One year on – politicalbetting.com

Stuartinromford said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

It's not often that I agree with Alanbrooke, but this is a good summary. Thanks.

My feeling is that the war will drag on for many years. The West cannot push back too hard for fear of provoking nuclear escalation by the Russians, but also cannot give in to Putin's aggression. At the same time, Putin is too heavily invested in the war to give up easily, and the Russian ability to withstand a beating is legendary.

The hope has to be that the Russian army is pushed back to the Russian border (and there's haggling to be had about exactly what that means).

But then what?

The conflict rages on.

It seems unlikely though as, to get the RF all the way back to the 2014 borders, AFU would have to be blowing the shit out of targets on the other side in the Belgorod, Rostov and Voronezh oblasts. I dunno if Biden would stand for that.

Dura_Ace said:

Stuartinromford said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

It's not often that I agree with Alanbrooke, but this is a good summary. Thanks.

My feeling is that the war will drag on for many years. The West cannot push back too hard for fear of provoking nuclear escalation by the Russians, but also cannot give in to Putin's aggression. At the same time, Putin is too heavily invested in the war to give up easily, and the Russian ability to withstand a beating is legendary.

The hope has to be that the Russian army is pushed back to the Russian border (and there's haggling to be had about exactly what that means).

But then what?

The conflict rages on.

It seems unlikely though as, to get the RF all the way back to the 2014 borders, AFU would have to be blowing the shit out of targets on the other side in the Belgorod, Rostov and Voronezh oblasts. I dunno if Biden would stand for that.

What are the chances of a change of attitude from Belarus? That might well make a difference.

Anabobazina said:

Malmesbury said:

Anabobazina said:

Finally tried ChatGPT. In the least surprising news of the day, the PB Myth fails to live up to the reality.

I tried some pretty basic stuff. Decent quality of copyrighting but absolutely chockablock full of huge factual errors.

Would be impossible to use without serious human input although could be useful for structuring pieces at speed for those who struggle to write well.

It is rather like having a naive, inexperienced assistant who is very good at copy and paste.

In programming, it can generate volumes of bad code - sometimes works, but needs serious testing. For boilerplate converters etc, powerful, but dangerous. Because that is where you want accuracy.

A perfect analogy.

I've been 'sold' lots of automated solutions in the last few years. In all cases, it took me about two minutes to ascertain that they would all need heavy nursemaiding by human beings, and therefore were not, in fact, automated at all.

In most cases, it would be cheaper just to hire an expert person rather than pay for the software and the human quality control.

I would say that, in a number of situations, they can help. Hence the law firm that is intending to use such systems to do the work of paralegals.

Another area where they are already successful is in chat systems for helplines. They resolve standard user problems quite well. By doing so, they allow the humans to concentrate on the difficult cases.

Stocky said:

Not sure what time today the SNP deadline is. Article below doesn't say.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64754523

SNP official communication to members: "Nominations close 12h00 on 24 February". I don't recall receiving anything to change that.

Malmesbury said:

Anabobazina said:

Malmesbury said:

Anabobazina said:

Finally tried ChatGPT. In the least surprising news of the day, the PB Myth fails to live up to the reality.

I tried some pretty basic stuff. Decent quality of copyrighting but absolutely chockablock full of huge factual errors.

Would be impossible to use without serious human input although could be useful for structuring pieces at speed for those who struggle to write well.

It is rather like having a naive, inexperienced assistant who is very good at copy and paste.

In programming, it can generate volumes of bad code - sometimes works, but needs serious testing. For boilerplate converters etc, powerful, but dangerous. Because that is where you want accuracy.

A perfect analogy.

I've been 'sold' lots of automated solutions in the last few years. In all cases, it took me about two minutes to ascertain that they would all need heavy nursemaiding by human beings, and therefore were not, in fact, automated at all.

In most cases, it would be cheaper just to hire an expert person rather than pay for the software and the human quality control.

I would say that, in a number of situations, they can help. Hence the law firm that is intending to use such systems to do the work of paralegals.

Another area where they are already successful is in chat systems for helplines. They resolve standard user problems quite well. By doing so, they allow the humans to concentrate on the difficult cases.

Agreed, but not in my profession (which sadly I can't mention, as I don't reveal biographical details on forums!)

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

Backing the Ukrainians to the hilt is a perfect example of "the boldest course is the safest."

Why are we not doing that, then?

I rather think we are.

NATO's commitment - in terms of material aid, and intelligence - has been immense.

Carnyx said:

Stocky said:

Not sure what time today the SNP deadline is. Article below doesn't say.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64754523

SNP official communication to members: "Nominations close 12h00 on 24 February". I don't recall receiving anything to change that.

21 minutes to go.

When is Ash's launch?

OldKingCole said:

Dura_Ace said:

Stuartinromford said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

It's not often that I agree with Alanbrooke, but this is a good summary. Thanks.

My feeling is that the war will drag on for many years. The West cannot push back too hard for fear of provoking nuclear escalation by the Russians, but also cannot give in to Putin's aggression. At the same time, Putin is too heavily invested in the war to give up easily, and the Russian ability to withstand a beating is legendary.

The hope has to be that the Russian army is pushed back to the Russian border (and there's haggling to be had about exactly what that means).

But then what?

The conflict rages on.

It seems unlikely though as, to get the RF all the way back to the 2014 borders, AFU would have to be blowing the shit out of targets on the other side in the Belgorod, Rostov and Voronezh oblasts. I dunno if Biden would stand for that.

