Could LAB return as top Scottish party at the general election? – politicalbetting.com

Second like the SNP…

Slightly more seriously, I find this one incredibly hard to call. I suspect the polarisation around Indy has made the "tartan Tories" unpalatable for most actual Tories. If Yousaf can restore a reputation for basic competence then maybe there'll be some transfers, but the clusterf*ck of the last few months makes that seem pretty unlikely.

Perhaps Nicola Sturgeon could stand in a Westminster seat.

This would be great.

It’s what Salmond did when he resigned as First Minister after losing the Indyref.

Nothing succeeds like success. If somehow Labour start to win and be seen as winning, then they will start to win more.

Malmesbury said:

It would be interesting if Labour formed the national government and also the governments in Scotland and Wales.

First time since 2007?

Pro_Rata said:

"Could" - worded like that and depending on how badly the SNP affair goes this is a definite QTWTAIY.

"Will" - I'd be less sure and put it at about a 1 in 3, 1 in 4 chance, more likely that the SNP just edge it.

The problem I have with the SNP problems is why? Why do these weird, nearly ridiculous things?

The UK political system is cheap. Paying for the operations of a whole political party is perfectly feasible for someone not especially rich.

Accounting systems are generally setup to detect fraudulent removal of money from organisations. I suspect that someone pushing money in would be less noticeable. There is some history on that, in non-political party organisations.

Malmesbury said:

Westie said:

How do Carlist Loyalty Oath Takers cross-correlate with the SARSCoV2 vaccinated and unvaccinated?

¡Viva la muerte!

Nice link I reckon oath refusers (O-) correlate strongly with vaccine refusers (V-).

If true, it's something that many in the O-V+ and O+V- groups (middle class Republic types in the former, far right nationalists in the latter) might not want to talk about much. Ditto with the more grownup and less prejudiced mong the O+V+ types. (The less grownup would be fine with just locking all the O-V- types up.) Got to see the funny side.

Westie said:

Malmesbury said:

Westie said:

How do Carlist Loyalty Oath Takers cross-correlate with the SARSCoV2 vaccinated and unvaccinated?

¡Viva la muerte!

Nice link I reckon oath refusers (O-) correlate strongly with vaccine refusers (V-).

Really? I'd have thought that people with a "rational", science-based approach to life would be more likely to take the vaccine and less likely to take the oath.

Heathener said:

The Scotland shift, which began two or three years ago and long before the SNP woes, is very interesting and increases my confidence in a Labour landslide.

Meanwhile I voted by post in today's locals. I voted for 3 LibDems and 1 Labour because I'm in a Lib-Con marginal and I will do anything to vote out the tories.

The next General Election will be more of an anti-tory vote than most people on here recognise.

Indeed ; that's what John Curtice seems to think, aswell.

WhisperingOracle said:

On a slightly related point, I wish Bill Forsyth would make some sort of sequel to Local Hero, or some sort of companion piece to it.

No. Don't.

Local Hero was a near-perfect stand alone piece. There would be nothing to be improved upon, only the very real risk of destroying the joy of the original.

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Malmesbury said:

It would be interesting if Labour formed the national government and also the governments in Scotland and Wales.

First time since 2007?

First time since 2003, surely? Salmond led the Scottish Parliament after 2007.

Remarkable to think that in just eight years Labour went from controlling every major body on the mainland to by 2015 controlling just Wales.

And in 2016 although they won back London they couldn't even manage second in Scotland.

Well they were in power up to 2007.

El_Capitano said:

Westie said:

Malmesbury said:

Westie said:

How do Carlist Loyalty Oath Takers cross-correlate with the SARSCoV2 vaccinated and unvaccinated?

¡Viva la muerte!

Nice link I reckon oath refusers (O-) correlate strongly with vaccine refusers (V-).

Really? I'd have thought that people with a "rational", science-based approach to life would be more likely to take the vaccine and less likely to take the oath.

I wonder how many people will take the Oath. I find it hard to even guess.

Would people buy or sell at 10%?

Nigelb said:

(FPT)

TOPPING said:

Nigelb said:

.

TOPPING said:

Pulpstar said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

Update from the trenches, or rather from a trencherman over dinner last night. An old China hand, actually, spent the past 30+ years in HK and was deported/singled out by the authorities there for his outspokenness.

Very pessimistic/realistic about China and Taiwan. Gives it 3-5 years before they try to retake and doesn't think The West will do much about it. Even if China sinks the US pacific fleet which I think is a bit of a stretch but I suppose you pays your money on this one and it's what Xi thinks not what I think.

I can see China blockading Taiwan, but launching an invasion over 150 miles of Ocean against a very well equipped opponent would be very brave.

A proper blockade would be an act of war would it not ? It'd certainly wreck the world economically.

Yes and yes. The calculus is whether the US proceeds to war over Taiwan.

No, it's rather whether the US responds to China proceeding to war. It's not going to be the other way around.

China blockades Taiwan and to do so destroys the US fleet and then does the US proceed to war with China as a result.

That is a very good demonstration of the true meaning of begging the question.

Within a day or 2 of a Chinese blockade going into effect, Taiwan would announce its possession of nuclear weapons.

