Is another CON majority really out of the question? – politicalbetting.com

Firstski

On topic

No, it is out of the question. 99% certain at this point.

Malmesbury said:

On topic

No, it is out of the question. 99% certain at this point.

Niggles, though. What if the 2023 equivalent of a bacon sandwich turns up?

This could be the most open Rugby World Cup ever

Of the top 10 , 7 or 8 teams could win it


https://www.world.rugby/tournaments/rankings/mru

BartholomewRoberts said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Nigelb said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting article on the Oppenheimer film:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/07/29/opinion-nolans-oppenheimer-marred-by-5-historical-inaccuracies/

The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.

One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.

Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.

On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.

Russia has invaded an independent state.
The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me.
Or to put it less politely, nonsense.

Was not the Confederate States of America an independent state with its own army and navy?

Unrecognised, though, even by Britain.

Ukraine has been internationally recognised since 1991.

Including by Russia, crucially. They might have been among the first to recognise it. If the proposition this should be seen as some kind of ongoing secession which Russia disputes, that ship sailed a long time ago. It's not one of those situations where there was de facto recognition only.

Of course Russia never even claimed Ukraine. The USSR disbanded and the separate states went their own way. Which Russia recognised and accepted.

A comparative situation would be if the UK disbanded, England recognised the independence of Scotland and Wales, while Ireland (Germany) reunified.

Then thirty years later England invaded Scotland.

Quite, it's just nonsense. A whole lot of pretexts and rationales have been put forth, this one like most doesn't work.

In other news, I'd file this alleged comment as a bit too frank. (Almost makes it look like we are labelled in as Scandanavian, too).

I think TimS hits the nail on the head in that media and political wonks like us are already accounting for the Tory position to not be as bad as it actually appears, come the day of election.

As such whilst those saying it is not out of the question for the Tories to get a majority, the other possibility of it being worse than people think for the Tories is also not out of the question, and probably more likely.

Scotland cmon

Starmer's uninspiring ratings should matter, but they won't as long as Sunak is even worse. (See 2019 for the last example of a bad party leader losing to a worse opponent). And until the Lib Dems can win on national swing rather than high-impact local campaigning, that's enough.

As for turning it around, here's an interesting take on the numbers. The lines show the difference between the poll ratings at election day minus X and the final outcome. So -10 at day 180 would mean that a party put on ten points in the final six months.



https://twitter.com/drjennings/status/1686848697777221633

So 1964, 1970 and 1987 are classic swingbacks as normally understood- a governing party recovering as the election comes into view. There's something similar and weaker in Feb 1974 and 2010. But that trajectory is less common than we might think. There are also cases where the polls were locked on to the wrong number; 1992 and 2015 stand out.

The Conservatives have two problems, though. One is that the of examples where the swingback doesn't really happen at all. The other is that all these effects are pretty small compared with what the Conservatives need. Even without any tactical voting, the Conservatives need the national score to be C39L38 to have a majority, when the current WIkiworm is C25L45. That's a helluva switch.

If Rishi goes for late January 2025 for the election, there are about 540 days to go.

Fantastic. Well done Scotland

Totally deserved. And a man down!

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

On topic

No, it is out of the question. 99% certain at this point.

Niggles, though. What if the 2023 equivalent of a bacon sandwich turns up?

Starmer is too careful and canny. He won't be seen with anything other than a pint.

Cookie said:

Reeves? Really? Can't rememberwhat it was but I'm fairly sure there was an incident recently where she was revealed to be a fucking idiot.
Starmer is by far Labour's best bet. We may not know whathe believes in, but an idiot he is not.

During the Nat West debacle she claimed criticism of Alison Rose was sexism.

I think, that aside, she is pretty smart and competent.

I would say no based on the Opinium polling yesterday. Most of what Sunak thinks is popular isn’t - even including the migrant barges. But I suppose all he can do is shore up the base.

But the base is probably 25% ish. And if anything I think Sunak has gotten worse (which is disappointing). Inflation might improve etc, but people won’t feel the benefits quickly enough and services will still be awful

Leon said:

Fantastic. Well done Scotland

Totally deserved. And a man down!

A good win, although that was not exactly France A side.

Although the WC is open, the issue is winning three big games in a row. England in 2019 probably played the two best games of the tournament, sadly it was the quarter vs Australia and the Semi vs NZ. The third game slipped away, with a great SA game plan and some bad injury luck.

I can see NZ, SA, France and Ireland as potential winners, beyond that I think the three big wins in a row will be too much.