What are the chances of a change of attitude from Belarus? That might well make a difference.

VVP's plan is obviously to get Belarus into the RF before Batka dies and his combover falls off. Given that the Belarusian opposition is exiled, in jail or fragmented he could well do it.

Our Ukrainians wanted to watch Biden in Kiev. They didn't give a shit when Scholz, Macron or, amazingly, Starmer went there but Biden was a box office draw so we watched it on Ukrainian TV.

What was interesting that the Ukrainian TV (Russian) translation just stopped and was replaced by stony silence when Biden started dribbling on about the people of Belarus yearning for freedom. The Ukrainian state obviously doesn't want its people to think that Biden has eyes for anybody but them.

At 12:45 or 00:45 this morning if you prefer we had the following extraordinary comment from Dura Ace:

'So you've got millions of people who identified as Russian, Hungarian, Moldovan and Romanian being forcibly added to Ukraine without consultation or consent. This all held together when they were part of the Soviet Union but without that central dominance it was inevitably going to fall apart in bloody and spectacular fashion.'

And yet it didn't. The only major problem was its former imperialist neighbour trying to scupper its democratic transition. I've long been an optimist on Ukraine. I loved the images of people casually walking around in disbelief at Yanukyovich's palace after he had fled. It suggested a country that was largely at ease with itself. Of course that wasn't tolerable to Putin. And isn't it funny how the major ethnic groups didn't seem to be in civil conflict, just the Russian minority getting weapons authorised by the Kremlin.

I thought that Dura was a nihilist. Judging by that he sounds like a pro-Soviet nostalgist or Russian imperialist.

YBarddCwsc said:

LostPassword said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Eabhal said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TOPPING said:

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.

I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.

No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?

No?

It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.

As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".

I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.

A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.

The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.

Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.

Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.

The War is actively benefitting the US economically.

It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.

Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.

Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.

I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.

I think DA has?

Yes. He has. And he speaks sense about the War given his personal experience. Wars are a mess.

But, the many second homers who tub-thump about the War on PB? Not a squeak.

I'm struggling to think who these people are. I know Sandpit has a second home, but since that is in Ukraine it can't be who you're thinking of.

I wasn't aware of any of the other strong supporters of Ukraine having second homes, excepting one.

I really don't want to stoop to "naming and shaming" ...

Let's just do some maths.

The number of Ukrainian refugees in the UK is ~ 100,000

The number of second homes in the UK is ~ 1,000,000 (not counting the second homes in France, Spain, etc).

There are an order of magnitude more second homes than refugees from the War.

I agree that the UK has the capacity to accept more Ukrainian refugees and that the government's policy to make it difficult for Ukrainian refugees to teach Britain has been reprehensible and compares badly to a country like Ireland that had taken many more Ukrainian refugees relative to its population.

But what has that got to do with your point? You now seem to be arguing that there aren't enough Ukrainians refugees to go around for all the PBers with second homes to all have one.

Edit - and you certainly were wanting to shame other PBers, but rather than identify people specifically you choose to try and tar all of those who have spoken in support of Ukraine by not doing so.

China needs to decide what it is doing. It promised a partnership with Russia that knew no bounds then abstained on the war. They come up with a peace plan which is presented to Moscow. If they are serious they should be talking to both sides i.e going to Kyiv.

BartholomewRoberts said:

TOPPING said:

Barnesian said:

TOPPING said:

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.

I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.

No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?

No?

It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.

As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".

I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.

The only people prepared to think we should, or ought to, have a nuclear war over Ukraine are the people threatening it.

You know who that is? Russia.

I certainly did not read RCS's comment last night in the way you define them.

So a question: how far are you willing to let Russia and/or China take over so you can feel safe from nuclear war? Just Ukraine? The Baltics? Eastern Europe? The UK? Where's your personal red lines?

I think that the NATO partnership is a sensible red line.

Would you go to war now on account of Ukraine?

OK so you agree with the principle that it is sometimes worth risking nuclear war to face down nuclear blackmail. It's just a question of where you draw the line.

GBS: Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?
Actress: My goodness, Well, I’d certainly think about it.
GBS: Would you sleep with me for a pound?
Actress: Certainly not! What kind of woman do you think I am?!
GBS: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

Absurd analogy. If someone tries to break into your house, frankly I wish you all the best but I am going to do nothing about it. If someone tries to break into my house I will take more direct action.

If somebody tries to break into your house then I would want our taxes to help fund the Police to investigate and arrest them before they break into my house.

If somebody has broken into one of my neighbours homes and trashed it, another neighbour's home and raped the woman who was sleeping, and another neighbour's home and killed the entire family . . . then I would certainly want action taken to stop them before they get into my home. Not say "not my problem" and sleep soundly until I hear the window being smashed.

Yeah well today is tortured analogy day on PB. Haven't got the stamina to work through yours. Soz.

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

So today's question.

At the end of his career just how much higher than Sir Donald Bradman's test average will be Sir Harry Brook's test average?

I’d be very surprised if it is. Though delighted.
Note Bradman was only fifth on the list of runs scored in first nine test innings (now sixth). Continuing to score at that level throughout a modern test career, though not impossible, is improbable.

Worth noting that for almost two-thirds of his Test career Bradman's average was lower than his final career average. That feels like an unusual profile to a career, but, who knows?