Like Japan, they are very careful to adhere to the NPT. They have a large quality of plutonium from the reactors they have. Almost certainly tritium.

They have a variety of advanced missiles to carry a weapon - including supersonic, stealthy cruise missiles.

The engineering to create a nuclear weapons is, in modern terms, quite simple, for a single stage device. They would probably go straight to the 2 point systems, with air gaps. Boosting (tritium injection) would be next up.

Because of the accuracy of modern guidance systems, the probable yields of such devices - say 100Kt - would be all that would be needed.

The largest single stager ever built was the American Mk18 - 500Kt. But that required enriched uranium and was a very expensive and rather dangerous design. IIRC the French managed 150Kt+ from plutonium in a single stage, but details are scarce on that.

Mr. kinabalu, I'm a monarchist, but have no intention of talking to the television.

Then again, I was also firmly against the clap for the NHS nonsense, so it might just be that I loathe outward demonstrations of that nature generally.

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

WhisperingOracle said:

On a slightly related point, I wish Bill Forsyth would make some sort of sequel to Local Hero, or some sort of companion piece to it.

No. Don't.

Local Hero was a near-perfect stand alone piece. There would be nothing to be improved upon, only the very real risk of destroying the joy of the original.

I did think this and agree with you for many years, but then on re-watching it last night after returning home from the pub, where there was such a clamour against Sue Gray, it struck me as containing so many elements that are missing from 2000's cinema, that even a misfired sequel could be a relative triumph...

And of course Sue Gray is a multi-competent previous pub owner. She could play the lead.

If Acoba doesn't veto it.

Nigelb said:

WhisperingOracle said:

MarqueeMark said:

WhisperingOracle said:

On a slightly related point, I wish Bill Forsyth would make some sort of sequel to Local Hero, or some sort of companion piece to it.

No. Don't.

Local Hero was a near-perfect stand alone piece. There would be nothing to be improved upon, only the very real risk of destroying the joy of the original.

I did think this and agree with you for many years, but then on re-watching it last night after returning home from the pub, where there was such a clamour against Sue Gray, it struck me as containing so many elements that are missing from 2000's cinema, that even a misfired sequel could be a relative triumph...

And of course Sue Gray is a multi-competent previous pub owner. She could play the lead.

If Acoba doesn't veto it.

Haha !

WhisperingOracle said:

Heathener said:

The Scotland shift, which began two or three years ago and long before the SNP woes, is very interesting and increases my confidence in a Labour landslide.

Meanwhile I voted by post in today's locals. I voted for 3 LibDems and 1 Labour because I'm in a Lib-Con marginal and I will do anything to vote out the tories.

The next General Election will be more of an anti-tory vote than most people on here recognise.

Indeed ; that's what John Curtice seems to think, aswell.

Yes. From what I see, it isn't a hatethon, as much as the Twitter types would like it to be. It's more - "The Tories again? No, not them" - a quiet, definite kind of thing.

Jonathan said:

Nothing succeeds like success. If somehow Labour start to win and be seen as winning, then they will start to win more.

It certainly makes it even more difficult for the Conservatives to play the equivalent of the "Miliband in Salmond's pocket" card that was so effective in 2015 in England. Not that an image of Starmer in Yousless's pocket would ever have worked this time anyway. Starmer has not followed in the footsteps of Miliband's disasterous equivocation, and the hapless Yousless is seen as a threat only to himself.

Heathener said:

The Scotland shift, which began two or three years ago and long before the SNP woes, is very interesting and increases my confidence in a Labour landslide.

Meanwhile I voted by post in today's locals. I voted for 3 LibDems and 1 Labour because I'm in a Lib-Con marginal and I will do anything to vote out the tories.

The next General Election will be more of an anti-tory vote than most people on here recognise.

I wouldn't be surprised. The Tory Party in its present incarnation is vile. I just received a text from an old friend saying she had just received her Austrian passport. Her late father was an Austrian refugee and apparently that entitles her and her whole family- children included -to an Austrian (EU) passport.

There seems to be quite a scramble in London in particular to look for for loopholes that will get people EU passports. How ridiculous that people are having to go through hoops to get what we all had by right before this Tory/UKIP government took power

Westie said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

(FPT)

TOPPING said:

Nigelb said:

.

TOPPING said:

Pulpstar said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

Update from the trenches, or rather from a trencherman over dinner last night. An old China hand, actually, spent the past 30+ years in HK and was deported/singled out by the authorities there for his outspokenness.

Very pessimistic/realistic about China and Taiwan. Gives it 3-5 years before they try to retake and doesn't think The West will do much about it. Even if China sinks the US pacific fleet which I think is a bit of a stretch but I suppose you pays your money on this one and it's what Xi thinks not what I think.

I can see China blockading Taiwan, but launching an invasion over 150 miles of Ocean against a very well equipped opponent would be very brave.

A proper blockade would be an act of war would it not ? It'd certainly wreck the world economically.

Yes and yes. The calculus is whether the US proceeds to war over Taiwan.

No, it's rather whether the US responds to China proceeding to war. It's not going to be the other way around.

China blockades Taiwan and to do so destroys the US fleet and then does the US proceed to war with China as a result.

That is a very good demonstration of the true meaning of begging the question.