Stuartinromford said:

Starmer's uninspiring ratings should matter, but they won't as long as Sunak is even worse. (See 2019 for the last example of a bad party leader losing to a worse opponent). And until the Lib Dems can win on national swing rather than high-impact local campaigning, that's enough.

As for turning it around, here's an interesting take on the numbers. The lines show the difference between the poll ratings at election day minus X and the final outcome. So -10 at day 180 would mean that a party put on ten points in the final six months.



https://twitter.com/drjennings/status/1686848697777221633

So 1964, 1970 and 1987 are classic swingbacks as normally understood- a governing party recovering as the election comes into view. There's something similar and weaker in Feb 1974 and 2010. But that trajectory is less common than we might think. There are also cases where the polls were locked on to the wrong number; 1992 and 2015 stand out.

The Conservatives have two problems, though. One is that the of examples where the swingback doesn't really happen at all. The other is that all these effects are pretty small compared with what the Conservatives need. Even without any tactical voting, the Conservatives need the national score to be C39L38 to have a majority, when the current WIkiworm is C25L45. That's a helluva switch.

If Rishi goes for late January 2025 for the election, there are about 540 days to go.

2015 is the most interesting one. 1992 is ancient history now. The polls got 2015 badly wrong but not as wrong as we tend to remember or the charts appear to show. I think it was an almost uniquely difficult election to predict because of 3 unusual dynamics at play: the Lib Dem collapse to the Tories in the South West; the SNP landslide largely at the expense of Labour in Scotland; and the fact around 13% voted for UKIP.

The polls went from around a 5% Labour lead a year out to a 6.6% Tory lead on the day alongside a massive loss in Lib Dem and Labour vote efficiency. If we had another swingback and polling failure of 2015 proportions then that would bring us to around a Labour lead of 4-6% alongside, I think, an increase in Lib Dem vote efficiency.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nothing is ever out of the question.

But the odds are truly miniscule. It would take a more dramatic change than anything we have witnessed with Uxbridge to encourage it.

Of course if Sir Keir Starmer became as anti car as some of the fanatics on this site are then that would enable it.

Public transport using renters in cities are Labour voters.
Driving home owners without a mortgage in the countryside are Tory voters.

Driving mortgage payers in towns are the swing voters. Swing seats are almost all in the towns where people drive.

Currently they're pissed off with the Tories due to interest rates.

And Sir Keir Starmer is too clever to fall into the trap of being openly anti-car.

I think the risk for Starmer is he fails to make a positive case for change and progress.

That's why his leader ratings are so low. It might turn into a turnout game, and getting people to vote Labour in key seats, particularly in Scotland, won't happen if he doesn't set out some sort of future.

The bigger risk for Starmer is he makes a positive case for something only wanted by a small minority.

He needs to win the whole country, not just safe seats. And as far as SNP/Labour seats are concerned those are safe seats as far his getting into Downing Street is concerned.

He needs to move seats from the blue column to the red one.

To be fair on him, there is only one politician I can think of who could make the positive case I describe:

Boris Johnson.

Mr J very pro-motel at the moment ...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12373715/BORIS-JOHNSON-Yes-pro-newt-laws-holding-swimming-pool-sound-barmy-protect-amphibians-build-little-newt-motels.html

In electoral terms I suspect Labour supporters here (or more broadly LLG supporters) are at the 4th innings at the Oval, Australia only 3 down when rain stops play stage, psychologically. Still fearing the Tories will somehow pull off the run chase.

On topic, in 1991 the Conservatives led in quite a few polls (albeit Labour led in more, mostly with low single figure leads).

In 2023, the Conservatives haven't led in ANY polls (indeed, I don't think the Labour lead has been in single figures at any point). And they didn't lead in any polls in 2022 either. A fair number of polls have Labour ahead by high teens or even low twenties.

Nothing is ever impossible, but I'm really not sure a comparison with the 1992 election is apt.

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nothing is ever out of the question.

But the odds are truly miniscule. It would take a more dramatic change than anything we have witnessed with Uxbridge to encourage it.

Of course if Sir Keir Starmer became as anti car as some of the fanatics on this site are then that would enable it.

Public transport using renters in cities are Labour voters.
Driving home owners without a mortgage in the countryside are Tory voters.

Driving mortgage payers in towns are the swing voters. Swing seats are almost all in the towns where people drive.

Currently they're pissed off with the Tories due to interest rates.

And Sir Keir Starmer is too clever to fall into the trap of being openly anti-car.