Things I would have liked to see:
Bradman b Anderson 0

TOPPING said:

FF43 said:

mwadams said:

FF43 said:

I think the Chinese 12 point peace plan could be a useful framework and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. It would require rigour on point 1 on sovereignty with the other points fudged for face saving. It might seem a sick joke for Russia to claim "legitimate security concerns" given what it has done to Ukraine, but if it brings an earlier end to this horrible war while ensuring Ukraine's sovereignty, it could be worth playing along.

https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/zxxx_662805/202302/t20230224_11030713.html

China's "peace plan" does look like a plausible (i.e. platitude-heavy) framework once Ukraine feels that they have eliminated the short-term threat from Russia. That doesn't necessarily mean 2014 borders - I suspect they might feel that way if they break through in the south evicting Russia from Crimea, and push them back to de facto January 2022 borders. Not beyond the bounds of possibility.

I think it's OK as a framework. It lacks detail but you don't want that at this stage. IMO the western response should be cautious interest rather than outright rejection. As long as Ukraine's territorial integrity is maintained in full (point 1) and its security interests are supported (point 2) everything else is possible.

Two things going for this plan, I think. The Russians may listen to the Chinese when they won't listen to anyone else. It's better to have the Chinese engaged in finding a solution than supporting the Russian aggression.

The difficulty is that the West is liable to think that because any peace plan doesn't emanate from the West that it is a bit Mickey Mouse.

And hence I doubt it will be given the consideration it merits, if it merits it.

If you put the plan through it’s paces -

1) stop fighting
2) lines as they are
3) remove all sanctions on Russia
4) some talks.

Anabobazina said:

Carnyx said:

Stocky said:

Not sure what time today the SNP deadline is. Article below doesn't say.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64754523

SNP official communication to members: "Nominations close 12h00 on 24 February". I don't recall receiving anything to change that.

21 minutes to go.

When is Ash's launch?

I rather think the others have shown the need to put the seacock valves in before you actually break the shampoo on the bows ...

Malmesbury said:

TOPPING said:

FF43 said:

mwadams said:

FF43 said:

I think the Chinese 12 point peace plan could be a useful framework and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. It would require rigour on point 1 on sovereignty with the other points fudged for face saving. It might seem a sick joke for Russia to claim "legitimate security concerns" given what it has done to Ukraine, but if it brings an earlier end to this horrible war while ensuring Ukraine's sovereignty, it could be worth playing along.

https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/zxxx_662805/202302/t20230224_11030713.html

China's "peace plan" does look like a plausible (i.e. platitude-heavy) framework once Ukraine feels that they have eliminated the short-term threat from Russia. That doesn't necessarily mean 2014 borders - I suspect they might feel that way if they break through in the south evicting Russia from Crimea, and push them back to de facto January 2022 borders. Not beyond the bounds of possibility.

I think it's OK as a framework. It lacks detail but you don't want that at this stage. IMO the western response should be cautious interest rather than outright rejection. As long as Ukraine's territorial integrity is maintained in full (point 1) and its security interests are supported (point 2) everything else is possible.

Two things going for this plan, I think. The Russians may listen to the Chinese when they won't listen to anyone else. It's better to have the Chinese engaged in finding a solution than supporting the Russian aggression.

The difficulty is that the West is liable to think that because any peace plan doesn't emanate from the West that it is a bit Mickey Mouse.

And hence I doubt it will be given the consideration it merits, if it merits it.

If you put the plan through it’s paces -

1) stop fighting
2) lines as they are
3) remove all sanctions on Russia
4) some talks.

Obviously not good enough for the PB Generals. Where is the withdraw to the 2014 borders?

NOMINATIONS CLOSE

Will Forbidden be permitted?

Will Useless be utilised?

Will Regal reign?

Dear Independence Supporters,

My open letter to you…

-Ash



https://twitter.com/ashregansnp/status/1629081412161744896

Malmesbury said:

TOPPING said:

Malmesbury said:

TOPPING said:

FF43 said:

mwadams said:

FF43 said:

I think the Chinese 12 point peace plan could be a useful framework and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. It would require rigour on point 1 on sovereignty with the other points fudged for face saving. It might seem a sick joke for Russia to claim "legitimate security concerns" given what it has done to Ukraine, but if it brings an earlier end to this horrible war while ensuring Ukraine's sovereignty, it could be worth playing along.

https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/zxxx_662805/202302/t20230224_11030713.html

China's "peace plan" does look like a plausible (i.e. platitude-heavy) framework once Ukraine feels that they have eliminated the short-term threat from Russia. That doesn't necessarily mean 2014 borders - I suspect they might feel that way if they break through in the south evicting Russia from Crimea, and push them back to de facto January 2022 borders. Not beyond the bounds of possibility.

I think it's OK as a framework. It lacks detail but you don't want that at this stage. IMO the western response should be cautious interest rather than outright rejection. As long as Ukraine's territorial integrity is maintained in full (point 1) and its security interests are supported (point 2) everything else is possible.

Two things going for this plan, I think. The Russians may listen to the Chinese when they won't listen to anyone else. It's better to have the Chinese engaged in finding a solution than supporting the Russian aggression.

The difficulty is that the West is liable to think that because any peace plan doesn't emanate from the West that it is a bit Mickey Mouse.

And hence I doubt it will be given the consideration it merits, if it merits it.

If you put the plan through it’s paces -

1) stop fighting
2) lines as they are
3) remove all sanctions on Russia
4) some talks.

Obviously not good enough for the PB Generals. Where is the withdraw to the 2014 borders?

What about the Ukrainians? What do they want?

Yes that is critical. I suppose if there is going to be a negotiation then the starting point will be one that neither side likes or wants.

Or there won't be a negotiation.

