Casino_Royale said:

Andy_JS said:

New Statesman has Labour winning 417 seats and 45%, similar to 1997.

https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2024/05/britainpredicts

If you believe that then betting on the Liberal Democrats in Epson and Ewell is great value: 14/1 on SkyBet and Bet365.

To be frank, it looks like that market has been mispriced.

(Won't last for long now I've advertised it)

SouthamObserver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Scott_xP said:

@harry_horton
PM Rishi Sunak playing football at Chesham Utd in Chesham & Amersham - a seat the Lib Dems took off the Conservatives in a by-election three years ago.

https://x.com/harry_horton/status/1795097332624548102

@KevinASchofield
Labour source: “The worst encounter between a politician and cones since John Major’s hotline.”

He does better than I likely would have.

I agree with the general thesis that some of the criticism of Rishi is pathetic. The main reason for not voting for him is that he has appalling political judgment not because his dribbling skills are lacking.

In terms of campaigning, Sunak is dropping inexorably into the Ed Miliband zone. It's not a good place to be.

Cookie said:

Casino_Royale said:

Andy_JS said:

New Statesman has Labour winning 417 seats and 45%, similar to 1997.

https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2024/05/britainpredicts

If you believe that then betting on the Liberal Democrats in Epson and Ewell is great value: 14/1 on SkyBet and Bet365.

To be frank, it looks like that market has been mispriced.

(Won't last for long now I've advertised it)

Conversely - I've been trying to find any constituencies where it looks value to bet on Labour (on Bet365 - well done to them for their conatituency markets) - and I can't. There are seats well into the 200s of Labour target gain from Tories where Con are 5, 6, 8 to 1 to win. Altrincham and Sale West, Harlow, Sherwood Forest. If you don't think a Labour landslide is nailed on, there is excellent value there.

ToryJim said:

Looks like Lucy Allen has been immediately suspended from the Tory Party. Personally think in these circumstances she should be removed entirely but there you go.

Farooq said:

spudgfsh said:

dixiedean said:

Cookie said:

Tories really reaching for that extinction level event:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/27/parents-could-be-fined-children-refuse-national-service/

Can't quite get my head around this one.
If they're 18 then by definition they aren't children.
Did Sunak really take time off to come up with this?

it's a half baked idea from a focus group/think tank. In government it's much harder to have new ideas truly fleshed out as propositions to the public because you're too busy running the country. This is made worse by having a disfunctional party to lead at the same time.

Labour on the other hand have much more time to formulate their policies as most of the time all they are doing is reacting to events (and the government) and not running the country. That is now the main risk for Labour, that the manifesto is too thin or they've not thought things through with the right people.

Hmmm, curious how "half baked" is bad, but "oven ready" is good.

Gardenwalker said:

kyf_100 said:

Andy_JS said:

New Statesman has the Tory share dropping by just 4.7% in West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine, but by a mammoth 30.1% in Rishi's seat of Richmond & Northallerton.

https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2024/05/britainpredicts

"Were you up for Rishi?" would be an extraordinary moment on the night.

Unlikely, but as I've said previously I've heard from friends who live round those parts he isn't very popular as a local MP.

And it saves him taking the Chiltern Hundreds a month later so he can be in Silicon Valley by September, so it's probably a win-win for him...

Please God, yes.
Also, there’s precedent for with Nick Clegg losing his seat before heading off for more lucrative pastures.

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said there was a “tragic mistake” after strikes killed dozens of Palestinians in the Gaza city of Rafah

https://x.com/PA/status/1795119909170524359

Another "mistake".

Get rid.

megasaur said:

ToryJim said:

Looks like Lucy Allen has been immediately suspended from the Tory Party. Personally think in these circumstances she should be removed entirely but there you go.

For what?

rcs1000 said:

The Conservative Party will outperform expectations on 4 July, and will get more than 200 seats. The LibDems will more than double their seat count, and will do rather better in terms of vote share than the current polls predict, but will miss out on a dozen seats by small margins. The SNP will hold on to their number two spot, getting around 30 seats. And Labour will manage an inverse of 2019, achieving a majority of around 80.

You heard it here first.

NEW THREAD

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Gardenwalker said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

This plan is INSANE.

