LAB odds on to gain Rutherglen and the LDs Mid-Beds – politicalbetting.com

HYUFD said:

Labour were second in Mid Bedfordshire in 2019 not the LDs and on the Selby swing would have a good chance of taking it. So are unlikely to give the LDs a clear run there

williamglenn said:

New Zealand is another country where young people are swinging to the right.



https://essentialreport.co.nz/questions/test-question-2/

Foxy said:

Another builder making redundancies and closures as house sales fall.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/09/bellway-cuts-jobs-in-anticipation-of-uk-property-market-slowdown

RochdalePioneers said:

Foxy said:

Another builder making redundancies and closures as house sales fall.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/09/bellway-cuts-jobs-in-anticipation-of-uk-property-market-slowdown

They are partly blaming the end of the help to buy scheme. Radical suggestion - if house builders built houses that first time buyers could afford to buy, there wouldn't be the need for help to buy.

There is a real shortage of starter homes. But they always build supposedly large "executive" homes (the ones where the rooms are tiny anyway because fuck you). Their profit margin is the only priority, not what the community needs.

viewcode said:

Nigelb said:

This would seem a waste of resources in the middle of a war.

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1689388040307789824
Russian officer "Colonel Shuvalov" described on Telegram how it is encouraged to fabricate reports about destroyed Ukrainian equipment by filming strikes on different days using various weapons and equipment. This is done to please the upper leadership since everyone benefits from positive reports and inflated numbers. It's a long post but worth reading (source: https://t.me/shouvalov/33)

Far from the first report of this practice.

This is known as the "principal/agent problem": generals issue orders but soldiers carry them out, and if they can make the general happy thru faked reports, they will. This is why bodycount reports are so unreliable.

viewcode said:

Nigelb said:

This would seem a waste of resources in the middle of a war.

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1689388040307789824
Russian officer "Colonel Shuvalov" described on Telegram how it is encouraged to fabricate reports about destroyed Ukrainian equipment by filming strikes on different days using various weapons and equipment. This is done to please the upper leadership since everyone benefits from positive reports and inflated numbers. It's a long post but worth reading (source: https://t.me/shouvalov/33)

Far from the first report of this practice.

This is known as the "principal/agent problem": generals issue orders but soldiers carry them out, and if they can make the general happy thru faked reports, they will. This is why bodycount reports are so unreliable.

viewcode said:

Nigelb said:

This would seem a waste of resources in the middle of a war.

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1689388040307789824
Russian officer "Colonel Shuvalov" described on Telegram how it is encouraged to fabricate reports about destroyed Ukrainian equipment by filming strikes on different days using various weapons and equipment. This is done to please the upper leadership since everyone benefits from positive reports and inflated numbers. It's a long post but worth reading (source: https://t.me/shouvalov/33)

Far from the first report of this practice.

This is known as the "principal/agent problem": generals issue orders but soldiers carry them out, and if they can make the general happy thru faked reports, they will. This is why bodycount reports are so unreliable.

Nigelb said:

viewcode said:

Nigelb said:

This would seem a waste of resources in the middle of a war.

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1689388040307789824
Russian officer "Colonel Shuvalov" described on Telegram how it is encouraged to fabricate reports about destroyed Ukrainian equipment by filming strikes on different days using various weapons and equipment. This is done to please the upper leadership since everyone benefits from positive reports and inflated numbers. It's a long post but worth reading (source: https://t.me/shouvalov/33)

Far from the first report of this practice.

This is known as the "principal/agent problem": generals issue orders but soldiers carry them out, and if they can make the general happy thru faked reports, they will. This is why bodycount reports are so unreliable.

Of course.
Ukraine has much the same motivations, but a different set of incentives.

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

New Zealand is another country where young people are swinging to the right.



https://essentialreport.co.nz/questions/test-question-2/

There are no rules.

Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.

noneoftheabove said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Fresh Tory Party turmoil over London mayoral shambles
Probe into London Conservatives reignites City Hall selection row
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/conservative-party-london-mayoral-selection-susan-hall-uxbridge-b1099551.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66447938

ULQC (Ultra low quality candidate) proving no more popular than ULEZ with the Tory faithful.

viewcode said:

Nigelb said:

This would seem a waste of resources in the middle of a war.

