Why I still think LAB will struggle to get a majority – politicalbetting.com

First - and I agree.

Third - I’m in the Lab largest party, but no overall majority camp. Something like 2010 rather than 1997.

Casino_Royale said:

There are no rules and the range of potential outcomes for the 2024 (or even 2025) general election are vast.

True.
Though I think a Labour majority is rather more likely than a Tory one.

Good morning, everyone.

I suspect Labour will get a small majority, but that would still be a huge shift. Ironically, they might be better off getting none, acquiring a Lib Dem-shaped electoral meatshield, then doing better 4-5 years later.

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7fdd55c8-bc42-11ed-b039-425ba6c60d6d

Mike Gapes rejoins Labour

Good morning CHB. Interesting. Coming on the back of Luciana Berger.

I put the Sue Gray appointment in this context. Sensible people are getting on board now rather than doing a Zahawi.

I was chatting to another senior civil servant recently who said they are all treading water with the tories now whilst cosying up to Labour: formulating policies and strategies for the new Starmer Government.

It's over.

And everyone in Westminster knows it.

Casino_Royale said:

There are no rules and the range of potential outcomes for the 2024 (or even 2025) general election are vast.

I wouldn't make any predictions personally. I think it is good to look at the situation from the Labour point of view. They need to win back parts of Scotland and a big chunk of the red wall and then make gains elsewhere as well, whilst the 'progressive coalition' is fragmenting with labour voters peeling off to the Green party. We don't know what the long term consequences will be of how Starmer has dealt with the left. I'm not sure how secure university towns etc are. Although Starmer has done very impressive work, he is not a 'Blair' like visionary.

StuartDickson said:

Sandpit said:

Blair and Campbell in 1995, wouldn’t have made such an unforced error as to hire a senior civil servant who had been in the news for investigating the government. And then not have a dead straight answer as to the timeline of the appointment.

Agreed, Starmer is a dud.

But back in 1995 the Tory brand was tarnished, but it wasn’t utterly trashed by 5 shockingly shit Tory PMs in a row, the Tory cabinet and backbenches full of fascists and conmen and the economy tanking.

Blair pulverised a rather tired Tory government.

Starmer will pulverise a Tory government with DNR tattooed on its forehead.

This is harsh on Starmer. His starting point was taking over a party that was dying with vast intractible problems. He has adopted the strategy of fixing what can be fixed and going forward winning by doing nothing, which in our political system you can do. If Labour win in the next election, he will have achieved the impossible.

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

This guy was literally in Number 10.

I don't think we have ever had a proper explanation of what he did in his years in Russia.

Yet Sue Gray is a scandal? Pull the other one.

Foxy said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

This guy was literally in Number 10.

I don't think we have ever had a proper explanation of what he did in his years in Russia.

Yet Sue Gray is a scandal? Pull the other one.

The reason for that is almost certainly that he didn’t actually do anything, but wants us to believe he was doing something interesting and mysterious.

NI was never going to move the dial because people just don't care enough. I forecast a movement of 1% and I don't seem to be so far off. The next, and better, opportunity is the budget. This is Hunt's first real budget, his first had to be cobbled together in a week in the aftermath of the Kami-kazi effort of his predecessor and was entirely focused on the markets. I think it will be the last chance for this government to explain what they are for.

Do the Tories still believe in lower taxes, private enterprise, balanced budgets, properly funded public services, etc? Do they still have a vision of what kind of a country they want or do they simply mark time until the fairly inevitable handover?

The fall in gas prices and the slightly higher than expected growth have given Hunt and Sunak a few tens of billions to shape and mark out their vision. It's not a lot in the overall scheme of things but they need to make their mark and they need to do it now. The strong probability is that people have either stopped listening or no longer believe what they are told but that is their opportunity: 15th March.

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

This guy was literally in Number 10.

Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.

I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.

Dura_Ace said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

That's the point. The government doesn't want anybody to claim asylum.

The broader question is what they'll do with people, who arrive illegally and therefore can never be asylum seekers, but are from countries that don't accept deportees like Eritrea or Myanmar. What is supposed to happen to them? They'll probably be ground up to make a nutritious dietary supplement for the over 65s.