Within a day or 2 of a Chinese blockade going into effect, Taiwan would announce its possession of nuclear weapons.

Like Japan, they are very careful to adhere to the NPT. They have a large quality of plutonium from the reactors they have. Almost certainly tritium.

They have a variety of advanced missiles to carry a weapon - including supersonic, stealthy cruise missiles.

The engineering to create a nuclear weapons is, in modern terms, quite simple, for a single stage device. They would probably go straight to the 2 point systems, with air gaps. Boosting (tritium injection) would be next up.

Because of the accuracy of modern guidance systems, the probable yields of such devices - say 100Kt - would be all that would be needed.

The largest single stager ever built was the American Mk18 - 500Kt. But that required enriched uranium and was a very expensive and rather dangerous design. IIRC the French managed 150Kt+ from plutonium in a single stage, but details are scarce on that.

Might the ROC launch a nuclear response to a blockade, though? I'm guessing they don't have a massive nuclear first strike capability, but perhaps enough to deter a massive first strike from the PRC. How strong are ROC defences against PRC nukes?

Hard to say.

They are very keen on missile defence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_Bow etc

It is worth noting that nuclear *defensive* weapons are extremely effective. A nuke burst over the open sea would smash cruise missiles into the water, at a range of kilometres. At high altitude - 100K feet - against incoming ballistic missiles, the Pk are above 1. That is, a single interceptor with a nuke warhead might well take out more than one incoming warhead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvZGaMt7UgQ for example.

The reason that the US and others turned away from this, was the advent of MIRV - making it cheaper to add warheads than defensive missiles. In addition, ABM sites can only protect a narrow corridor - a few miles wide, but hundreds of miles long, due to the physics of the intercepts. Nukes help with that, but not enough.

In this case, the small size of Taiwan makes the problem easier - a couple of ABM sites could well defend the whole island.

It is worth noting that their largest SAM systems could carry the kind of nuclear warhead I outlined above.

So far, the spectacular or otherwise symbolic attacks in this war (Kerch bridge, assassination of Dugin's daughter, drones over Kremlin) seem all to have been against Russia rather than by Russia. A possible exception being Nordstream in the event it was Russia that did it which I reckon is low-probability.

Could this change or doesn't the Russian command care about this stuff because the assessment is they've got the population with them and the pendulum is swinging towards autarky anyway?

A few years ago Russia had a strong internet psywar capability. What happened?

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Electoral Calculus translates the R&W Scottish Westminster poll into the following Scottish seats:

Con 7 (+1)
Lab 22 (+21)
LD 5 (+1)
SNP 25 (-23)

That is before allowing for any unionist tactical voting, beyond any that which occured in 2019.

I then added in parameters that provide for an extra 10% of Lab and LD voters being prepared to vote tactically in Scotland, which is a pretty minimal assumption, and also ignores completely any possibility of Scottish Conservatives voting tactically for unionist Labour aka Mr D Ross. Even on that minimalist assumption, Labour then pick up an extra 2 seats at the expense of the SNP, so it becomes Lab 24, SNP 23, Con 7, LD 5 on the old boundaries. On the new boundaries, with 2 less Scottish seats overall, it would be Lab 23, SNP 23, Con 6, LD 5.

An interesting new phenomenon to look out for I think will be one-sided unionist tactical voting. Anecdotally there seems to be some of that in the air among my Scottish based colleagues.

i.e. erstwhile Tory voters, as well as Lib Dems and Greens, voting Labour or Lib Dem in L/LD-SNP marginals; but LLG supporters not returning the favour in Tory-SNP marginals. That would potentially deliver more seats than expected to the SNP but also increase the scale of the anti-Tory seat majority at Westminster.

eristdoof said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, I'm a monarchist, but have no intention of talking to the television.

Then again, I was also firmly against the clap for the NHS nonsense, so it might just be that I loathe outward demonstrations of that nature generally.

I'm probably 3 years too slow, but I have just realised that "the Clap for the NHS" was surely breaking the UK lockdown rules.

The strange things some people think.

Westie said:

So far, the spectacular or otherwise symbolic attacks in this war (Kerch bridge, assassination of Dugin's daughter, drones over Kremlin) seem all to have been against Russia rather than by Russia. A possible exception being Nordstream in the event it was Russia that did it which I reckon is low-probability.

Could this change or doesn't the Russian command care about this stuff because the assessment is they've got the population with them and the pendulum is swinging towards autarky anyway?

A few years ago Russia had a strong internet psywar capability. What happened?

I'd say the day-1 Hostomel airport air drop was definitely spectacular and a bit cocky, though less symbolic.

The attacks on electricity and water infrastructure were certainly symbolic, and huge scale compared with anything Ukraine has done.

But the one off spectaculars are generally more the preserve of the underdog in any event.

The war has often felt like a Rugby match. It's like England vs a more talented but physically weaker side. We try to grind out a win through the overwhelming power of the forwards, spending extended periods in the opposition 22. Bakhmut is like a series of scrums and rolling mauls. They defend heroically. When they finally get the turnover their best bet is a lightning counter from the backs, the accumulation of long distance penalty kicks, and the occasional audacious drop goal. Everyone awaiting the much heralded counterattack is hoping it's going to be a quick turnover and a sprint to the tryline but the fear is it ends up with a few wasted punts up the field.