I think the risk for Starmer is he fails to make a positive case for change and progress.

That's why his leader ratings are so low. It might turn into a turnout game, and getting people to vote Labour in key seats, particularly in Scotland, won't happen if he doesn't set out some sort of future.

The bigger risk for Starmer is he makes a positive case for something only wanted by a small minority.

He needs to win the whole country, not just safe seats. And as far as SNP/Labour seats are concerned those are safe seats as far his getting into Downing Street is concerned.

He needs to move seats from the blue column to the red one.

To be fair on him, there is only one politician I can think of who could make the positive case I describe:

Boris Johnson.

Mr J very pro-motel at the moment ...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12373715/BORIS-JOHNSON-Yes-pro-newt-laws-holding-swimming-pool-sound-barmy-protect-amphibians-build-little-newt-motels.html

Mon the newts.

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Wales there, as always. with the best anthem, the best flag, and the ugliest team

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Nigelb said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting article on the Oppenheimer film:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/07/29/opinion-nolans-oppenheimer-marred-by-5-historical-inaccuracies/

The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.

One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.

Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.

On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.

Russia has invaded an independent state.
The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me.
Or to put it less politely, nonsense.

Was not the Confederate States of America an independent state with its own army and navy?

Unrecognised, though, even by Britain.

Ukraine has been internationally recognised since 1991.

Including by Russia, crucially. They might have been among the first to recognise it. If the proposition this should be seen as some kind of ongoing secession which Russia disputes, that ship sailed a long time ago. It's not one of those situations where there was de facto recognition only.

Of course Russia never even claimed Ukraine. The USSR disbanded and the separate states went their own way. Which Russia recognised and accepted.

A comparative situation would be if the UK disbanded, England recognised the independence of Scotland and Wales, while Ireland (Germany) reunified.

Then thirty years later England invaded Scotland.

Quite, it's just nonsense. A whole lot of pretexts and rationales have been put forth, this one like most doesn't work.

In other news, I'd file this alleged comment as a bit too frank. (Almost makes it look like we are labelled in as Scandanavian, too).

Just because the French are used to surrendering doesn't mean others have to!

Oh dear ! These sorts of comments seem to ignore geography . No one can say for definite what could have happened but the small matter of the Channel was a big help for the UK !

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Nigelb said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting article on the Oppenheimer film:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/07/29/opinion-nolans-oppenheimer-marred-by-5-historical-inaccuracies/

The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.

One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.

Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.

On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.

Russia has invaded an independent state.
The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me.
Or to put it less politely, nonsense.

Was not the Confederate States of America an independent state with its own army and navy?

Unrecognised, though, even by Britain.

Ukraine has been internationally recognised since 1991.

Including by Russia, crucially. They might have been among the first to recognise it. If the proposition this should be seen as some kind of ongoing secession which Russia disputes, that ship sailed a long time ago. It's not one of those situations where there was de facto recognition only.

Of course Russia never even claimed Ukraine. The USSR disbanded and the separate states went their own way. Which Russia recognised and accepted.

A comparative situation would be if the UK disbanded, England recognised the independence of Scotland and Wales, while Ireland (Germany) reunified.

Then thirty years later England invaded Scotland.

Quite, it's just nonsense. A whole lot of pretexts and rationales have been put forth, this one like most doesn't work.

In other news, I'd file this alleged comment as a bit too frank. (Almost makes it look like we are labelled in as Scandanavian, too).

Just because the French are used to surrendering doesn't mean others have to!

Vous sentez-vous un peu raciste aujourd'hui, hein?

Also more than a little hypocritical, given his PB posting on the eve of the (latest) Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Nigelb said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting article on the Oppenheimer film:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/07/29/opinion-nolans-oppenheimer-marred-by-5-historical-inaccuracies/

The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.

One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.

Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.

On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.

Russia has invaded an independent state.
The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me.
Or to put it less politely, nonsense.

Was not the Confederate States of America an independent state with its own army and navy?

Unrecognised, though, even by Britain.

Ukraine has been internationally recognised since 1991.

Including by Russia, crucially. They might have been among the first to recognise it. If the proposition this should be seen as some kind of ongoing secession which Russia disputes, that ship sailed a long time ago. It's not one of those situations where there was de facto recognition only.

Of course Russia never even claimed Ukraine. The USSR disbanded and the separate states went their own way. Which Russia recognised and accepted.

A comparative situation would be if the UK disbanded, England recognised the independence of Scotland and Wales, while Ireland (Germany) reunified.

Then thirty years later England invaded Scotland.