Carnyx said:

Fairliered said:

When I was walking the dogs this morning, it was the first morning this year that actually felt like spring! I expect you southrons have already had plenty of mornings like that.

Mind, I don't let myself beliece it is spring till about 20 April. I've seen some very heavy snowfalls up to that sort of time.

A few years ago we came back from two months in SE Asia on Feb 28th to be ‘welcomed’ a couple of days later by the Beast from the East.

Driver said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

Backing the Ukrainians to the hilt is a perfect example of "the boldest course is the safest."

Why are we not doing that, then?

I rather think we are.

NATO's commitment - in terms of material aid, and intelligence - has been immense.

Oh. So "to the hilt" is not providing airpower nor troops, for example.

Perhaps you should spec out "to the hilt". All I get from the dictionary is "to the very limit". It doesn't have an asterisk excluding various items or categories.

Is there any evidence of the Ukrainians requesting a specific thing and NATO saying no?

I haven't been paying too much attention but there was some kind of hoo-ha around fighter jets wasn't there? And perhaps the 101st Airborne although maybe Zelenskyy didn't want them hollering around the position.

Slackbladder said:

CarlottaVance said:

Dear Independence Supporters,

My open letter to you…

-Ash



https://twitter.com/ashregansnp/status/1629081412161744896

I mean, if independence is your number 1 priority, then thats the next step.

Ashten seems to actually believe in an independent Scotland. Funny old world.

Malmesbury said:

TOPPING said:

FF43 said:

mwadams said:

FF43 said:

I think the Chinese 12 point peace plan could be a useful framework and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. It would require rigour on point 1 on sovereignty with the other points fudged for face saving. It might seem a sick joke for Russia to claim "legitimate security concerns" given what it has done to Ukraine, but if it brings an earlier end to this horrible war while ensuring Ukraine's sovereignty, it could be worth playing along.

https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/zxxx_662805/202302/t20230224_11030713.html

China's "peace plan" does look like a plausible (i.e. platitude-heavy) framework once Ukraine feels that they have eliminated the short-term threat from Russia. That doesn't necessarily mean 2014 borders - I suspect they might feel that way if they break through in the south evicting Russia from Crimea, and push them back to de facto January 2022 borders. Not beyond the bounds of possibility.

I think it's OK as a framework. It lacks detail but you don't want that at this stage. IMO the western response should be cautious interest rather than outright rejection. As long as Ukraine's territorial integrity is maintained in full (point 1) and its security interests are supported (point 2) everything else is possible.

Two things going for this plan, I think. The Russians may listen to the Chinese when they won't listen to anyone else. It's better to have the Chinese engaged in finding a solution than supporting the Russian aggression.

The difficulty is that the West is liable to think that because any peace plan doesn't emanate from the West that it is a bit Mickey Mouse.

And hence I doubt it will be given the consideration it merits, if it merits it.

If you put the plan through it’s paces -

1) stop fighting
2) lines as they are
3) remove all sanctions on Russia
4) some talks.

If that is the Chinese plan it sounds terrible. Essentially freezing the conflict at the point when Ukraine has the best chance of making a breakthrough and remove ALL the sanctions against Russia just as they are beginning to bite. Also I'll state again that it's odd to play peacemaker and only talk to one side.

It sounds like China saying to Russia, 'We're your friends, we really are but there isn't much we can do to help.'

OldKingCole said:

Malmesbury said:

OldKingCole said:

TOPPING said:

LostPassword said:

TOPPING said:

LostPassword said:

glw said:

Jonathan said:

In terms of thinking the unthinkable, I wonder where we would be today if Ukraine had fallen last year. What would our (Nato) policy be if it were to happen?

Well it's unlikely that that would have been the end of it. Moldava would be in deep trouble if it hadn't already fallen. God knows what would be going on with Sweden and Finland, but there might be more opponents to them joining NATO. Turkey might be more aligned with Russia, thinking that they'd back the winner. Across Easter Europe countries would be having to decide whether to heavily arm themselves of maybe shift to a more neutral of pro-Russia stance.

Just be glad Trump did not win, or succeed in insurrection, Europe would be screwed if that had happened.

We'd likely have a lot more people saying that defending the Baltic States wasn't worth the bother, and they should never have been allowed into NATO.

Classic PB Armchair Generalship summed up in one post.

Create increasingly far-fetched hypotheticals and then criticise what is believed would be the response of other PB posters.

Says the poster who thinks others want to die in a nuclear apocalypse.

LOL

Other posters on here do want to die in a nuclear apocalypse. I had a lengthy discussion with one such not so long ago who wanted their family and themselves to die in a nuclear apocalypse who received, IIRC, not a few "likes" for their posts.

Takes me back to my youth; better dead than red. Personally I took the opposite view.

No one has answered the vital question.

If Putin nukes Slough, who is liable for the CGT from the improvement?

Betjeman has a lot for which to answer!

I spent several months living in Slough. Fortunately, there were Class 50s.

YBarddCwsc said:

LostPassword said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Eabhal said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TOPPING said:

JosiasJessop said:

TOPPING said:

Another cracking header, @Alanbrooke thanks v much.

I think the "we must all be obliterated in order not to give in to nuclear blackmail [and thereby we will somehow win]" crowd are labouring under the historical determinism fallacy.

No-one's saying we must all be obliterated. Can you say how letting Russia win makes us, or the world, safer in the short and long terms?

No?

It may or may not make us safer. I just ponder on those who by implication are prepared to or even think we ought to have a nuclear war over Ukraine.

