probability: 0.0859 (8.6%)
All probabilities: 0.27, 0.04, 0.02, 0.001, 0.09, 0.08, 0.07"
So those seven 'forecasters' (who are they btw?) think the probbility is between 27% and 0.1%. And these guys have taken the straight average. Right. Highly credible.
Putin drops a small nuke
What then?
(All probabilities: 0.27, 0.04, 0.02, 0.001, 0.09, 0.08, 0.07)
Somewhere between 0.1% and 27% chance doesn't look unreasonable to me. Between one in a thousand (a bit low) and one in four (a bit high).
EDIT: Benpointer got there before me.
Given all that Putin has said, and everything he has done, and the clear signs of desperation in the Russian military - including a very risky mobilisation - there is a non-trivial risk of him exploding a small nuke
8.6% chance over the next month is not outlandishly pessimistic
Not to say it will have a positive effect, from his point of view, but even with plenty of people rushed to the front it cannot be all that many of those mobilised?
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1576941908806418432?s=20&t=YhD1ja2s0jTwIeThFrEeOA
Intriguingly, this blog - using the same aggregate forecasting method - has similar odds
"Will at least one nuclear weapon be detonated in Ukraine before 2023?": 7% says
@metaculus
"Will a Russian nuclear weapon be detonated in the US before 2023?": 1%
The public likely doesn't properly distinguish these scenarios"
https://twitter.com/StefanFSchubert/status/1577000723048714240?s=20&t=j-7p4KlFDxr_4OyY439Q0w
7%
I thought I had nailed it. It’s hardly the most complicated pitch - much the same as Bolsonaro and Trump, only with fortified air of pretension and a messianic zeal.
Let's put it this way. If France invaded England but it only took Kent and some chunks of East Anglia, would we put up with the view that "most of the country is free" and we should sue for peace?
Either way all the estimates are wrong. The correct answer is either 100% or 0%.
It looks quite possible they won't have enough arms, kit, training, motivation, to make much of a difference
It's important to remember Ukraine is totally mobilised, and has a million men and women under arms. They ARE highly motivated, they are increasingly well trained, and they have NATO weapons
Whilst you’re right that when these Tories become unhappy with what their party is doing - usually when it has put its own political obsessions before common sense - sensible moderate Labourism can tempt some of these people over, there is still a considerable number who would never vote Labour, but would vote LibDem.
France is also a nuclear weapons power, if say some mad dictator came to power in France and invaded us but we managed to force the French forces back to Kent and patches of East Anglia before the French dictator threatened to use nuclear missiles if we went any further then realpolitik would also force us to stop there and wait.
We had achieved our aim of liberating most of the country, better that than the risk of destroying it with nuclear holocaust.
Though hopefully the fact we had nukes ourselves would have deterred the French from invasion in the first place. Ukraine being told to give up its nukes in the 1990s was clearly one of the biggest diplomatic errors of the 20th century given Russia was keeping its nukes
Will still get the mauling on election night.
Nah. The only decision available is wait for Captain Truss to go down with her ship, and relaunch from the opposition front bench.
BREAKING: Japan says North Korea has launched a missile, warns people to seek shelter immediately
https://twitter.com/BNONews/status/1577063009360531456?s=20&t=6Op-oNsszoUTknitQObUoQ
#BREAKING: The Japanese government is warning that North Korea appears to have launched at least one ballistic missile. There's a possibility it's heading toward Japan. The government is urging everyone in the country to take shelter immediately. - NHK
Message running on local TV: "North Korea appears to have launched a missile. Please evacuate to the inside of a building or go to the basement. Target area: Hokkaido"
https://twitter.com/ShigesaburoO/status/1577065648148353024?s=20&t=6Op-oNsszoUTknitQObUoQ
"Holy shit.
This is the account of the Japanese Prime Minister's residence.
They warn N. Korea has launched a ballistic missile towards Japan.
Jesus help."
https://twitter.com/XianJaneway/status/1577065778473742337?s=20&t=6Op-oNsszoUTknitQObUoQ
https://twitter.com/BNONews/status/1577067133527367693?s=20&t=_sIa47AyO1OFETH2DWJn7g
However even Hitler didn't have nuclear weapons. This is a whole new ball game. You don't go to war with a nuclear missile armed state for anything other than an absolute last resort
.... except everyone in Japan, who must be having a fucking heart attack
Way to frighten everyone. Surely co-ordinated with Putin
Obviously far less dangerous than voting for a leftie union rep that wants more pay for his members. Like all union reps.
You have a very odd set of priorities.
Perhaps someone is wonely for Trump.
I’m listening to an excellent guardian long read on the nature of free will.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-audio-long-read/id587347784
Apparently some of the smartest minds in academia have concluded everything is predetermined, following a kind of cruel disturbing logic.