Quite, it's just nonsense. A whole lot of pretexts and rationales have been put forth, this one like most doesn't work.

In other news, I'd file this alleged comment as a bit too frank. (Almost makes it look like we are labelled in as Scandanavian, too).

Just because the French are used to surrendering doesn't mean others have to!

Vous sentez-vous un peu raciste aujourd'hui, hein?

The French are one of 3 groups it’s globally officially permitted to insult without being racist, along with the British (more specifically English) and Americans. Written in the UN charter.

EDIT: oh, and Australians.

kle4 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Foxy said:

kle4 said:

Carnyx said:

Malmesbury said:

On topic

No, it is out of the question. 99% certain at this point.

Niggles, though. What if the 2023 equivalent of a bacon sandwich turns up?

Starmer is too careful and canny. He won't be seen with anything other than a pint.

Who doesn't love leader with a beer and takeaway curry?

Attacking Starmer for beer and curry was the most counterproductive attack since Labour tried to compare David Cameron to Gene Hunt. Fire up the quattro!

There was that attack on Ed M for his past relationships, which if memory serves came across like "Look at the accomplished, intelligent, beautiful women Ed M has been involved with - what a loser"

Ok it was a newspaper not a party, but The Daily Mail attacking his father as being anti-British was quite something, the sort of thing that if a left leaning paper did would be decried as anti-semetic.

TimS said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Nigelb said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting article on the Oppenheimer film:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/07/29/opinion-nolans-oppenheimer-marred-by-5-historical-inaccuracies/

The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.

One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.

Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.

On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.

Russia has invaded an independent state.
The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me.
Or to put it less politely, nonsense.

Was not the Confederate States of America an independent state with its own army and navy?

Unrecognised, though, even by Britain.

Ukraine has been internationally recognised since 1991.

Including by Russia, crucially. They might have been among the first to recognise it. If the proposition this should be seen as some kind of ongoing secession which Russia disputes, that ship sailed a long time ago. It's not one of those situations where there was de facto recognition only.

Of course Russia never even claimed Ukraine. The USSR disbanded and the separate states went their own way. Which Russia recognised and accepted.

A comparative situation would be if the UK disbanded, England recognised the independence of Scotland and Wales, while Ireland (Germany) reunified.

Then thirty years later England invaded Scotland.

Quite, it's just nonsense. A whole lot of pretexts and rationales have been put forth, this one like most doesn't work.

In other news, I'd file this alleged comment as a bit too frank. (Almost makes it look like we are labelled in as Scandanavian, too).

Just because the French are used to surrendering doesn't mean others have to!

Vous sentez-vous un peu raciste aujourd'hui, hein?

The French are one of 3 groups it’s globally officially permitted to insult without being racist, along with the British (more specifically English) and Americans. Written in the UN charter.

EDIT: oh, and Australians.

Welsh and Kiwis are sheep shaggers too.

Everyone knows that.

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

That's not terribly patriotic of those Tories, is it?

TimS said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Nigelb said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting article on the Oppenheimer film:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/07/29/opinion-nolans-oppenheimer-marred-by-5-historical-inaccuracies/

The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.

One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.

Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.

On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.

Russia has invaded an independent state.
The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me.
Or to put it less politely, nonsense.

Was not the Confederate States of America an independent state with its own army and navy?

Unrecognised, though, even by Britain.

Ukraine has been internationally recognised since 1991.

Including by Russia, crucially. They might have been among the first to recognise it. If the proposition this should be seen as some kind of ongoing secession which Russia disputes, that ship sailed a long time ago. It's not one of those situations where there was de facto recognition only.

Of course Russia never even claimed Ukraine. The USSR disbanded and the separate states went their own way. Which Russia recognised and accepted.

A comparative situation would be if the UK disbanded, England recognised the independence of Scotland and Wales, while Ireland (Germany) reunified.

Then thirty years later England invaded Scotland.

Quite, it's just nonsense. A whole lot of pretexts and rationales have been put forth, this one like most doesn't work.

In other news, I'd file this alleged comment as a bit too frank. (Almost makes it look like we are labelled in as Scandanavian, too).

Just because the French are used to surrendering doesn't mean others have to!

Vous sentez-vous un peu raciste aujourd'hui, hein?

The French are one of 3 groups it’s globally officially permitted to insult without being racist, along with the British (more specifically English) and Americans. Written in the UN charter.

EDIT: oh, and Australians.

Germans too? Also thanks to Putin maybe Russians.

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.

It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?