As I said, I have no answers but many of the proponents of such a course of action think that somehow we will all be there at the end saying "I told you so".

I noted that @rcs1000 appeared to be one such last night. Of course I'm not sure the fallout will reach him in the US so perhaps that accounts for his gung ho-ness.

A lot of the more negative consequences of this conflict don't reach the US.

The US military contributions to Ukraine are essentially left over bits and bobs, that don't affect US capability. By contrast, the UK has apparently given Ukraine 30 big guns, and we have 3 left. 3. And enough shells to fire them for 6 days. Also, our military contributions are gratis (afaik) whereas the US ones are a loan deal that effectively buys Ukraine. No free lunch from them.

Energy costs have affected the US, but as that country has a vast oil industry, it's also greatly assisted the US economy, whilst it has crippled the UK.

Then there are the refugee flows - these are wonderful people who I am sure will be a long term asset if they decide to stay, but again, something that need not bother the US.

The War is actively benefitting the US economically.

It has been at a huge cost to Western & Eastern Europe.

Most of the pain is being felt, as usual, not by the demographic represented on PB.

Why, of all the huge numbers of PB-ers with second homes, not one has offered to house a Ukrainian refugee.

I suggested this to one PB-er moaning about his second home a while back, and he gave some shame-faced babble about not suitable.

I think DA has?

Yes. He has. And he speaks sense about the War given his personal experience. Wars are a mess.

But, the many second homers who tub-thump about the War on PB? Not a squeak.

I'm struggling to think who these people are. I know Sandpit has a second home, but since that is in Ukraine it can't be who you're thinking of.

I wasn't aware of any of the other strong supporters of Ukraine having second homes, excepting one.

I really don't want to stoop to "naming and shaming" ...

Let's just do some maths.

The number of Ukrainian refugees in the UK is ~ 100,000

The number of second homes in the UK is ~ 1,000,000 (not counting the second homes in France, Spain, etc).

There are an order of magnitude more second homes than refugees from the War.

Why don't people with other assets like pensions hand them over to Ukrainians to pay their rent?

YBarddCwsc said:

dixiedean said:

Interesting how Equal Marriage has gone from highly controversial to simply beyond the Pale to oppose in little over a decade.
There must be many dozens of MP's currently sitting in Westminster who voted against.
Will this become an issue at General Election time?

The speed with which this has happened is astonishing.

In the UK, from the end of Section 28 to gay marriage took 11 years. And some countries such as RoI have traversed an even longer path just as quickly.

Everyone under 30 just regards this as perfectly fine -- wtf, shrug of the shoulders, no probs.

Which is indeed great, though should make some of the more longstanding politicians who are very fiery on the topic a bit more reflective given how many friends and colleagues of theirs, or themselves, were not exactly pushing it for decades.

Having seemingly tripped up both Sturgeon and Forbes for being too extreme one way or the other where's Regan on the "traditional values" / "woke" axis ?

Stuartinromford said:

Malmesbury said:

Stuartinromford said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

It's not often that I agree with Alanbrooke, but this is a good summary. Thanks.

My feeling is that the war will drag on for many years. The West cannot push back too hard for fear of provoking nuclear escalation by the Russians, but also cannot give in to Putin's aggression. At the same time, Putin is too heavily invested in the war to give up easily, and the Russian ability to withstand a beating is legendary.

The hope has to be that the Russian army is pushed back to the Russian border (and there's haggling to be had about exactly what that means).

But then what?

Korean border style thing? We could hope....

It's the best hope I can think of, and to be hoped for on that basis, but that doesn't make it good.

Or "Serb entity" style thing for the Donbass and/or Crimea. Some autonomy but no right to secede?

Pulpstar said:

Having seemingly tripped up both Sturgeon and Forbes for being too extreme one way or the other where's Regan on the "traditional values" / "woke" axis ?

Strikes me as sensibly middle ground. Would be helpful if any of the networks would cover her campaign launch. Then we might actually known more about her!

Anabobazina said:

Pulpstar said:

Having seemingly tripped up both Sturgeon and Forbes for being too extreme one way or the other where's Regan on the "traditional values" / "woke" axis ?

Strikes me as sensibly middle ground. Would be helpful if any of the networks would cover her campaign launch. Then we might actually known more about her!

She resigned from the front bench over GRR. So big problems there with her.

Anabobazina said:

Pulpstar said:

Having seemingly tripped up both Sturgeon and Forbes for being too extreme one way or the other where's Regan on the "traditional values" / "woke" axis ?

Strikes me as sensibly middle ground. Would be helpful if any of the networks would cover her campaign launch. Then we might actually known more about her!

See prev. IIRC she was in favour of A9 and oil and thingies like that. But do check.

Carnyx said:

Anabobazina said:

algarkirk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Dear Independence Supporters,

My open letter to you…

-Ash



https://twitter.com/ashregansnp/status/1629081412161744896

That is a rhetorical wish list and not very good.Better would be:

"Our one aim to to get consistent 60+% support for independence among the Scottish people. At that point a second referendum is unstoppable. The reason we have not get to 60% support is that we have not been open and honest about the hard choices involved in independence. Under me this will change from Day 1".

Why does she need 60%? Does the unionists need 60% support to remain in the UK?

Becvause apparently 50% plus 1 is not good enough for unionist governments in London, unless as you say it is to remain in the UK and Brexit. Unless you are Scottish, in which case 60% ++ against Brexit is infallibly an indication that you have to Brexit anyway.