TOPPING said:

Nigelb said:

.

TOPPING said:

Pulpstar said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

Update from the trenches, or rather from a trencherman over dinner last night. An old China hand, actually, spent the past 30+ years in HK and was deported/singled out by the authorities there for his outspokenness.

Very pessimistic/realistic about China and Taiwan. Gives it 3-5 years before they try to retake and doesn't think The West will do much about it. Even if China sinks the US pacific fleet which I think is a bit of a stretch but I suppose you pays your money on this one and it's what Xi thinks not what I think.

I can see China blockading Taiwan, but launching an invasion over 150 miles of Ocean against a very well equipped opponent would be very brave.

A proper blockade would be an act of war would it not ? It'd certainly wreck the world economically.

Yes and yes. The calculus is whether the US proceeds to war over Taiwan.

No, it's rather whether the US responds to China proceeding to war. It's not going to be the other way around.

China blockades Taiwan and to do so destroys the US fleet and then does the US proceed to war with China as a result.

If China destroys the US fleet then war would have begun already, just as it did with Japan attacking in the past.

The only question the US would have is whether to respond, or to meekly surrender and lose the war. But war would have already begun the second their fleet was attacked.

Roger said:

Heathener said:

The Scotland shift, which began two or three years ago and long before the SNP woes, is very interesting and increases my confidence in a Labour landslide.

Meanwhile I voted by post in today's locals. I voted for 3 LibDems and 1 Labour because I'm in a Lib-Con marginal and I will do anything to vote out the tories.

The next General Election will be more of an anti-tory vote than most people on here recognise.

I wouldn't be surprised. The Tory Party in its present incarnation is vile. I just received a text from an old friend saying she had just received her Austrian passport. Her late father was an Austrian refugee and apparently that entitles her and her whole family- children included -to an Austrian (EU) passport.

There seems to be quite a scramble in London in particular to look for for loopholes that will get people EU passports. How ridiculous that people are having to go through hoops to get what we all had by right before this Tory/UKIP government took power

Every day, thousands of refugees flee this country for the Continent.

Westie said:

So far, the spectacular or otherwise symbolic attacks in this war (Kerch bridge, assassination of Dugin's daughter, drones over Kremlin) seem all to have been against Russia rather than by Russia. A possible exception being Nordstream in the event it was Russia that did it which I reckon is low-probability.

Could this change or doesn't the Russian command care about this stuff because the assessment is they've got the population with them and the pendulum is swinging towards autarky anyway?

A few years ago Russia had a strong internet psywar capability. What happened?

"seem all to have been against Russia rather than by Russia"

That's because Russia's attacks are so massed that they don't seem to be spectacular or symbolic. A well-known Russian gets assassinated; everyone takes notice. Russia assassinates many Ukraine-leaning people in the occupied territories, and no-one blinks. The Russians send missiles to blow up residential blocks; yawn. A Russian bridge gets blown up, and it's a spectacular.

"A few years ago Russia had a strong internet psywar capability. What happened?"

IMV two things:

1) Much of their psywar capacity is not being aimed at western nations, but at explaining their 'position' to the developing world; countries that might be prepared to aid them.

2) Their attacks in previous years had caused us to strengthen our systems. It's now much harder for them to create chaos (though it is still possible).

Nigelb said:

(FPT)

TOPPING said:

Nigelb said:

.

TOPPING said:

Pulpstar said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

Update from the trenches, or rather from a trencherman over dinner last night. An old China hand, actually, spent the past 30+ years in HK and was deported/singled out by the authorities there for his outspokenness.

Very pessimistic/realistic about China and Taiwan. Gives it 3-5 years before they try to retake and doesn't think The West will do much about it. Even if China sinks the US pacific fleet which I think is a bit of a stretch but I suppose you pays your money on this one and it's what Xi thinks not what I think.

I can see China blockading Taiwan, but launching an invasion over 150 miles of Ocean against a very well equipped opponent would be very brave.

A proper blockade would be an act of war would it not ? It'd certainly wreck the world economically.

Yes and yes. The calculus is whether the US proceeds to war over Taiwan.

No, it's rather whether the US responds to China proceeding to war. It's not going to be the other way around.

China blockades Taiwan and to do so destroys the US fleet and then does the US proceed to war with China as a result.

That is a very good demonstration of the true meaning of begging the question.

Surely they would be toast before they destroyed the US fleet. Yanks would not be sitting twiddling their thumbs.

Wulfrun_Phil:

"It certainly makes it even more difficult for the Conservatives to play the equivalent of the "Miliband in Salmond's pocket" card that was so effective in 2015 in England. Not that an image of Starmer in Yousless's pocket would ever have worked this time anyway. Starmer has not followed in the footsteps of Miliband's disasterous equivocation, and the hapless Yousless is seen as a threat only to himself."

I note with interest that this Redfield poll also shows that Yousaf is regarded as favoured for First Minister by 37-25 over Ross and by 31-29 over Sarwar. I am not a great admirer of Yousaf (I voted for Forbes in the leadership election) but he is not the no hoper that many outwith the ranks of the SNP would like to believe.