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1689388040307789824
Russian officer "Colonel Shuvalov" described on Telegram how it is encouraged to fabricate reports about destroyed Ukrainian equipment by filming strikes on different days using various weapons and equipment. This is done to please the upper leadership since everyone benefits from positive reports and inflated numbers. It's a long post but worth reading (source: https://t.me/shouvalov/33)

Far from the first report of this practice.

This is known as the "principal/agent problem": generals issue orders but soldiers carry them out, and if they can make the general happy thru faked reports, they will. This is why bodycount reports are so unreliable.

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

New Zealand is another country where young people are swinging to the right.



https://essentialreport.co.nz/questions/test-question-2/

There are no rules.

Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.

We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.

There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.

Cookie said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Foxy said:

Another builder making redundancies and closures as house sales fall.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/09/bellway-cuts-jobs-in-anticipation-of-uk-property-market-slowdown

They are partly blaming the end of the help to buy scheme. Radical suggestion - if house builders built houses that first time buyers could afford to buy, there wouldn't be the need for help to buy.

There is a real shortage of starter homes. But they always build supposedly large "executive" homes (the ones where the rooms are tiny anyway because fuck you). Their profit margin is the only priority, not what the community needs.

A person on the average wage hasn't been able to afford to buy the average priced home for about the last 20 years. We're heading into a big fall in house prices over the next few years and sellers are going to have to face some harsh facts- their house isn't worth what Rightmove are telling them it is, and everyday they don't sell means it gets harder to sell and it's losing value. Great for cash buyers like me, really grim news for people who have to sell due to financial reasons or they have to move for a job/divorce and similar.

But those moving for job reasons ywill be moving to houses which are also cheaper. And they will pay less tax in the whole palaver.
The only people for whom falling house prices are bad news are those who, by accident or design, have ended up with houses as an investment vehicle rather than somewhere to live.

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

New Zealand is another country where young people are swinging to the right.



https://essentialreport.co.nz/questions/test-question-2/

There are no rules.

Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.

We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.

There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.

There's a mathematical model that's been created based on that "rule" which has been featured in academic papers I believe.

That said, my my most likely expected scenario is for the Tories to be out of office for at least two Parliamentary terms, because I expect that they will make poor choices when first in opposition. But clearly this is a prediction that is contingent on those choices, rather than being inevitable.

Casino_Royale said:

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

New Zealand is another country where young people are swinging to the right.



https://essentialreport.co.nz/questions/test-question-2/

There are no rules.

Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.

We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.

There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.

There's a mathematical model that's been created based on that "rule" which has been featured in academic papers I believe.

That said, my my most likely expected scenario is for the Tories to be out of office for at least two Parliamentary terms, because I expect that they will make poor choices when first in opposition. But clearly this is a prediction that is contingent on those choices, rather than being inevitable.

It wasn't the rule between the wars. It wasn't the rule after the wars. And it certainly wasn't the rule in the 1970s.

Indeed, you could say, in economically and politically turbulent times that turbulence will extend to domestic politics.

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

New Zealand is another country where young people are swinging to the right.



https://essentialreport.co.nz/questions/test-question-2/

There are no rules.

Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.

We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.

There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.

There's a mathematical model that's been created based on that "rule" which has been featured in academic papers I believe.

That said, my my most likely expected scenario is for the Tories to be out of office for at least two Parliamentary terms, because I expect that they will make poor choices when first in opposition. But clearly this is a prediction that is contingent on those choices, rather than being inevitable.

It wasn't the rule between the wars. It wasn't the rule after the wars. And it certainly wasn't the rule in the 1970s.

Indeed, you could say, in economically and politically turbulent times that turbulence will extend to domestic politics.

Well, yes, I think that's a rule one might create on the basis of the historical record of economic turbulence.

I think that pattern-matching by humans is a very useful trait, though we have a tendency to overfit our mental models, which is why we've ended up with so many superstitions.

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

New Zealand is another country where young people are swinging to the right.



https://essentialreport.co.nz/questions/test-question-2/

There are no rules.

Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.

We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.

There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.

There's a mathematical model that's been created based on that "rule" which has been featured in academic papers I believe.

That said, my my most likely expected scenario is for the Tories to be out of office for at least two Parliamentary terms, because I expect that they will make poor choices when first in opposition. But clearly this is a prediction that is contingent on those choices, rather than being inevitable.