Fundamentally legislation is cheap, enforcement is expensive. Pass as many badly thought out and drafted laws as you like and then blame the civil servants/law enforcement/lawyers when they’re not upheld. Very simple.

All these laws to “stop” small boats assumes that those in said boats are reading/caring about U.K. legislation. They don’t. So they’ll keep coming until something is done to stop the root causes.

darkage said:

StuartDickson said:

Sandpit said:

Blair and Campbell in 1995, wouldn’t have made such an unforced error as to hire a senior civil servant who had been in the news for investigating the government. And then not have a dead straight answer as to the timeline of the appointment.

Agreed, Starmer is a dud.

But back in 1995 the Tory brand was tarnished, but it wasn’t utterly trashed by 5 shockingly shit Tory PMs in a row, the Tory cabinet and backbenches full of fascists and conmen and the economy tanking.

Blair pulverised a rather tired Tory government.

Starmer will pulverise a Tory government with DNR tattooed on its forehead.

This is harsh on Starmer. His starting point was taking over a party that was dying with vast intractible problems. He has adopted the strategy of fixing what can be fixed and going forward winning by doing nothing, which in our political system you can do. If Labour win in the next election, he will have achieved the impossible.

Starmer has also learned- perhaps too well- the lesson that governments lose elections rather than oppositions winning them.

If the Conservatives fall below about 225 seats, Labour likely have a majority by default, unless you foresee big Lib Dem gains. And that's assuming that the SNP don't deflate.

And whilst Don't Knows plumping for Conservatives in the privacy of the polling booth might happen, Opinium think they've corrected for this, and the answer is still a big Labour win.

Foxy said:

squareroot2 said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.

A year ago we were told that the mere threat of Rwanda would stop the boats, yet here we are again. It is just performative cruelty as policy.

At the same time we are fast tracking asylum claims from places thought to be legitimate:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-fast-track-asylum-seekers/

The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

This guy was literally in Number 10.

Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.

I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.

It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.

Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.

Well, assuming the Russians don’t suffer a sudden collapse.

But equally I think if the Ukrainians could retake Mariupol the Russians would probably give up and withdraw.

Whether they can is a different question of course.

The Tories deserve to lose for failing miserably in pretty much every dimension of government. They are tired and directionless, in power for nothing more than to fix their own errors and benefit themselves and their clients. They are morally and intellectually bankrupt.

As such Labour can win, but it will be close, far closer than mid term polls suggest.

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7fdd55c8-bc42-11ed-b039-425ba6c60d6d

Mike Gapes rejoins Labour

Wow, that would be on a par with Man Utd re-signing Eric Djemba Djemba.

DavidL said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

squareroot2 said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.

A year ago we were told that the mere threat of Rwanda would stop the boats, yet here we are again. It is just performative cruelty as policy.

At the same time we are fast tracking asylum claims from places thought to be legitimate:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-fast-track-asylum-seekers/

The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.

Perhaps we could rehire all of the Civil Service and Border Force people the Tories sacked

The size of the civil service is at a record high and the collapse of public sector productivity post Covid is one of our major problems.

These are difficult issues which the government (any government, including the forthcoming Labour one) are going to have to grapple for years. The inability of the public sector to issue passports, disability badges, licences, planning permissions and a multitude of other permissions; the inability to get a response or get through to a person who can deal with the issue; the perception (fair or not) that WFH means nothing actually gets done; a court system that is grinding to a halt, a health service which has more resources but processes fewer patients, there is a massive challenge there.

Revolutionary idea.

Hire many fewer civil servants, but make them actual experts rather than The Right Sort of People.

Cut costs, increase productivity and put reality back into public policy making at a stroke.

It will never happen of course.

Taz said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7fdd55c8-bc42-11ed-b039-425ba6c60d6d

Mike Gapes rejoins Labour

Wow, that would be on a par with Man Utd re-signing Eric Djemba Djemba.

Erik Cantona (aged 56), Ryan Giggs (aged 49) and David Beckham (aged 47) would all be better than the men who went to Anfield the other day.

darkage said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

This guy was literally in Number 10.

Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.

I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.