Stuartinromford said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.

It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?

Multi-channel TV for everyone has been a thing in the US a lot longer than in the UK. The Tea Party was able to succeed because of support from Fox News. Our own version (GB News), despite a loyal audience, is still relatively very small.

Unpopular said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

I guess that ties nicely with DougSeal's thesis, that Truss will stage a comeback?

I disagree with his prediction, but if he's right I'll just have to assume he's from the future.

Or one of those chaps that Asimov wrote about.

Unpopular said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

I guess that ties nicely with DougSeal's thesis, that Truss will stage a comeback?

I disagree with his prediction, but if he's right I'll just have to assume he's from the future.

If Truss is the future, I'd probably want to time travel to somewhen else as well.

BartholomewRoberts said:

TimS said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Nigelb said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting article on the Oppenheimer film:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/07/29/opinion-nolans-oppenheimer-marred-by-5-historical-inaccuracies/

The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.

One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.

Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.

On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.

Russia has invaded an independent state.
The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me.
Or to put it less politely, nonsense.

Was not the Confederate States of America an independent state with its own army and navy?

Unrecognised, though, even by Britain.

Ukraine has been internationally recognised since 1991.

Including by Russia, crucially. They might have been among the first to recognise it. If the proposition this should be seen as some kind of ongoing secession which Russia disputes, that ship sailed a long time ago. It's not one of those situations where there was de facto recognition only.

Of course Russia never even claimed Ukraine. The USSR disbanded and the separate states went their own way. Which Russia recognised and accepted.

A comparative situation would be if the UK disbanded, England recognised the independence of Scotland and Wales, while Ireland (Germany) reunified.

Then thirty years later England invaded Scotland.

Quite, it's just nonsense. A whole lot of pretexts and rationales have been put forth, this one like most doesn't work.

In other news, I'd file this alleged comment as a bit too frank. (Almost makes it look like we are labelled in as Scandanavian, too).

Just because the French are used to surrendering doesn't mean others have to!

Vous sentez-vous un peu raciste aujourd'hui, hein?

The French are one of 3 groups it’s globally officially permitted to insult without being racist, along with the British (more specifically English) and Americans. Written in the UN charter.

EDIT: oh, and Australians.

Welsh and Kiwis are sheep shaggers too.

Everyone knows that.

No, Bart, the Welsh are British, and as everyone knows....

'The British, the British, the British are best.
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest.'

I can't work out this England team, but certainly better than 6 months ago.

Peter_the_Punter said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TimS said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Nigelb said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting article on the Oppenheimer film:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/07/29/opinion-nolans-oppenheimer-marred-by-5-historical-inaccuracies/

The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.

One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.

Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.

On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.

Russia has invaded an independent state.
The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me.
Or to put it less politely, nonsense.

Was not the Confederate States of America an independent state with its own army and navy?

Unrecognised, though, even by Britain.

Ukraine has been internationally recognised since 1991.

Including by Russia, crucially. They might have been among the first to recognise it. If the proposition this should be seen as some kind of ongoing secession which Russia disputes, that ship sailed a long time ago. It's not one of those situations where there was de facto recognition only.

Of course Russia never even claimed Ukraine. The USSR disbanded and the separate states went their own way. Which Russia recognised and accepted.

A comparative situation would be if the UK disbanded, England recognised the independence of Scotland and Wales, while Ireland (Germany) reunified.

Then thirty years later England invaded Scotland.

Quite, it's just nonsense. A whole lot of pretexts and rationales have been put forth, this one like most doesn't work.

In other news, I'd file this alleged comment as a bit too frank. (Almost makes it look like we are labelled in as Scandanavian, too).

Just because the French are used to surrendering doesn't mean others have to!

Vous sentez-vous un peu raciste aujourd'hui, hein?

The French are one of 3 groups it’s globally officially permitted to insult without being racist, along with the British (more specifically English) and Americans. Written in the UN charter.

EDIT: oh, and Australians.

Welsh and Kiwis are sheep shaggers too.

Everyone knows that.

No, Bart, the Welsh are British, and as everyone knows....

'The British, the British, the British are best.
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest.'

“God is an Englishman”

- Admiral “Mad” Jack Fisher

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition.

For some rightwing Tory members of course Jacob is the Messiah as much as Jezza was ultimately for leftwing Labour members

Miklosvar said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Nigelb said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting article on the Oppenheimer film:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/07/29/opinion-nolans-oppenheimer-marred-by-5-historical-inaccuracies/

The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.

One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.

Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.

On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.

Russia has invaded an independent state.
The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me.
Or to put it less politely, nonsense.

Was not the Confederate States of America an independent state with its own army and navy?

Unrecognised, though, even by Britain.

Ukraine has been internationally recognised since 1991.

Including by Russia, crucially. They might have been among the first to recognise it. If the proposition this should be seen as some kind of ongoing secession which Russia disputes, that ship sailed a long time ago. It's not one of those situations where there was de facto recognition only.

Of course Russia never even claimed Ukraine. The USSR disbanded and the separate states went their own way. Which Russia recognised and accepted.

A comparative situation would be if the UK disbanded, England recognised the independence of Scotland and Wales, while Ireland (Germany) reunified.

Then thirty years later England invaded Scotland.

Quite, it's just nonsense. A whole lot of pretexts and rationales have been put forth, this one like most doesn't work.

In other news, I'd file this alleged comment as a bit too frank. (Almost makes it look like we are labelled in as Scandanavian, too).

Just because the French are used to surrendering doesn't mean others have to!

Vous sentez-vous un peu raciste aujourd'hui, hein?

The US had a lot more choice what it did 1914-17 and 1939-41 than France in 1940. As for Iraq I wish my country was that cowardly

Still shameless of the French to demand the Ukranians surrender to Putin, given the Ukranians actually managed to stop Putin capturing their capital

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

Stuartinromford said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.

It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?

You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.

I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.

There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.

I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.

Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".

viewcode said:

Carnyx said:

Unpopular said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

I guess that ties nicely with DougSeal's thesis, that Truss will stage a comeback?

I disagree with his prediction, but if he's right I'll just have to assume he's from the future.

Or one of those chaps that Asimov wrote about.

Robots? R. Doug Seal?

No, the blokes who forecast the future. Edity: some sort of sociological dynamical calculations, but I forget the name. I haven't read the books for 50 years, I now realise (gulp).

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition

I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.

But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?

Either join Ed Davey's LDs or go off and make money in the City or join a corporate board for a decade, if Sunak and Hunt lose next year your wing of the party will be out of influence for some time

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

Stuartinromford said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.

It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?

You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.

I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.

There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.

I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.

Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".

Yeah, I was just trying to think of another "wedge". LTNs/ULEZ are a bit niche being mainly city issues, and are generally being implemented by elected local authorities with LA cash so there isn't much scope to go after them.

But benefit scroungers are an old favourite and something central government has full control over.

Malmesbury said:

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

Stuartinromford said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.

It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?

You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.

I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.

There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.

Benefit recipients are all Evul Fascist Tory Voters, who live to slide down the mountains of money the Tory government steals on their behalf from Decent People

Just like the pensioners, they get the triple lock. So same applies, right?

Should we discuss euthanasia for the long term unemployed, as was suggested here for pensioners, so that we can fix the public finances?

They don't get the triple lock though, it's dependent on what the Chancellor happens to be thinking at the time

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/dec/05/benefits-squeeze-inflation-jsa

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/dec/05/george-osborne-link-benefits-inflation

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

They will do both, Mogg embodies both the supply side right and traditional authoritarian nationalist right and if Sunak and Hunt lose heavily his influence in the party now he is exiled on the backbenches will increase significantly in Opposition

I knew there was a reason I thought he was utterly ghastly.

But it highlights an issue for the David Cameron type of Conservatism. If you are a politician who is small-state on social issues and economic issues, what exactly are you going to do all day?

Either join Ed Davey's LDs or go off and make money in the City or join a corporate board for a decade, if Sunak and Hunt lose next year your wing of the party will be out of influence for some time

Personally, I toddled off some time ago- see also Rory Stewart. But I'm thinking more philosophically. If you are a politician who believes in being hands-off on both economic and social matters, what do you do all day? There needs to be a good answer, and I'm not sure there is one. (I'm not totally sure that Dave had one, which is one reason we all started down this path.)

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

Stuartinromford said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.

It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?

You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.

I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.

There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.

I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.

Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".

Yeah, I was just trying to think of another "wedge". LTNs/ULEZ are a bit niche being mainly city issues, and are generally being implemented by elected local authorities with LA cash so there isn't much scope to go after them.

But benefit scroungers are an old favourite and something central government has full control over.

As are the minimum wage. And also immigration, esp. of the lower paid worker. Decisions, decisions. Which to choose to keep your donors *and* the DM happy?

The slight problem is, the neo-Speenhamland system. Many dole recipients are actually working full time.