In the UK GE a lot will depend on whether the SNP can successfully persuade the voters (in the teeth of the 95% pro Union editing by the media in Scotland) how distant Labour is from Scotland with its "Make Brexit Work" and no abolition of tuition fees etc.etc.

If the contest appears close, there will be a tussle between vote SNP to achieve the balance of power and vote Labour to make sure the Tories are defeated (the latter not as convincing as might seem as voting SNP would also achieve that)

londonpubman said:

LAB should be optimistic of getting at least 20 Scotland seats now. Still around 100 gains needed in England and Wales though for the overall majority.

More Bollocks

malcolmg said:

Heathener said:

The Scotland shift, which began two or three years ago and long before the SNP woes, is very interesting and increases my confidence in a Labour landslide.

Meanwhile I voted by post in today's locals. I voted for 3 LibDems and 1 Labour because I'm in a Lib-Con marginal and I will do anything to vote out the tories.

The next General Election will be more of an anti-tory vote than most people on here recognise.

Bollocks Klaxon at full volume

What are your prediction for seats for Westminster and the Scottish parliament after the next election(s) ?

Sean_F said:

TimS said:

Sean_F said:

Roger said:

Heathener said:

The Scotland shift, which began two or three years ago and long before the SNP woes, is very interesting and increases my confidence in a Labour landslide.

Meanwhile I voted by post in today's locals. I voted for 3 LibDems and 1 Labour because I'm in a Lib-Con marginal and I will do anything to vote out the tories.

The next General Election will be more of an anti-tory vote than most people on here recognise.

I wouldn't be surprised. The Tory Party in its present incarnation is vile. I just received a text from an old friend saying she had just received her Austrian passport. Her late father was an Austrian refugee and apparently that entitles her and her whole family- children included -to an Austrian (EU) passport.

There seems to be quite a scramble in London in particular to look for for loopholes that will get people EU passports. How ridiculous that people are having to go through hoops to get what we all had by right before this Tory/UKIP government took power

Every day, thousands of refugees flee this country for the Continent.

In large boats?

If you're bothered about corruption in government, Austria would be a curious choice of country to move to.

An Austrian passport entitles you to move to any EU country, much as a UK passport used to.

JosiasJessop said:

Westie said:

So far, the spectacular or otherwise symbolic attacks in this war (Kerch bridge, assassination of Dugin's daughter, drones over Kremlin) seem all to have been against Russia rather than by Russia. A possible exception being Nordstream in the event it was Russia that did it which I reckon is low-probability.

Could this change or doesn't the Russian command care about this stuff because the assessment is they've got the population with them and the pendulum is swinging towards autarky anyway?

A few years ago Russia had a strong internet psywar capability. What happened?

"seem all to have been against Russia rather than by Russia"

That's because Russia's attacks are so massed that they don't seem to be spectacular or symbolic. A well-known Russian gets assassinated; everyone takes notice. Russia assassinates many Ukraine-leaning people in the occupied territories, and no-one blinks. The Russians send missiles to blow up residential blocks; yawn. A Russian bridge gets blown up, and it's a spectacular.

"A few years ago Russia had a strong internet psywar capability. What happened?"

IMV two things:

1) Much of their psywar capacity is not being aimed at western nations, but at explaining their 'position' to the developing world; countries that might be prepared to aid them.

2) Their attacks in previous years had caused us to strengthen our systems. It's now much harder for them to create chaos (though it is still possible).

I think the Russian trolls have been quite successful. Despite the naked aggression and genocidal imperialism, Putin has significant support from the US right, and to a lesser extent parts of the European far right and far left. There is a lot of Putin support too in Africa, Middle East and Asia.

The header says "The Scots Tories and Greens are on the decline" but the poll image has the greens going from 1% in 2019 to 3% voting intention now and no mention of them in the post itself? Am I missing something? (I don't especially care - just puzzled)

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Westie said:

So far, the spectacular or otherwise symbolic attacks in this war (Kerch bridge, assassination of Dugin's daughter, drones over Kremlin) seem all to have been against Russia rather than by Russia. A possible exception being Nordstream in the event it was Russia that did it which I reckon is low-probability.

Could this change or doesn't the Russian command care about this stuff because the assessment is they've got the population with them and the pendulum is swinging towards autarky anyway?

A few years ago Russia had a strong internet psywar capability. What happened?

"seem all to have been against Russia rather than by Russia"

That's because Russia's attacks are so massed that they don't seem to be spectacular or symbolic. A well-known Russian gets assassinated; everyone takes notice. Russia assassinates many Ukraine-leaning people in the occupied territories, and no-one blinks. The Russians send missiles to blow up residential blocks; yawn. A Russian bridge gets blown up, and it's a spectacular.

"A few years ago Russia had a strong internet psywar capability. What happened?"

IMV two things:

1) Much of their psywar capacity is not being aimed at western nations, but at explaining their 'position' to the developing world; countries that might be prepared to aid them.

2) Their attacks in previous years had caused us to strengthen our systems. It's now much harder for them to create chaos (though it is still possible).