It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.

Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.

I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.

The only thing that will stop aid to Ukraine is Trump (or similar Republican) becoming POTUS, but that is 2 years away.

Incidentally, the Atlantic did a quick summary of the possibilities yesterday:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/03/tracking-democrat-republican-presidential-candidates-2024-election/673118/?utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

Fishing said:

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

This guy was literally in Number 10.

Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.

I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.

It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.

Edit - regarding his abilities I suppose it depends on what you mean by ‘idiot.’ I’d say he’s got a slightly higher than average IQ and shockingly poor judgement, but is convinced of his own wisdom. That, however, in itself makes him an idiot as he’s always making stupid mistakes through hubris.

It’s common in government circles of course, but he’s still an idiot.

I agree with all that. The older I get the more I realise that intelligence and quality of judgement are unrelated. Perhaps the best example of this in recent history happened this autumn. Kwasi, who I happen to know personally, is a very intelligent guy, but showed shockingly poor judgement with his budget and his career may never recover.

He believed his own hype, myths and bullshit. Fatal. Hubris -> Nemesis.

DougSeal said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7fdd55c8-bc42-11ed-b039-425ba6c60d6d

Mike Gapes rejoins Labour

Wow, another massive blow for Change U.K. after Berger left. If there’s many more of these they’re heading for oblivion.

’heading?’

darkage said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

This guy was literally in Number 10.

Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.

I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.

It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.

Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.

I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.

In part it's a short-term v long-term cost issue. The more effort we make now in supporting Ukraine against Russia, the less effort we will have to make in the future.

This is a particularly critical calculation for the US, which has to face the prospect of defending Taiwan from China.

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

This guy was literally in Number 10.

Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.

Cummings was quoting Obama though who said the US was certainly not going to war with Russia over Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. That is still true, the US is supplying Ukraine but not sending troops there

https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1632381884792446976?t=k5KEUEv_nopPq8z-wm6QUw&s=19

Remember before Trump emerged in 2012 Romney was much tougher on Putin than Obama was

Absolute winter wonderland on the bus today. Not a cloud in the sky either.
It's beautiful.

darkage said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

This guy was literally in Number 10.

Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.

I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.

It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.

Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.

I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.

Supporting Ukraine is costing billions, but still only part of what Afghanistan and Iraq cost - and those were kept up for well over a decade. In return, the alleged second-greatest military in the world is being destroyed - without a cost in US or allied lives. It's actually quite cheap.

Then there are the costs of letting Russia 'win', or get a 'win'; the fact they will be back doing the same thing in a few years, with Russia or a.n.other rogue state emboldened by what has happened.

I'd also argue that it's perfectly possible for Ukraine to taker back control by pushing Russia out: even including Crimea. They may not, but last autumn showed they were capable of inflicting significant reverses on Russia. And unlike what some on here said, that involved pushing Russia right back to the border.

There's also the question of what this is doing to Russia, both economically and militarily. I was expecting a Russian push this spring, but it's looking increasingly likely that the attacks we've seen so far *were* the attack. If so, then the Russian military is in a really poor state.

I know the above seems rather optimistic, and will have Topping and Dura_Ace clutching at their pearls, but there may well be reasons to be optimistic.

I see yet again we’re a bawhair away from people being described as traitors because they disagree with the latest mutation of the kakocracy.

HYUFD said:

The preferred PM figures from RedfieldWilton yesterday only had Starmer ahead of Sunak 41% to 35%. If that translated into voting intention it certainly would be a hung parliament rather than a Labour majority

Sunak is managing to ride out the storm with his own reputation hand intact. If he manages this right up to the election then he should be able to salvage a decent post-politics career and be treated with respect by the media as an elder statesman - like Major, Blair, Clarke, Osborne, even May to some extent.

The idiots making themselves look stupid by getting in a lather about Sue Grey and partygate are the Johnsonian old guard. They are carving out post politics careers for themselves on GB News. Sunak is staying noticeably quiet.

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

Heathener said:

@Sandpit, I don't think you realise just how much anger there is out there with the Conservatives. It's forgivable because you are a Dubai expat but I think the latter affects your judgement on this and clouds your analysis.