It wasn't the rule between the wars. It wasn't the rule after the wars. And it certainly wasn't the rule in the 1970s.

Indeed, you could say, in economically and politically turbulent times that turbulence will extend to domestic politics.

Well, yes, I think that's a rule one might create on the basis of the historical record of economic turbulence.

I think that pattern-matching by humans is a very useful trait, though we have a tendency to overfit our mental models, which is why we've ended up with so many superstitions.

twistedfirestopper3 said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

New Zealand is another country where young people are swinging to the right.



https://essentialreport.co.nz/questions/test-question-2/

There are no rules.

Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.

We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.

There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.

I just think the current Tory party is unfit for purpose and needs to be out of government. The lack of talent it has (a problem it shares with Labour) and its likely descent into a bit of post election infighting will probably mean at least two terms in opposition. So not really a rule, just a logical unfolding of events!

MattW said:

Morning all.

I do like "Lee Anderthal".

Also, spotted this morning. A bit close for comfort.

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

williamglenn said:

New Zealand is another country where young people are swinging to the right.



https://essentialreport.co.nz/questions/test-question-2/

And to Greens. More disenchantment with Labour I think.

The right doesn't have much to say for young people here, but does appeal in other parts of the world.

Maybe the NZ youth weren't quite as keen on Jacinda's super-Wokery as we'd been led to believe?

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

New Zealand is another country where young people are swinging to the right.



https://essentialreport.co.nz/questions/test-question-2/

There are no rules.

Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.

We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.

There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.

There's a mathematical model that's been created based on that "rule" which has been featured in academic papers I believe.

That said, my my most likely expected scenario is for the Tories to be out of office for at least two Parliamentary terms, because I expect that they will make poor choices when first in opposition. But clearly this is a prediction that is contingent on those choices, rather than being inevitable.

It wasn't the rule between the wars. It wasn't the rule after the wars. And it certainly wasn't the rule in the 1970s.

Indeed, you could say, in economically and politically turbulent times that turbulence will extend to domestic politics.

As I became aware of politics in the early 70s I assumed that every election brought a change of government. And to be fair, absent the Falklands that might have continued into the 80s with Labour scraping a victory in 1983 and the Tories a landslide in 1987(ish).

The one rule that does hold true and immutable* of course is that the Tories and Labour will be forever swapping power between them.

(*until it doesn't)

DavidL said:

One thing to watch about Rutherglen is that Yousless has been campaigning there a lot and has very much associated his face with the campaign. This may be because he is living up to his name, of course, but a First Minister who spends quite so much time on the ground campaigning is unusual. Presumably he thinks they have a chance. It's not as if his in box is not overflowing with problems.

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

New Zealand is another country where young people are swinging to the right.



https://essentialreport.co.nz/questions/test-question-2/

There are no rules.

Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.

We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.

There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.

There's a mathematical model that's been created based on that "rule" which has been featured in academic papers I believe.

That said, my my most likely expected scenario is for the Tories to be out of office for at least two Parliamentary terms, because I expect that they will make poor choices when first in opposition. But clearly this is a prediction that is contingent on those choices, rather than being inevitable.

It wasn't the rule between the wars. It wasn't the rule after the wars. And it certainly wasn't the rule in the 1970s.

Indeed, you could say, in economically and politically turbulent times that turbulence will extend to domestic politics.

As I became aware of politics in the early 70s I assumed that every election brought a change of government. And to be fair, absent the Falklands that might have continued into the 80s with Labour scraping a victory in 1983 and the Tories a landslide in 1987(ish).

The one rule that does hold true and immutable* of course is that the Tories and Labour will be forever swapping power between them.

(*until it doesn't)

Peck said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

New Zealand is another country where young people are swinging to the right.



https://essentialreport.co.nz/questions/test-question-2/

There are no rules.

Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.

We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.

There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.

There's a mathematical model that's been created based on that "rule" which has been featured in academic papers I believe.

That said, my my most likely expected scenario is for the Tories to be out of office for at least two Parliamentary terms, because I expect that they will make poor choices when first in opposition. But clearly this is a prediction that is contingent on those choices, rather than being inevitable.

It wasn't the rule between the wars. It wasn't the rule after the wars. And it certainly wasn't the rule in the 1970s.