I think the Russian trolls have been quite successful. Despite the naked aggression and genocidal imperialism, Putin has significant support from the US right, and to a lesser extent parts of the European far right and far left. There is a lot of Putin support too in Africa, Middle East and Asia.

don't think Europe has been this united in a long time. Even the hard core "Must punish the UK over Brexit" types are extending olive branches. Sweden and Finland joining NATO....

Yes, Hungary, but Orban and chums were always like that.

And, as a counterpoint, the complete, utter defeat of East Politics in Germany.

Malmesbury said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Westie said:

So far, the spectacular or otherwise symbolic attacks in this war (Kerch bridge, assassination of Dugin's daughter, drones over Kremlin) seem all to have been against Russia rather than by Russia. A possible exception being Nordstream in the event it was Russia that did it which I reckon is low-probability.

Could this change or doesn't the Russian command care about this stuff because the assessment is they've got the population with them and the pendulum is swinging towards autarky anyway?

A few years ago Russia had a strong internet psywar capability. What happened?

"seem all to have been against Russia rather than by Russia"

That's because Russia's attacks are so massed that they don't seem to be spectacular or symbolic. A well-known Russian gets assassinated; everyone takes notice. Russia assassinates many Ukraine-leaning people in the occupied territories, and no-one blinks. The Russians send missiles to blow up residential blocks; yawn. A Russian bridge gets blown up, and it's a spectacular.

"A few years ago Russia had a strong internet psywar capability. What happened?"

IMV two things:

1) Much of their psywar capacity is not being aimed at western nations, but at explaining their 'position' to the developing world; countries that might be prepared to aid them.

2) Their attacks in previous years had caused us to strengthen our systems. It's now much harder for them to create chaos (though it is still possible).

I think the Russian trolls have been quite successful. Despite the naked aggression and genocidal imperialism, Putin has significant support from the US right, and to a lesser extent parts of the European far right and far left. There is a lot of Putin support too in Africa, Middle East and Asia.

don't think Europe has been this united in a long time. Even the hard core "Must punish the UK over Brexit" types are extending olive branches. Sweden and Finland joining NATO....

Yes, Hungary, but Orban and chums were always like that.

And, as a counterpoint, the complete, utter defeat of East Politics in Germany.

Russia enjoys support among countries that can't offer much in the way of assistance to Russia.

Those who see the invasion as justified revenge for Iraq/Palestine/Libya etc.

Malmesbury said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Westie said:

So far, the spectacular or otherwise symbolic attacks in this war (Kerch bridge, assassination of Dugin's daughter, drones over Kremlin) seem all to have been against Russia rather than by Russia. A possible exception being Nordstream in the event it was Russia that did it which I reckon is low-probability.

Could this change or doesn't the Russian command care about this stuff because the assessment is they've got the population with them and the pendulum is swinging towards autarky anyway?

A few years ago Russia had a strong internet psywar capability. What happened?

"seem all to have been against Russia rather than by Russia"

That's because Russia's attacks are so massed that they don't seem to be spectacular or symbolic. A well-known Russian gets assassinated; everyone takes notice. Russia assassinates many Ukraine-leaning people in the occupied territories, and no-one blinks. The Russians send missiles to blow up residential blocks; yawn. A Russian bridge gets blown up, and it's a spectacular.

"A few years ago Russia had a strong internet psywar capability. What happened?"

IMV two things:

1) Much of their psywar capacity is not being aimed at western nations, but at explaining their 'position' to the developing world; countries that might be prepared to aid them.

2) Their attacks in previous years had caused us to strengthen our systems. It's now much harder for them to create chaos (though it is still possible).

I think the Russian trolls have been quite successful. Despite the naked aggression and genocidal imperialism, Putin has significant support from the US right, and to a lesser extent parts of the European far right and far left. There is a lot of Putin support too in Africa, Middle East and Asia.

don't think Europe has been this united in a long time. Even the hard core "Must punish the UK over Brexit" types are extending olive branches. Sweden and Finland joining NATO....

Yes, Hungary, but Orban and chums were always like that.

And, as a counterpoint, the complete, utter defeat of East Politics in Germany.

I think you and Foxy are both right here. There's interestingly residual support for Putin on the far right and far left in northern Europe, but what's interesting to me is that in countries where this used to be stronger - in my experience, like Italy and Greece, it's almost gone away, compared to what it used to be. The left in France, Greece and Italy have been vaguely pro-Russian since the Cold War, and now they're much more keeping mum. In France it's just the FN that seems to be maintaining more of a pro-Russian positon.

I would also emphasise there's a difference between sympathetic to Putin, and taking a realist's approach to how this war will be resolved, which I would also take ; and I don't think it's going to end with Ukraine maintaining every inch of its pre-2014 territory.

Sean_F said:

I voted for two independents, who were the only people who bothered to leaflet my house.

A very brave choice.

Marxists? Fascists? Who can tell?

SandyRentool said:

Sean_F said:

I voted for two independents, who were the only people who bothered to leaflet my house.

A very brave choice.

Marxists? Fascists? Who can tell?

TBF, does it matter much at council level. Are they going to stop flytipping and fix the potholes?

The BNP councillors were quite effective in Coalville some years ago. Apparently very good at sorting out problem neighbours with a personal visit.