There is real, visceral, anger. A seachange occurred and it will not be reversed for a generation. That's how bad it is for brand tory.

Ah, playing the man again. Dare I suggest that, my experience of being around and talking to people in the UK, is much wider than those living in the very wealthy London suburbs (or is it Bangkok?) who are at least as insulated from the day-to-day concerns of the rest of the country.

Yesterday’s polling thread confirmed that most people think the government needs to do more to stop irregular immigration, to give one example.

On the other hand, I’m still not sure that Rishi Sunak, in his very insulated little world, thinks that talking and legislating - rather than actually stopping the boats - will endear him to those living in the marginal constituencies.

In Suburban Leicester, 2 patients, both lifelong Tory voters, spontaneously told me last week that they won't be voting Tory next time. I don't talk politics with patients as it isn't professional, so it truly was spontaneous.

I think Tories sub 200 seats, possibly sub 150. I don't think Sunak can turn it around.

Every seat in Leicester is Labour anyway. Claudia Webbe being an ex Labour Independent

They weren't in Leicester seats, they were from Tory seats in the County.

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

The preferred PM figures from RedfieldWilton yesterday only had Starmer ahead of Sunak 41% to 35%. If that translated into voting intention it certainly would be a hung parliament rather than a Labour majority

Sunak is managing to ride out the storm with his own reputation hand intact. If he manages this right up to the election then he should be able to salvage a decent post-politics career and be treated with respect by the media as an elder statesman - like Major, Blair, Clarke, Osborne, even May to some extent.

The idiots making themselves look stupid by getting in a lather about Sue Grey and partygate are the Johnsonian old guard. They are carving out post politics careers for themselves on GB News. Sunak is staying noticeably quiet.

But again - that's not hard. They *are* stupid.

HYUFD said:

The preferred PM figures from RedfieldWilton yesterday only had Starmer ahead of Sunak 41% to 35%. If that translated into voting intention it certainly would be a hung parliament rather than a Labour majority

Preferred PM findings have a strong incumbency bias

Instinctively, I agree with Mike. But if you look at the polls which exclude DKs and reassign them on past recalled vote - Opinium and Techne, I think - Labour still has large double digit leads. That makes switchers the key, not DKs, and switchers are harder to win back.

darkage said:

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

This guy was literally in Number 10.

Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.

I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.

It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.

Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.

I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.

Although against that we need to balance, what’s the impact of letting Russia have any sort of victory? Would it, for example, embolden China over Taiwan, which would have even more alarming geopolitical implications? And leave us still dependent on Russian hydrocarbons, which we urgently need to wean ourselves off for a great many reasons?

It isn’t a zero sum game.

There are a lot of ways of looking at this situation. If this conflict is leading to Russia becoming more dependent on China, which seems to be the case, then it doesn't inevitably help the position in Taiwan.

I don't know the answer to any of these issues, they are just things that are worth thinking about.

It's quite right to ask the question.

F1: mentioned yesterday but still seems crazy to me. You can back, with boost, Perez at 7 each way (third the odd stop 2) to win in Saudi Arabia. he's near certain to be 2nd. The Red Bull was a pit stop ahead of everyone else. Even had Leclerc not suffered woe, Perez would've been over the hills and far away. He should not be backable with an each way win bet to be 2nd, based on the first race (although cars are different on various circuits).

May be worth considering a new market type I saw on Ladbrokes ahead of the race for predicting the top 2 and top 3. Mostly, I think that's a fool's errand, but if the Red Bull retains its competitive advantage it could be worthwhile.

TimS said:

JosiasJessop said:

darkage said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

This guy was literally in Number 10.

Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.

I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.

It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.

Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.

I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.

Supporting Ukraine is costing billions, but still only part of what Afghanistan and Iraq cost - and those were kept up for well over a decade. In return, the alleged second-greatest military in the world is being destroyed - without a cost in US or allied lives. It's actually quite cheap.

Then there are the costs of letting Russia 'win', or get a 'win'; the fact they will be back doing the same thing in a few years, with Russia or a.n.other rogue state emboldened by what has happened.