Carnyx said:

viewcode said:

Carnyx said:

Unpopular said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

I guess that ties nicely with DougSeal's thesis, that Truss will stage a comeback?

I disagree with his prediction, but if he's right I'll just have to assume he's from the future.

Or one of those chaps that Asimov wrote about.

Robots? R. Doug Seal?

No, the blokes who forecast the future. Edity: some sort of sociological dynamical calculations, but I forget the name. I haven't read the books for 50 years, I now realise (gulp).

I was trying to make a funny

The profession you are referring to is psychohistorians, people who practice the science of psychohistory. Psychohistory is the fictional practice of using statistical tools to predict the future actions of a large group of people. The first psychohistorian was the mathematician Hari Seldon who set up two organisations to reduce the duration of a societal collapse. The story of those two organisations, known as "Foundations", were set out in a series of books ("the Foundation series") written by Isaac Asimov after WW2. They were dramatised into a fine BBC radio series[1] and an Apple TV series[2], which is absolute shit which nobody likes.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnrUq2om1KU
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_(TV_series)

CatMan said:

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

Carnyx said:

Stuartinromford said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

The main thing will be a war on arithmetic. Big tax cuts, sure, paid for by a largely mythical war on waste. Without the pressure of having to actually cut spending or bow to the bond markets, what's to stop them? So yeah, Tea Party UK with the associated hatred of woke.

It's a potent mix Stateside, but does it work here? Not so sure. And who can sing the song without sounding like a nutter?

You forgot promising to build lots more of those long and thin car-parks between towns, and bringing back public executions, posthumous if necessary, for cyclists who dare to attack motor-cars with their heads.

I think next on the chopping block must be Universal Credit recipients, or even an attack on people who are off sick with mental health issues? See the Matthew Parris article today.

There is a certain cohort who consider mental health as snowflakery woke nonsense.

I was joking (mostly) - but that is potentially serious.

Mr P is paywalled - but presumably the thrust is given by the subheading "We must ask whether generous benefits for conditions such as stress have made opting out of work too attractive".

https://archive.is/uAkPG

"PIP claimants do face demanding (and sometimes insulting) checks on their continuing eligibility but they’re not challenged as often as jobseekers, who are regularly checked and interviewed on penalty of losing the benefit."

Real Pulitzer prize stuff here, I don't think. Of course they aren't challenged as often. It gets a bit otiose to ask someone for the 6th time if he has trisomy-21, and is he or rather the person with him *quite sure* he hasn't been to Lourdes or eaten some apricot kernels with happy results since the last time??

And even then - they do get asked those questions. Not always very sensibly.

Carnyx said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TimS said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kle4 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Nigelb said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting article on the Oppenheimer film:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/07/29/opinion-nolans-oppenheimer-marred-by-5-historical-inaccuracies/

The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.

One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.

Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.

On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.

Russia has invaded an independent state.
The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me.
Or to put it less politely, nonsense.

Was not the Confederate States of America an independent state with its own army and navy?

Unrecognised, though, even by Britain.

Ukraine has been internationally recognised since 1991.

Including by Russia, crucially. They might have been among the first to recognise it. If the proposition this should be seen as some kind of ongoing secession which Russia disputes, that ship sailed a long time ago. It's not one of those situations where there was de facto recognition only.

Of course Russia never even claimed Ukraine. The USSR disbanded and the separate states went their own way. Which Russia recognised and accepted.

A comparative situation would be if the UK disbanded, England recognised the independence of Scotland and Wales, while Ireland (Germany) reunified.

Then thirty years later England invaded Scotland.

Quite, it's just nonsense. A whole lot of pretexts and rationales have been put forth, this one like most doesn't work.

In other news, I'd file this alleged comment as a bit too frank. (Almost makes it look like we are labelled in as Scandanavian, too).

Just because the French are used to surrendering doesn't mean others have to!

Vous sentez-vous un peu raciste aujourd'hui, hein?

The French are one of 3 groups it’s globally officially permitted to insult without being racist, along with the British (more specifically English) and Americans. Written in the UN charter.

EDIT: oh, and Australians.

Welsh and Kiwis are sheep shaggers too.

Everyone knows that.

No, Bart, the Welsh are British, and as everyone knows....

'The British, the British, the British are best.
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest.'

Er, aren't you misrmemebering?