Report of launch -

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23344545.snp-leadership-ash-regan-rebrands-de-facto-scottish-independence-refe/

Funny old world, ain't it?

Edit: thanks for the link, but it's paywalled. Does anyone have a link to the video of her launch?

Pulpstar said:

Having seemingly tripped up both Sturgeon and Forbes for being too extreme one way or the other where's Regan on the "traditional values" / "woke" axis ?

Forbes lite

RobD said:

.

CarlottaVance said:

Dyce, Bucksburn and Danestone (Aberdeen) by-election, first prefs:

SNP: 1455 (30.8%, -10.5)
Lab: 1227 (26%, +8.2)
Con: 1190 (25.2%, -1.0)
Lib Dem: 452 (9.6%, +0.8)
Alba: 178 (3.8%, new)
Green: 111 (2.3%, -2.1)
Family: 60 (1.3%, -0.2)
Ind: 52 (1.1%, new)

Labour elected stage 8.



Dyce, Bucksburn and Danestone (Aberdeen) by-election transfers, votes at final head-to-head stage 7 (vs 2022 recalc'd for same matchup):

Labour: 1971 (41.7%, +9.5)
SNP: 1729 (36.6%, -7.1)
Didn't Transfer: 1025 (21.7%, -2.4)



https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1629085293683920897?s=20

Strong Unionist transfer.

Why weren't they elected at stage 7, when there was only two candidates remaining?

Some quirk of the way STV/AV is implemented in Scottish councils where the quota never reduces, ISTR from when this has been brought up in the past.

Scottish Independence Voting Intention:

NO: 47% (+1)
YES: 39% (=)
Don’t know: 14% (-1)

Don’t knows excluded:

NO: 55%(+1)
YES: 45% (-1)

Via
@techneUK, On 22-23 February,
Changes w/ 29-30 June 2022.

https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1629090651089379329?s=20

Dura_Ace said:

Stuartinromford said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

It's not often that I agree with Alanbrooke, but this is a good summary. Thanks.

My feeling is that the war will drag on for many years. The West cannot push back too hard for fear of provoking nuclear escalation by the Russians, but also cannot give in to Putin's aggression. At the same time, Putin is too heavily invested in the war to give up easily, and the Russian ability to withstand a beating is legendary.

The hope has to be that the Russian army is pushed back to the Russian border (and there's haggling to be had about exactly what that means).

But then what?

The conflict rages on.

It seems unlikely though as, to get the RF all the way back to the 2014 borders, AFU would have to be blowing the shit out of targets on the other side in the Belgorod, Rostov and Voronezh oblasts. I dunno if Biden would stand for that.

I thought from the start western support would fragment when it came to the 2014 areas possibly being retaken. It has been more firm than I expected, but I still think that's where itd come apart - going on the offensive in areas perhaps more likely to still have genuine local support for Russia, with the collateral damage that would entail and worries over Russian humiliation.

If Biden is President maybe but not certain. Without him, not a chance.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

SandyRentool said:

OldKingCole said:

Malmesbury said:

OldKingCole said:

TOPPING said:

LostPassword said:

TOPPING said:

LostPassword said:

glw said:

Jonathan said:

In terms of thinking the unthinkable, I wonder where we would be today if Ukraine had fallen last year. What would our (Nato) policy be if it were to happen?

Well it's unlikely that that would have been the end of it. Moldava would be in deep trouble if it hadn't already fallen. God knows what would be going on with Sweden and Finland, but there might be more opponents to them joining NATO. Turkey might be more aligned with Russia, thinking that they'd back the winner. Across Easter Europe countries would be having to decide whether to heavily arm themselves of maybe shift to a more neutral of pro-Russia stance.

Just be glad Trump did not win, or succeed in insurrection, Europe would be screwed if that had happened.

We'd likely have a lot more people saying that defending the Baltic States wasn't worth the bother, and they should never have been allowed into NATO.

Classic PB Armchair Generalship summed up in one post.

Create increasingly far-fetched hypotheticals and then criticise what is believed would be the response of other PB posters.

Says the poster who thinks others want to die in a nuclear apocalypse.

LOL

Other posters on here do want to die in a nuclear apocalypse. I had a lengthy discussion with one such not so long ago who wanted their family and themselves to die in a nuclear apocalypse who received, IIRC, not a few "likes" for their posts.

Takes me back to my youth; better dead than red. Personally I took the opposite view.

No one has answered the vital question.

If Putin nukes Slough, who is liable for the CGT from the improvement?

Betjeman has a lot for which to answer!

I spent several months living in Slough. Fortunately, there were Class 50s.

It may be an English Electric Type 5, but it's not a Deltic.

Still, makes it easier to get out of Slough to such charming places as Wokingham, Reading, Swindon and Didcot (haven't been to the latter's GWR centre since c. 1987).

FrankBooth said:

Malmesbury said:

TOPPING said:

FF43 said:

mwadams said:

FF43 said:

I think the Chinese 12 point peace plan could be a useful framework and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. It would require rigour on point 1 on sovereignty with the other points fudged for face saving. It might seem a sick joke for Russia to claim "legitimate security concerns" given what it has done to Ukraine, but if it brings an earlier end to this horrible war while ensuring Ukraine's sovereignty, it could be worth playing along.

https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/zxxx_662805/202302/t20230224_11030713.html

China's "peace plan" does look like a plausible (i.e. platitude-heavy) framework once Ukraine feels that they have eliminated the short-term threat from Russia. That doesn't necessarily mean 2014 borders - I suspect they might feel that way if they break through in the south evicting Russia from Crimea, and push them back to de facto January 2022 borders. Not beyond the bounds of possibility.