I'd also argue that it's perfectly possible for Ukraine to taker back control by pushing Russia out: even including Crimea. They may not, but last autumn showed they were capable of inflicting significant reverses on Russia. And unlike what some on here said, that involved pushing Russia right back to the border.

There's also the question of what this is doing to Russia, both economically and militarily. I was expecting a Russian push this spring, but it's looking increasingly likely that the attacks we've seen so far *were* the attack. If so, then the Russian military is in a really poor state.

I know the above seems rather optimistic, and will have Topping and Dura_Ace clutching at their pearls, but there may well be reasons to be optimistic.

I like the saying that “Russia is never as strong as you fear, and never as weak as you hope”. That captures my feelings watching their campaign over the last year.

One thing we should perhaps remember is the Russians are historically incredibly dogged in terms of their will to fight on. They took punishment in World War II for example that would have been unimaginable for any other nation to endure. And at the moment there's no obvious evidence of a collapse in morale in Russia itself.

If however they are forced to retreat from Bakhmut that may change. That really would be a shock and a shocker for them.

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

squareroot2 said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.

A year ago we were told that the mere threat of Rwanda would stop the boats, yet here we are again. It is just performative cruelty as policy.

At the same time we are fast tracking asylum claims from places thought to be legitimate:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-fast-track-asylum-seekers/

The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.

I am all in favour of fast tracking legitimate sounding applications, but how does the government think they got here other than "illegally"?

Oh I agree. The "illegal immigrant" moniker really doesn't apply to those who have legitimate asylum claims, whether they come by small boat or any other means.

The basic issue that there is NO legal route for people from half these countries to claim asylum. Non. And that includes our former comrades in arms in Afghanistan and their families. We make it impossible to come here and claim asylum then wonder why they are on boats, then interleckchewals like Leon say THERE IS NO CHOICE BUT RWANDA IF WE WANT TO STOP THE BOATS.

We could have a sane conversation about asylum. Instead we have absolutist children who have given up on governing and just want a few days of positive headlines in their client media. Having failed to notice that isn't enough any more. The people who mouth-foamingly care about stopping all asylum don't want headlines, they don't want excuses or people to blame.

They want RESULTS. The results they were promised and they voted for. Yet another round of "SINK THE BOATS" front pages followed by record numbers of boats only makes their poling calamity worse.

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

darkage said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

This guy was literally in Number 10.

Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.

I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.

It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.

Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.

I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.

Supporting Ukraine is costing billions, but still only part of what Afghanistan and Iraq cost - and those were kept up for well over a decade. In return, the alleged second-greatest military in the world is being destroyed - without a cost in US or allied lives. It's actually quite cheap.

Then there are the costs of letting Russia 'win', or get a 'win'; the fact they will be back doing the same thing in a few years, with Russia or a.n.other rogue state emboldened by what has happened.

I'd also argue that it's perfectly possible for Ukraine to taker back control by pushing Russia out: even including Crimea. They may not, but last autumn showed they were capable of inflicting significant reverses on Russia. And unlike what some on here said, that involved pushing Russia right back to the border.

There's also the question of what this is doing to Russia, both economically and militarily. I was expecting a Russian push this spring, but it's looking increasingly likely that the attacks we've seen so far *were* the attack. If so, then the Russian military is in a really poor state.

I know the above seems rather optimistic, and will have Topping and Dura_Ace clutching at their pearls, but there may well be reasons to be optimistic.

It may be just a bit of deliberate fog of war, but from what Zelensky was saying last night it certainly sounds as if UKR think they can hold Bakhmut, and defeat the Russian offensive there. The noises from the Russian side, particularly Wagner, sound as if they are worried he might be right.

And Russia has been suckered into squandering thousands of lives, in a fight for a city that has little value.

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

squareroot2 said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunaks-small-boats-plan-to-push-boundaries-of-international-law-12827674

How the fuck is this going to work? How are these people supposed to claim asylum when they are no safe, legal routes to do so???

I think that's the point. They can't. The idea is to stop the flow completely.

A year ago we were told that the mere threat of Rwanda would stop the boats, yet here we are again. It is just performative cruelty as policy.