Mr Flanders:

"[...] Well, the moment has come, and none too soon; we have a song here which, I think, fills this long-felt want and I hope that all true-born English men and women in our audience will join in the last chorus. And if you don't have the good fortune to be English true-born, or a man, or a woman, I hope you'll join in as an ordinary mark of simple decent respect

This song starts with, I think, very typical English understatement:

[FLANDERS & DONALD SWANN]
The English, the English, the English are best
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest [...]"

https://genius.com/Flanders-and-swann-a-song-of-patriotic-prejudice-lyrics

Branders and Fyffe edged it

https://youtu.be/cveZR4e91kU

People were talking about Leslie Nielsen on here last night. My favourite lines of his aren't actually from Airplane!, but from Naked Gun (parodying Dirty Harry):

Mayor: Mayor: Drebin, I don’t want anymore trouble like you had last year on the South Side. Understand? That’s my policy.

Frank: Yes. Well, when I see 5 weirdos dressed in togas stabbing a guy in the middle of the park in full view of 100 people, I shoot the bastards. That’s *my* policy.

Mayor: That was a Shakespeare-In-The-Park production of “Julius Caesar”, you moron! You killed 5 actors! Good ones.

Always raises a chuckle, as does the Mayor's line earlier in the scene: "Sexual assault with a concrete dildo!?!"

Carnyx said:

viewcode said:

Carnyx said:

viewcode said:

Carnyx said:

Unpopular said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

History would suggest the Tories will not get a fifth term in government and another majority. Even in 1992 Major only won a 4th Conservative general election victory, you have to go back to Lord Liverpool's victory for the Pittite Tories in 1826 ie almost 200 years ago, to find the last time a party won a majority at a fifth consecutive general election victory in the UK.

Should be noted the polls where they do get an election wrong don't always do so for the Tories, in 2017 it was Corbyn Labour they underestimated even if the Tories still held on. What will encourage Sunak is on the preferred PM numbers he is closer to Starmer than the Tories are to Labour and in 1992 of course Major led Kinnock as preferred PM even if Labour led most polls overall.

I highly doubt Reeves or Cooper would be doing any better than Starmer, neither have any more charisma than he does and ideologically all 3 are Brownites not Blairites (Cooper married to Balls, Brown's former righthand man and Reeves backing Ed Miliband for leader in 2010, Brown's favoured pick and of course Brown a big supporter of Starmer from his campaign as leader). Streeting who is a more charismatic Blairite might be doing a bit better but he is loyal to Sir Keir for now

If the Tories do lose the next election, what would you expect them to do in opposition, and what would you like them to do?

They will move right and hope the economy performs poorly under a Starmer government. If Sunak and Hunt lose, despite Sunak's recent populist moves, that will be seen by the party as a defeat for the centrist wing

Which right though, that’s the question. There are two: the authoritarian traditionalist right (your wing), or the ultra-Thatcherite tea party right. Both factions would be Brexiteers of course, and the two can sort of cohabit in one body as the likes of Frost and Raab demonstrate, but electorally they’re quite different.

The feeling I have in my bones is that they’ll go tea party. “Supply side” reform, slashing spending and taxes, rather than the nationalist paternalism of Boris’s lot. Not sure that will fly well in the fabled red wall.

I guess that ties nicely with DougSeal's thesis, that Truss will stage a comeback?

I disagree with his prediction, but if he's right I'll just have to assume he's from the future.

Or one of those chaps that Asimov wrote about.

Robots? R. Doug Seal?

No, the blokes who forecast the future. Edity: some sort of sociological dynamical calculations, but I forget the name. I haven't read the books for 50 years, I now realise (gulp).

I was trying to make a funny

The profession you are referring to is psychohistorians, people who practice the science of psychohistory. Psychohistory is the fictional practice of using statistical tools to predict the future actions of a large group of people. The first psychohistorian was the mathematician Hari Seldon who set up two organisations to reduce the duration of a societal collapse. The story of those two organisations, known as "Foundations", were set out in a series of books ("the Foundation series") written by Isaac Asimov after WW2. They were dramatised into a fine BBC radio series[1] and an Apple TV series[2], which is absolute shit which nobody likes.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnrUq2om1KU
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_(TV_series)

It was a good joke - but also a good point. And yes, that's it - thanks. I had no idea that Foundation had been made into TV, but perhaps just as well from what you say.

Don't let me put you off it: I don't want to diss it (the TV series) unfairly, and perhaps I'm wrong, but it's just that nobody really likes it, even the contrarians. It's not even like World War Z, where fans of the book eventually came to like(ish) the film. I can defend Prometheus, Star Trek: Discovery, Blake's 7 or even Westworld, but Foundation just bounces off me.