Indeed, you could say, in economically and politically turbulent times that turbulence will extend to domestic politics.

As I became aware of politics in the early 70s I assumed that every election brought a change of government. And to be fair, absent the Falklands that might have continued into the 80s with Labour scraping a victory in 1983 and the Tories a landslide in 1987(ish).

The one rule that does hold true and immutable* of course is that the Tories and Labour will be forever swapping power between them.

(*until it doesn't)

It wasn't the Falklands that won the 1983 election for the Tories. It was the SDP.

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

williamglenn said:

New Zealand is another country where young people are swinging to the right.



https://essentialreport.co.nz/questions/test-question-2/

And to Greens. More disenchantment with Labour I think.

The right doesn't have much to say for young people here, but does appeal in other parts of the world.

Maybe the NZ youth weren't quite as keen on Jacinda's super-Wokery as we'd been led to believe?

It doesn't seem to be that, hence the shift to the Greens and Maori party.

More rising cost of living, declining public hospitals, rising social inequality and crime according to my NZ relatives. It is always the incumbent that gets blamed for these things, and NZ Labour has been in power for 2 terms.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

New Zealand is another country where young people are swinging to the right.



https://essentialreport.co.nz/questions/test-question-2/

There are no rules.

Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.

We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.

There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.

I just think the current Tory party is unfit for purpose and needs to be out of government. The lack of talent it has (a problem it shares with Labour) and its likely descent into a bit of post election infighting will probably mean at least two terms in opposition. So not really a rule, just a logical unfolding of events!

That "logical unfolding of events", though, rests on how you feel about the Tories now and assumptions you are making about their behaviour in opposition.

You may be discounting other factors and events that you are currently blind to (along with everyone else) and be a poor forecaster of how you yourself may feel about that in future.

Its not just how you feel about the Tories now, its how the country feels about the Tories now.

Right now the country is pissed off with the Tories.

That's not going to magically vanish the day they leave Downing Street.

Over time the electorate stops being angry with the old government/stops associating the opposition with the old government, and becomes angry with the new one, but that takes time normally.

If Labour somehow in five years piss the electorate off more than they're pissed off with the Tories then the Tories could win again, but that is less probable than the alternative currently.

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

Labour were second in Mid Bedfordshire in 2019 not the LDs and on the Selby swing would have a good chance of taking it. So are unlikely to give the LDs a clear run there

Yes, I continue to get emails to help the mid-Beds Labour campaign in full swing, even though it's some way away from me. That opinion poll showing Labour ahead was pretty important and is helping win the tactical voting section of the anti-Con public, and the betting odds look wrong. I'm actually not especially keen to see the by-election happen, since there will be a pitched battle between Lab and LD, and actually any result (Con hold, Lab win, LD win) will damage the pattern of tactical voting across the country. My guess (though it's all second-hand info) is that all three outcomes have a roughly similarly probability.

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

Labour were second in Mid Bedfordshire in 2019 not the LDs and on the Selby swing would have a good chance of taking it. So are unlikely to give the LDs a clear run there

Yes, I continue to get emails to help the mid-Beds Labour campaign in full swing, even though it's some way away from me. That opinion poll showing Labour ahead was pretty important and is helping win the tactical voting section of the anti-Con public, and the betting odds look wrong. I'm actually not especially keen to see the by-election happen, since there will be a pitched battle between Lab and LD, and actually any result (Con hold, Lab win, LD win) will damage the pattern of tactical voting across the country. My guess (though it's all second-hand info) is that all three outcomes have a roughly similarly probability.

MattW said:

Morning all.

I do like "Lee Anderthal".

Also, spotted this morning. A bit close for comfort.

Casino_Royale said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

New Zealand is another country where young people are swinging to the right.



https://essentialreport.co.nz/questions/test-question-2/

There are no rules.

Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.

We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.

There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.

I just think the current Tory party is unfit for purpose and needs to be out of government. The lack of talent it has (a problem it shares with Labour) and its likely descent into a bit of post election infighting will probably mean at least two terms in opposition. So not really a rule, just a logical unfolding of events!

That "logical unfolding of events", though, rests on how you feel about the Tories now and assumptions you are making about their behaviour in opposition.

You may be discounting other factors and events that you are currently blind to (along with everyone else) and be a poor forecaster of how you yourself may feel about that in future.