I think it's OK as a framework. It lacks detail but you don't want that at this stage. IMO the western response should be cautious interest rather than outright rejection. As long as Ukraine's territorial integrity is maintained in full (point 1) and its security interests are supported (point 2) everything else is possible.

Two things going for this plan, I think. The Russians may listen to the Chinese when they won't listen to anyone else. It's better to have the Chinese engaged in finding a solution than supporting the Russian aggression.

The difficulty is that the West is liable to think that because any peace plan doesn't emanate from the West that it is a bit Mickey Mouse.

And hence I doubt it will be given the consideration it merits, if it merits it.

If you put the plan through it’s paces -

1) stop fighting
2) lines as they are
3) remove all sanctions on Russia
4) some talks.

If that is the Chinese plan it sounds terrible. Essentially freezing the conflict at the point when Ukraine has the best chance of making a breakthrough and remove ALL the sanctions against Russia just as they are beginning to bite. Also I'll state again that it's odd to play peacemaker and only talk to one side.

It sounds like China saying to Russia, 'We're your friends, we really are but there isn't much we can do to help.'

FrankBooth said:

Malmesbury said:

TOPPING said:

FF43 said:

mwadams said:

FF43 said:

I think the Chinese 12 point peace plan could be a useful framework and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. It would require rigour on point 1 on sovereignty with the other points fudged for face saving. It might seem a sick joke for Russia to claim "legitimate security concerns" given what it has done to Ukraine, but if it brings an earlier end to this horrible war while ensuring Ukraine's sovereignty, it could be worth playing along.

https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/zxxx_662805/202302/t20230224_11030713.html

China's "peace plan" does look like a plausible (i.e. platitude-heavy) framework once Ukraine feels that they have eliminated the short-term threat from Russia. That doesn't necessarily mean 2014 borders - I suspect they might feel that way if they break through in the south evicting Russia from Crimea, and push them back to de facto January 2022 borders. Not beyond the bounds of possibility.

I think it's OK as a framework. It lacks detail but you don't want that at this stage. IMO the western response should be cautious interest rather than outright rejection. As long as Ukraine's territorial integrity is maintained in full (point 1) and its security interests are supported (point 2) everything else is possible.

Two things going for this plan, I think. The Russians may listen to the Chinese when they won't listen to anyone else. It's better to have the Chinese engaged in finding a solution than supporting the Russian aggression.

The difficulty is that the West is liable to think that because any peace plan doesn't emanate from the West that it is a bit Mickey Mouse.

And hence I doubt it will be given the consideration it merits, if it merits it.

If you put the plan through it’s paces -

1) stop fighting
2) lines as they are
3) remove all sanctions on Russia
4) some talks.

If that is the Chinese plan it sounds terrible. Essentially freezing the conflict at the point when Ukraine has the best chance of making a breakthrough and remove ALL the sanctions against Russia just as they are beginning to bite. Also I'll state again that it's odd to play peacemaker and only talk to one side.

It sounds like China saying to Russia, 'We're your friends, we really are but there isn't much we can do to help.'

It seems clear, to me, that China is concerned by the idea of a Russian defeat. They are plainly *very* concerned by the sanctions and other items that have started appearing - which have been against China as well as Russia.

For example, I mentioned a while back the differential tariffs on components and complete items. This helps keep production in China. When the people behind the Raspberry Pi asked for the matter to be looked at, so that production in the U.K. would be possible, the response from the Foreign Office was that this would start a trade dispute with China.

Yes, that’s right. Equalising tariffs is a red line.

I was recently told that the Mayer has come up again. The response from internal structures of government is horror that the equalisation is now on the table.China getting upset is no longer the issue killer it was

Anabobazina said:

algarkirk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Dear Independence Supporters,

My open letter to you…

-Ash



https://twitter.com/ashregansnp/status/1629081412161744896

That is a rhetorical wish list and not very good.Better would be:

"Our one aim to to get consistent 60+% support for independence among the Scottish people. At that point a second referendum is unstoppable. The reason we have not get to 60% support is that we have not been open and honest about the hard choices involved in independence. Under me this will change from Day 1".

Why does she need 60%? Do the unionists need 60% support to remain in the UK?

Its a bit arbitrary but presumably indicates the vote wouldn't be won/lost in the margin of error (see also how Brexit ought to have been decided).

Theuniondivvie said:

Pulpstar said:

Having seemingly tripped up both Sturgeon and Forbes for being too extreme one way or the other where's Regan on the "traditional values" / "woke" axis ?

Forbes lite

Bollocks. She strikes me as very moderate. A centre-left feminist and irreligious (as far as I can see). Supports gay marriage and isn't a homophobe who blames her bigotry on her superstitions.

kle4 said:

YBarddCwsc said:

dixiedean said:

Interesting how Equal Marriage has gone from highly controversial to simply beyond the Pale to oppose in little over a decade.
There must be many dozens of MP's currently sitting in Westminster who voted against.
Will this become an issue at General Election time?

The speed with which this has happened is astonishing.

In the UK, from the end of Section 28 to gay marriage took 11 years. And some countries such as RoI have traversed an even longer path just as quickly.

Everyone under 30 just regards this as perfectly fine -- wtf, shrug of the shoulders, no probs.

Which is indeed great, though should make some of the more longstanding politicians who are very fiery on the topic a bit more reflective given how many friends and colleagues of theirs, or themselves, were not exactly pushing it for decades.