Doing some data entry today and it's fair to say that Polling Is Brisk™

This morning, I took a selection of my outdated passports to my Polling Station as my ID in order to vote. The Poll clerk accepted the photo in my cancelled UK Visitor's Passport valid from 1985 to 1986. That photo was taken 38 years ago. I have since changed significantly. My hair in the photo was almost black - and it is now totally white. So I wore a cap, and the colour of my hair couldn't be seen. I was given a ballot paper and voted. What a time wasting nonsense this this having to produce ID is.

Foxy said:

Malmesbury said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Westie said:

So far, the spectacular or otherwise symbolic attacks in this war (Kerch bridge, assassination of Dugin's daughter, drones over Kremlin) seem all to have been against Russia rather than by Russia. A possible exception being Nordstream in the event it was Russia that did it which I reckon is low-probability.

Could this change or doesn't the Russian command care about this stuff because the assessment is they've got the population with them and the pendulum is swinging towards autarky anyway?

A few years ago Russia had a strong internet psywar capability. What happened?

"seem all to have been against Russia rather than by Russia"

That's because Russia's attacks are so massed that they don't seem to be spectacular or symbolic. A well-known Russian gets assassinated; everyone takes notice. Russia assassinates many Ukraine-leaning people in the occupied territories, and no-one blinks. The Russians send missiles to blow up residential blocks; yawn. A Russian bridge gets blown up, and it's a spectacular.

"A few years ago Russia had a strong internet psywar capability. What happened?"

IMV two things:

1) Much of their psywar capacity is not being aimed at western nations, but at explaining their 'position' to the developing world; countries that might be prepared to aid them.

2) Their attacks in previous years had caused us to strengthen our systems. It's now much harder for them to create chaos (though it is still possible).

I think the Russian trolls have been quite successful. Despite the naked aggression and genocidal imperialism, Putin has significant support from the US right, and to a lesser extent parts of the European far right and far left. There is a lot of Putin support too in Africa, Middle East and Asia.

don't think Europe has been this united in a long time. Even the hard core "Must punish the UK over Brexit" types are extending olive branches. Sweden and Finland joining NATO....

Yes, Hungary, but Orban and chums were always like that.

And, as a counterpoint, the complete, utter defeat of East Politics in Germany.

Sure, it is a minority in Europe sympathetic to Putin, but present in the far left and right, including in the UK.

I think Germanys Ostpolitik extends to Ukraine now, which is going to be a major market for German exports.

I think you are stretching it is say that Germany's policy to Ukraine is Ostpolitik II or something.

Those advocating Ostpolitik have been comprehensively and utterly defeated in German politics.

The policy towards Ukraine is something new - not outreach to a *foreign* country, but an embrace of a country that is very actively seeking to be European in every sense.

TimS said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Electoral Calculus translates the R&W Scottish Westminster poll into the following Scottish seats:

Con 7 (+1)
Lab 22 (+21)
LD 5 (+1)
SNP 25 (-23)

That is before allowing for any unionist tactical voting, beyond any that which occured in 2019.

I then added in parameters that provide for an extra 10% of Lab and LD voters being prepared to vote tactically in Scotland, which is a pretty minimal assumption, and also ignores completely any possibility of Scottish Conservatives voting tactically for unionist Labour aka Mr D Ross. Even on that minimalist assumption, Labour then pick up an extra 2 seats at the expense of the SNP, so it becomes Lab 24, SNP 23, Con 7, LD 5 on the old boundaries. On the new boundaries, with 2 less Scottish seats overall, it would be Lab 23, SNP 23, Con 6, LD 5.

An interesting new phenomenon to look out for I think will be one-sided unionist tactical voting. Anecdotally there seems to be some of that in the air among my Scottish based colleagues.

i.e. erstwhile Tory voters, as well as Lib Dems and Greens, voting Labour or Lib Dem in L/LD-SNP marginals; but LLG supporters not returning the favour in Tory-SNP marginals. That would potentially deliver more seats than expected to the SNP but also increase the scale of the anti-Tory seat majority at Westminster.

Interesting. If you're right and it would be one sided, here's how the figures I gave based on the latest R&W poll might alter further.

The EC projection that I gave didn't allow for any anti-SNP tactical voting by or to the Conservatives. Looking at the breakdown of Lab 24, SNP 23, Con 7, LD 5 that that projection produced on current boundaries, and seats where Lab or the LDs are challenging, there are a couple of SNP seats where Electoral Calculus project an SNP majority of only around 1%, in both cases over Labour. Paisley and Renfrewshire S (SNP maj 0.7%, Con vote 10.6%) and Livingston (SNP maj 1.2%, Con vote 15.3%). So those seats might also switch if a small number of Scottish Conservatives were induced to vote Labour in those Lab-SNP marginals, taking the Lab total up to 26 and the SNP down to 21 on current boundaries.

SandyRentool said:

Sean_F said:

I voted for two independents, who were the only people who bothered to leaflet my house.

A very brave choice.

Marxists? Fascists? Who can tell?

Nihilists?