Ratters said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Casino_Royale said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

.

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

New Zealand is another country where young people are swinging to the right.



https://essentialreport.co.nz/questions/test-question-2/

There are no rules.

Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.

We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.

There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.

I just think the current Tory party is unfit for purpose and needs to be out of government. The lack of talent it has (a problem it shares with Labour) and its likely descent into a bit of post election infighting will probably mean at least two terms in opposition. So not really a rule, just a logical unfolding of events!

That "logical unfolding of events", though, rests on how you feel about the Tories now and assumptions you are making about their behaviour in opposition.

You may be discounting other factors and events that you are currently blind to (along with everyone else) and be a poor forecaster of how you yourself may feel about that in future.

Its not just how you feel about the Tories now, its how the country feels about the Tories now.

Right now the country is pissed off with the Tories.

That's not going to magically vanish the day they leave Downing Street.

Over time the electorate stops being angry with the old government/stops associating the opposition with the old government, and becomes angry with the new one, but that takes time normally.

If Labour somehow in five years piss the electorate off more than they're pissed off with the Tories then the Tories could win again, but that is less probable than the alternative currently.

Agreed.

And this isn't helped as Tory members are more likely to choose someone from the illiberal right of the party if they lose badly with Sunak/Hunt in charge. The political direction they take means they are less likely to be given the benefit of the doubt by the public.

Of course governments lose popularity so it's quite possible Labour screw things up sufficiently to lose power after 5 years.

There's a balance to be had of course - reforms that benefit the country long-term will lose you voters in the short-term. I'd rather Labour make serious improvements in 5 years than offer managed decline with odd bits of populist policy over 10.

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

DavidL said:

One thing to watch about Rutherglen is that Yousless has been campaigning there a lot and has very much associated his face with the campaign. This may be because he is living up to his name, of course, but a First Minister who spends quite so much time on the ground campaigning is unusual. Presumably he thinks they have a chance. It's not as if his in box is not overflowing with problems.

Campaigning is probably a nice distraction from problems you can't do anything to actually fix...

True, but here he is again along with Stephen Flynn: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/snp-deal-with-greens-gives-party-certainty-says-stephen-flynn/ar-AA1f1tPu?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=9e138e0711e347d29c395f239e31af50&ei=8

The interview is interesting in that he is focusing on Sir Kid Starver's policies being basically the same as the Tories. The iron fiscal discipline imposed by Labour may not be doing them much harm in England but in Scotland there is a fantasist choice.

But the Slab candidate started off by attacking the bairn starving himself, so what are the SNP supposed to do? Support SKS?

They are supposed to do exactly what they are doing. I was just making the point that the tactics used by SKS in England, which basically amount to don't frighten the horses when they are riding your way, is slightly more problematic in Scotland where they are facing an opponent essentially to the left of them who have never cared if the numbers add up. Rutherglen is not going to be a one off in this context and Labour are likely to need some better answers in Scotland come the general if they are to pick up the seats they are counting on.

LostPassword said:

Nigelb said:

viewcode said:

Nigelb said:

This would seem a waste of resources in the middle of a war.

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1689388040307789824
Russian officer "Colonel Shuvalov" described on Telegram how it is encouraged to fabricate reports about destroyed Ukrainian equipment by filming strikes on different days using various weapons and equipment. This is done to please the upper leadership since everyone benefits from positive reports and inflated numbers. It's a long post but worth reading (source: https://t.me/shouvalov/33)

Far from the first report of this practice.

This is known as the "principal/agent problem": generals issue orders but soldiers carry them out, and if they can make the general happy thru faked reports, they will. This is why bodycount reports are so unreliable.

Of course.
Ukraine has much the same motivations, but a different set of incentives.

I believe this is one reason why NATO doctrine devolves decision-making to the lowest level possible, so that decisions are most likely to be made by people with the most accurate battlefield information.

ClippP said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Peck said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

New Zealand is another country where young people are swinging to the right.



https://essentialreport.co.nz/questions/test-question-2/

There are no rules.

Indeed, the human desire to make every datapoint fit a storyline is a very dangerous cognitive bias.

We see that here with the belief that because we had 18 years of Tory rule, followed by 13 years of New Labour, followed by another 14 years of Conservative government, then we must now be due 10-15 years of Labour again.