A further interesting thing on personal beliefs.

I was told by America relatives (very much East Coast liberal Democrats) that bring up Clinton or Obama’s previous antagonism to gay marriage was rude. Because they had to lie on these issues to get elected.

“Everyone” knew they were really in favour, but they had to pass a litmus test to be electorally viable.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

SandyRentool said:

OldKingCole said:

Malmesbury said:

OldKingCole said:

TOPPING said:

LostPassword said:

TOPPING said:

LostPassword said:

glw said:

Jonathan said:

In terms of thinking the unthinkable, I wonder where we would be today if Ukraine had fallen last year. What would our (Nato) policy be if it were to happen?

Well it's unlikely that that would have been the end of it. Moldava would be in deep trouble if it hadn't already fallen. God knows what would be going on with Sweden and Finland, but there might be more opponents to them joining NATO. Turkey might be more aligned with Russia, thinking that they'd back the winner. Across Easter Europe countries would be having to decide whether to heavily arm themselves of maybe shift to a more neutral of pro-Russia stance.

Just be glad Trump did not win, or succeed in insurrection, Europe would be screwed if that had happened.

We'd likely have a lot more people saying that defending the Baltic States wasn't worth the bother, and they should never have been allowed into NATO.

Classic PB Armchair Generalship summed up in one post.

Create increasingly far-fetched hypotheticals and then criticise what is believed would be the response of other PB posters.

Says the poster who thinks others want to die in a nuclear apocalypse.

LOL

Other posters on here do want to die in a nuclear apocalypse. I had a lengthy discussion with one such not so long ago who wanted their family and themselves to die in a nuclear apocalypse who received, IIRC, not a few "likes" for their posts.

Takes me back to my youth; better dead than red. Personally I took the opposite view.

No one has answered the vital question.

If Putin nukes Slough, who is liable for the CGT from the improvement?

Betjeman has a lot for which to answer!

I spent several months living in Slough. Fortunately, there were Class 50s.

It may be an English Electric Type 5, but it's not a Deltic.

Pah. Deltics are a load of over-rated cr@p. Send them all to Russia; they're only marginally better than a T-55.

Whereas Tractors are glorious. Still performing sterling work after sixty years.

(Yes, I know there'd be minor issues. Like the gauge...)

turbotubbs said:

Anabobazina said:

algarkirk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Dear Independence Supporters,

My open letter to you…

-Ash



https://twitter.com/ashregansnp/status/1629081412161744896

That is a rhetorical wish list and not very good.Better would be:

"Our one aim to to get consistent 60+% support for independence among the Scottish people. At that point a second referendum is unstoppable. The reason we have not get to 60% support is that we have not been open and honest about the hard choices involved in independence. Under me this will change from Day 1".

Why does she need 60%? Do the unionists need 60% support to remain in the UK?

Its a bit arbitrary but presumably indicates the vote wouldn't be won/lost in the margin of error (see also how Brexit ought to have been decided).

It would make a referendum campaign a slam dunk, rather than a coin flip.

Anabobazina said:

Carnyx said:

Anabobazina said:

algarkirk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Dear Independence Supporters,

My open letter to you…

-Ash



https://twitter.com/ashregansnp/status/1629081412161744896

That is a rhetorical wish list and not very good.Better would be:

"Our one aim to to get consistent 60+% support for independence among the Scottish people. At that point a second referendum is unstoppable. The reason we have not get to 60% support is that we have not been open and honest about the hard choices involved in independence. Under me this will change from Day 1".

Why does she need 60%? Does the unionists need 60% support to remain in the UK?

Becvause apparently 50% plus 1 is not good enough for unionist governments in London, unless as you say it is to remain in the UK and Brexit. Unless you are Scottish, in which case 60% ++ against Brexit is infallibly an indication that you have to Brexit anyway.

Report of launch -

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23344545.snp-leadership-ash-regan-rebrands-de-facto-scottish-independence-refe/

Funny old world, ain't it?

Edit: thanks for the link, but it's paywalled. Does anyone have a link to the video of her launch?

None on her Twitter feed as yet. And National piece a bit prelim.

But I will say that I note one thing - Joanna Cherry opened the launch event.

Have to go and do things this afternoon. Have fun.

PS Linky to Twitter - https://twitter.com/AshReganSNP

FrankBooth said:

At 12:45 or 00:45 this morning if you prefer we had the following extraordinary comment from Dura Ace:

'So you've got millions of people who identified as Russian, Hungarian, Moldovan and Romanian being forcibly added to Ukraine without consultation or consent. This all held together when they were part of the Soviet Union but without that central dominance it was inevitably going to fall apart in bloody and spectacular fashion.'

And yet it didn't. The only major problem was its former imperialist neighbour trying to scupper its democratic transition. I've long been an optimist on Ukraine. I loved the images of people casually walking around in disbelief at Yanukyovich's palace after he had fled. It suggested a country that was largely at ease with itself. Of course that wasn't tolerable to Putin. And isn't it funny how the major ethnic groups didn't seem to be in civil conflict, just the Russian minority getting weapons authorised by the Kremlin.

I thought that Dura was a nihilist. Judging by that he sounds like a pro-Soviet nostalgist or Russian imperialist.

Dura holds Western society, particularly the Anglosphere, in contempt.

As soon as you realise that everything else follows.

geoffw said:

delete - rubbish

Refreshing honesty. More PBers could do with that (and I include myself in that at times).