At the same time we are fast tracking asylum claims from places thought to be legitimate:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/government-fast-track-asylum-seekers/

The latter policy (fast track) is sensible. People from countries like Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Eritrea and the like will almost inevitably succeed in their asylum claims so why clog up the system with them? Conversely, claims from the likes of Albania have very poor prospects and should again be brought to a swift conclusion with action taken on removal.

I am all in favour of fast tracking legitimate sounding applications, but how does the government think they got here other than "illegally"?

Yep - the proposed legislation would be much tougher to oppose if the government was creating genuine, workable, safe routes to the UK, while proving more money to crackdown on the gangs and process existing claims. But it’s not. Neither is it explaining how it will physically manage to remove all the people detained from the UK. Therefore, what we have here is primarily an attempt to create dividing lines, not solve the problem. And because of that, it will end up doing the government more harm than good.

Sean_F said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

darkage said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1632750180578500609

We talk endlessly about Corbyn and his foreign policy problems.

This guy was literally in Number 10.

Tbf some of us were flagging up that he’s a total idiot and a thoroughly malign human being at the time.

I don't think Cummings is an idiot, but he vastly overestimates his abilities. Regarding his comments on Ukraine, they are very unwise, and evidence of bad judgement. But if Ukraine cannot make gains with all the support it has achieved, his realist view of the conflict may ultimately come to be vindicated.

It has made gains. Quite substantial ones.

Indeed, a year ago Kyiv and Kharkiv were in the same position that Bakhmut is in now, under threat of encirclement.

Ukraine cannot end the war though, that is completely in the hands of the genocidal aggressor.

I think the question posed by people like Cummings is how long can the west can back Ukraine without doing harm to itself. This is not a stupid question. 6 months ago people were on here saying 'Ukraine are going to beat back Russia right to its borders, take back Crimea' etc. But this does not now look like a realistic goal. Some serious contemplation of this problem needs to take place. If you keep repeating that "Russia has to be beaten and it is existential", and it is costing you billions every month, with punitive consequences for inflation hitting the poorest in society, and the whole thing is just a bloody stalemate, then it doesn't seem to me like a particularly good situation, however clear the moral cause is.

Supporting Ukraine is costing billions, but still only part of what Afghanistan and Iraq cost - and those were kept up for well over a decade. In return, the alleged second-greatest military in the world is being destroyed - without a cost in US or allied lives. It's actually quite cheap.

Then there are the costs of letting Russia 'win', or get a 'win'; the fact they will be back doing the same thing in a few years, with Russia or a.n.other rogue state emboldened by what has happened.

I'd also argue that it's perfectly possible for Ukraine to taker back control by pushing Russia out: even including Crimea. They may not, but last autumn showed they were capable of inflicting significant reverses on Russia. And unlike what some on here said, that involved pushing Russia right back to the border.

There's also the question of what this is doing to Russia, both economically and militarily. I was expecting a Russian push this spring, but it's looking increasingly likely that the attacks we've seen so far *were* the attack. If so, then the Russian military is in a really poor state.

I know the above seems rather optimistic, and will have Topping and Dura_Ace clutching at their pearls, but there may well be reasons to be optimistic.

It may be just a bit of deliberate fog of war, but from what Zelensky was saying last night it certainly sounds as if UKR think they can hold Bakhmut, and defeat the Russian offensive there. The noises from the Russian side, particularly Wagner, sound as if they are worried he might be right.

And Russia has been suckered into squandering thousands of lives, in a fight for a city that has little value.

Precisely *because* they have squandered those thousands of lives, it is now vital to Russia. If they still cannot take it, questions will suddenly be being asked at all levels as to (a) why they lost despite this (b) why they fought at all and (c) who's to have the appointment with a third floor window. In one scenario Wagner might even turn on Putin, which would be actually hilarious.

SouthamObserver said:

Instinctively, I agree with Mike. But if you look at the polls which exclude DKs and reassign them on past recalled vote - Opinium and Techne, I think - Labour still has large double digit leads. That makes switchers the key, not DKs, and switchers are harder to win back.

The others are the Tory “stay at homers” and whether they’ll be the Johnson fans who feel he was betrayed or his critics who are happy the adults are back in charge.