“Come, come, nuclear bomb”
In any event the cost of schtupping a girl is to spend eternity with them..,
That'sthe stage I'm at. My assumption is that any nuclear strike by Russia will, if it detonates at all, will fail to leave Russian territory before doing so, with any fallout blown back over Russia in a way causing most self-harm. It just appears to be the way things are going.
And of course that is just a measure of the nervousness of the entire world
Interesting how you mistook my gently satirising the pitch of Team Truss as real, and it got under your skin earlier. I conclude the mind of Truss is the very antithesis of your own views.
However they still might not give his party an overall majority just in case, even if they give him most seats and enough to become PM
U.S. Embassy Tokyo, ACS
@ACSTokyo
·
21m
ALERT: The Japanese government is warning that North Korea appears to have launched at least one ballistic missile. There's a possibility it's heading toward Japan. The government is urging everyone in the country to monitor news media.
Sirens:
https://twitter.com/TheInsiderPaper/status/1577071303638798337?s=20&t=FAcAwNPa8c7naimk_Q0GKQ
Now I still see the SKS who called incessantly for more lockdowns. I'm still pretty sore about that. But for most voters I think that's probably ancient history they would rather forget about.
Hoping for @edmundintokyo to enlighten us in due course.
You are right, the world is nervy and twitchy, and this doesn’t help. One presumes Kim recognises this as well, and wants something.
The Tories may think this country is their personal plaything and they can change leaders without bothering to consult the public like they we're back in the 18th century but the voters will have other ideas.
We didn't vote leave to take back control to then have the useless Tory Party inflict whatever losers they want to inflict on us every few months!
This is a betting site, it would be good for betting to keep in mind certain candidates or views may be woefully unrepresented in opinion polling.
Another example I used, 2000, during Labours conference Hague wiped out Tony Blair’s opinion poll lead didn’t he, ephemerally based on single issue that was resolved and things reverted back.
"The missile flew over our land, and it could have a grave impact on the lives and livelihood of the Japanese people. We are collecting information on whether there is falling debris, Minister Matsuno says. Cooperating with relevant countries, is gathering information on the launch."
https://twitter.com/myhlee/status/1577074711573721088?s=20&t=f0d7_19bMWP6Iw9dnt4TSQ
Imagine this in the UK. Imagine if we all got a sudden warning from the Home Office. on our phones, social media, etc, to "run to the nearest shelter because Russia has launched a ballistic missile at the UK". Sirens go off in the streets. We all wait, tensed, to see if the missile lands...
Crikey
Today is Tuesday I am a LibDem Rabbit, yesterday I was a Conservative Rabbit and tomorrow I will be a Rabbit supporting Starmer. Entirely your call, but elections fall on Thursdays, is that a Green day?
My apologies to you for mistaking you as a Tory voter. You do a convincing job of putting yourself over as one.
From highest tax take since the war your taxes back in your family’s housekeeping pot to spend how you wish,
you want the idle hooked on state hand outs to find a job, as they are in bed as you go out for your first job of the day to come back to news tte country is unproductive,
you want growth, you want Aspiration Britain, productivity and growth (and growth, did I mention growth?)
You want an end to our nations decline, you want a UK punching it’s weight in world again.
Surely opinion polls putting this pitch at under 33% are under estimating the appeal of this message amongst all those who will vote at the next election?
If I type this
From highest tax take since the war your taxes back in your family’s housekeeping pot to spend how you wish,
you want the idle hooked on state hand outs to find a job, as they are in bed as you go out for your first job of the day to come back to news the country is unproductive,
you want growth, you want Aspiration Britain, productivity and growth (and growth, did I mention growth?)
You want an end to our nations decline, you want a UK punching it’s weight in world again.
That’s not me as a Tory, worse than that on Team Truss, that is me asking you, is this the Truss Pitch? Will this pitch have more votes than opinion polling will find, to tie it in with my second point of the night.
Goodnight.
https://twitter.com/LPNH/status/1576985043465285634
These academics seem to have forgotten that even conspiracy theories require at least some evidence.
Inadvisable for Sachs to make those comments, though.
Maybe they’ve been trying that plan and it hasn’t worked? Maybe we’ve scared off their subs? Maybe there are explosives with ticking timers on our pipelines?
It’s all very mysterious.
But yeah, it would be foolish to discount us/the Americans.
https://www.ft.com/content/9db1010e-591f-4f2d-ba84-0daaf0bbb0f2
We will, hopefully, find out who did it after the war is over. And that's what gives me pause over it being the Americans: because it's a pretty serious attack on an ally when you start blowing up their pipelines.