Walter Sobchak: Nihilists! F*** me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

junius said:

This morning, I took a selection of my outdated passports to my Polling Station as my ID in order to vote. The Poll clerk accepted the photo in my cancelled UK Visitor's Passport valid from 1985 to 1986. That photo was taken 38 years ago. I have since changed significantly. My hair in the photo was almost black - and it is now totally white. So I wore a cap, and the colour of my hair couldn't be seen. I was given a ballot paper and voted. What a time wasting nonsense this this having to produce ID is.

What was the policy towards voting while wearing a niqab, burka, or indeed a balaclava? Was it permitted before? Is it permitted now? How does that square with 'verifying' photo ID?

ETA: Or, indeed, face masks of the type popular (or, at least, prevalent) during Covid

Malmesbury said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Westie said:

So far, the spectacular or otherwise symbolic attacks in this war (Kerch bridge, assassination of Dugin's daughter, drones over Kremlin) seem all to have been against Russia rather than by Russia. A possible exception being Nordstream in the event it was Russia that did it which I reckon is low-probability.

Could this change or doesn't the Russian command care about this stuff because the assessment is they've got the population with them and the pendulum is swinging towards autarky anyway?

A few years ago Russia had a strong internet psywar capability. What happened?

"seem all to have been against Russia rather than by Russia"

That's because Russia's attacks are so massed that they don't seem to be spectacular or symbolic. A well-known Russian gets assassinated; everyone takes notice. Russia assassinates many Ukraine-leaning people in the occupied territories, and no-one blinks. The Russians send missiles to blow up residential blocks; yawn. A Russian bridge gets blown up, and it's a spectacular.

"A few years ago Russia had a strong internet psywar capability. What happened?"

IMV two things:

1) Much of their psywar capacity is not being aimed at western nations, but at explaining their 'position' to the developing world; countries that might be prepared to aid them.

2) Their attacks in previous years had caused us to strengthen our systems. It's now much harder for them to create chaos (though it is still possible).

I think the Russian trolls have been quite successful. Despite the naked aggression and genocidal imperialism, Putin has significant support from the US right, and to a lesser extent parts of the European far right and far left. There is a lot of Putin support too in Africa, Middle East and Asia.

don't think Europe has been this united in a long time. Even the hard core "Must punish the UK over Brexit" types are extending olive branches. Sweden and Finland joining NATO....

Yes, Hungary, but Orban and chums were always like that.

And, as a counterpoint, the complete, utter defeat of East Politics in Germany.

New EU envoy recognises ‘willingness to rebuild relationship’ between UK and EU
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/04/new-eu-envoy-recognises-willingness-to-rebuild-relationship-between-uk-and-eu

squareroot2 said:

Sean_F said:

I voted for two independents, who were the only people who bothered to leaflet my house.

Nobody deserves my vote so they won't be getting it . First time I have abstained in over 50 years

That only makes sense if you are standing as a candidate yourself. Otherwise someone will end up representing you, and you have given up the opportunity to influence who that might be.

Nigelb said:

Malmesbury said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Westie said:

So far, the spectacular or otherwise symbolic attacks in this war (Kerch bridge, assassination of Dugin's daughter, drones over Kremlin) seem all to have been against Russia rather than by Russia. A possible exception being Nordstream in the event it was Russia that did it which I reckon is low-probability.

Could this change or doesn't the Russian command care about this stuff because the assessment is they've got the population with them and the pendulum is swinging towards autarky anyway?

A few years ago Russia had a strong internet psywar capability. What happened?

"seem all to have been against Russia rather than by Russia"

That's because Russia's attacks are so massed that they don't seem to be spectacular or symbolic. A well-known Russian gets assassinated; everyone takes notice. Russia assassinates many Ukraine-leaning people in the occupied territories, and no-one blinks. The Russians send missiles to blow up residential blocks; yawn. A Russian bridge gets blown up, and it's a spectacular.

"A few years ago Russia had a strong internet psywar capability. What happened?"

IMV two things:

1) Much of their psywar capacity is not being aimed at western nations, but at explaining their 'position' to the developing world; countries that might be prepared to aid them.

2) Their attacks in previous years had caused us to strengthen our systems. It's now much harder for them to create chaos (though it is still possible).

I think the Russian trolls have been quite successful. Despite the naked aggression and genocidal imperialism, Putin has significant support from the US right, and to a lesser extent parts of the European far right and far left. There is a lot of Putin support too in Africa, Middle East and Asia.

don't think Europe has been this united in a long time. Even the hard core "Must punish the UK over Brexit" types are extending olive branches. Sweden and Finland joining NATO....

Yes, Hungary, but Orban and chums were always like that.

And, as a counterpoint, the complete, utter defeat of East Politics in Germany.

New EU envoy recognises ‘willingness to rebuild relationship’ between UK and EU
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/04/new-eu-envoy-recognises-willingness-to-rebuild-relationship-between-uk-and-eu

Part of that is a worry, that's been expressed in France and Germany, that chunks of Eastern Europe are looking outside the EU for security and defence. Better to have the UK inside the tent etc.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kinabalu, I'm a monarchist, but have no intention of talking to the television.

Then again, I was also firmly against the clap for the NHS nonsense, so it might just be that I loathe outward demonstrations of that nature generally.

Understandable. But there'd be nobody looking if you do it in private. And you do 'take the knee' occasionally, I'd imagine?