There is no rule to this pattern. And yet it's remarkably persistent.

There's a mathematical model that's been created based on that "rule" which has been featured in academic papers I believe.

That said, my my most likely expected scenario is for the Tories to be out of office for at least two Parliamentary terms, because I expect that they will make poor choices when first in opposition. But clearly this is a prediction that is contingent on those choices, rather than being inevitable.

It wasn't the rule between the wars. It wasn't the rule after the wars. And it certainly wasn't the rule in the 1970s.

Indeed, you could say, in economically and politically turbulent times that turbulence will extend to domestic politics.

As I became aware of politics in the early 70s I assumed that every election brought a change of government. And to be fair, absent the Falklands that might have continued into the 80s with Labour scraping a victory in 1983 and the Tories a landslide in 1987(ish).

The one rule that does hold true and immutable* of course is that the Tories and Labour will be forever swapping power between them.

(*until it doesn't)

It wasn't the Falklands that won the 1983 election for the Tories. It was the SDP.

Except for the fact that the polls show that SDP voters preferred a Thatcher led Tory government to a Foot led Labour government.

So if it wasn't for the SDP then Thatcher's landslide could have been even bigger had there been a forced choice.

Other than that, good point.

There wasn't a forced choice though, was there? At one stage it looked as though the Liberal-SDP Alliance would be taking over.

It is the same today. A lot of posters here polarise and reduce everything to either Sunak-Johnson-Truss or Starmer. Devil or the deep blue sea? A lot of people say "Neither, thank you very much".

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

eek said:

DavidL said:

One thing to watch about Rutherglen is that Yousless has been campaigning there a lot and has very much associated his face with the campaign. This may be because he is living up to his name, of course, but a First Minister who spends quite so much time on the ground campaigning is unusual. Presumably he thinks they have a chance. It's not as if his in box is not overflowing with problems.

Campaigning is probably a nice distraction from problems you can't do anything to actually fix...

True, but here he is again along with Stephen Flynn: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/snp-deal-with-greens-gives-party-certainty-says-stephen-flynn/ar-AA1f1tPu?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=9e138e0711e347d29c395f239e31af50&ei=8

The interview is interesting in that he is focusing on Sir Kid Starver's policies being basically the same as the Tories. The iron fiscal discipline imposed by Labour may not be doing them much harm in England but in Scotland there is a fantasist choice.

But the Slab candidate started off by attacking the bairn starving himself, so what are the SNP supposed to do? Support SKS?

They are supposed to do exactly what they are doing. I was just making the point that the tactics used by SKS in England, which basically amount to don't frighten the horses when they are riding your way, is slightly more problematic in Scotland where they are facing an opponent essentially to the left of them who have never cared if the numbers add up. Rutherglen is not going to be a one off in this context and Labour are likely to need some better answers in Scotland come the general if they are to pick up the seats they are counting on.

Mm, thanks. Just added a further comment vut not in time: that TBF it's not at all clear from that piece that Mr Yousaf was actually in Ru'glen when he was interviewed, so your inference might be (uncharacteristically) off?

He was certainly talking about it. Of course the position of the SLAB candidate is a bit of a gift in that respect.

geoffw said:

Before our NZ emigré poster opines definitively on the matter, it seems that China looms large in the NZ election.

Reuters:
For the first time in decades, foreign and defence policy are in the electoral spotlight in New Zealand, as opinion surveys show public concern about the security environment and the major parties wrestle with how to respond to an assertive China.

The first part of the country’s defence review, released last week, said that New Zealand's military capabilities had fallen behind and that its geographical isolation was no longer a security guarantee.

With a general election on Oct. 14, there is no clear path on how the country should respond - a quandary that experts say has voters closely considering external issues, uncommon in New Zealand politics since the 1980s.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/new-zealand-defence-security-become-election-issues-amid-chinas-pacific-push-2023-08-10/

Kiwis are of course Chinese gooseberries

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/aug/10/uk-philanthropist-gives-almost-29m-to-heritage-skills-training

Especially for @Leon : boost for flint-knapping, inter alia.

MattW said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/aug/10/uk-philanthropist-gives-almost-29m-to-heritage-skills-training

Especially for @Leon : boost for flint-knapping, inter alia.

It means the future of 34 flint castles and abbeys in the east of England will be safeguarded.