If you already have a job, you will have to quit it and do national service instead.

That’s not true though, is it?
It’s to be done on weekends. Right?

Right?

https://x.com/edwinhayward/status/1795091477233652113/photo/1

There will be "no exemption for those in work".

rcs1000 said:

The Conservative Party will outperform expectations on 4 July, and will get more than 200 seats. The LibDems will more than double their seat count, and will do rather better in terms of vote share than the current polls predict, but will miss out on a dozen seats by small margins. The SNP will hold on to their number two spot, getting around 30 seats. And Labour will manage an inverse of 2019, achieving a majority of around 80.

You heard it here first.

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

This plan is INSANE.

If you already have a job, you will have to quit it and do national service instead.

JosiasJessop said:

Andy_JS said:

New.

"Sam Altman is not evil
Sean Thomas"

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sam-altman-is-not-evil/

Jesus. That pen-profile of the illustrious author at the top of the article.

Cleanse my eyes!

It's paywalled, so I cannot read the whole thing. But the paragraph I can read contains a falsehood. Bull Gates was seen as being 'bad' throughout the eighties - witness Slashdot's Borg-Gates caricature on any MS story. MS were the bad guys; Apple okay; Linux et al the good guys.

Gates was never really seen as being an 'amiable nerd making glitchy but intriguing software.' as the author wrongly claims.

He was always a businessman, first and foremost. As was Jobs (who left the early technical work to Woz and others).

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

This plan is INSANE.

If you already have a job, you will have to quit it and do national service instead.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

williamglenn said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

williamglenn said:

Farooq said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Whenever somebody asks what a victory for Ukraine is, a few people call us appeasers.

Really? Care to give examples?

I happily call some people on here 'appeasers' - because the parallels are all too obvious. I don't think I've ever called you one, and particularly not for asking what a victory for Ukraine looks like. As I regularly ask that question myself.

But the idea that freezing the lines where they are constitutes a lasting peace is ignoring not only the lessons from the 1930s, but from Putin's time in power. Putin does not want peace; at least at a cost that is acceptable. Again, the parallels with 1937 and 1938 are obvious.

His latest peace 'proposal' is an example. Give him everything he already has, with no guarantees from him or Russia. Yet some have swallowed that load if sh*t whole as if constitutes a meaningful peace.

You can only have lasting peace when both sides want a lasting peace. On Ukraine's side, they want one. On Putin's... the rhetoric says otherwise.

You wouldn't trust Hitler's or Stalin's word. Why trust Putin's?

Peace is the absence of fighting. It doesn't have to involve trust or reconciliation.

If it is to be meaningful, it has to ensure that one side (cough) Russia (cough) does not end the 'peace' in a couple of years when they have built up their forces once more. So yes, a certain amount of trust is necessary.

And we cannot trust Russia. Their actions, and their words, indicate that. They are a fascistic, imperialist state.

You need credible deterrence, not trust.

Perhaps; perhaps not. Then the question becomes what 'credible deterrence' looks like, given that Putin might well be thinking that NATO can be neutralised politically.

If you are saying that we can't have peace until we can trust Russia, when will that be?

If you don't trust Russia, do you trust the peace?

Of course you don't trust the peace. That's why you invest in defence.

And if your opponent does not think you are serious in your defence? ISTR we pledged defence of Poland in 1939, before Germany and Russia invaded. That did not work out well for us, or Poland.

Deterrence only works if the enemy believes your deterrence has teeth. And NATO (mainly Tump and his acolytes) are giving exactly the opposite impression.

It's mainly European NATO members that have been underinvesting in defence. Trump was right to call it out, and if they had responded while he was in office, Russia might have been deterred.

Do you really believe that sh*t? Trump has fairly consistently undermined NATO.

And remember Trump's comments on Putin's invasion: calling Putin a genius and savvy.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/trump-putin-ukraine-invasion-00010923

He also called on Russia to invade other NATO members:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-trumps-comments-urging-russia-to-invade-delinquent-nato-members

These are not comments designed to make an aggressor think the USA will stand behind one and all. Quite the opposite, in fact.

You are exhibiting the problem by treating NATO as nothing more than a US protectorate rather than an alliance. If European members can't credibly defend Europe, that's their problem and Trump was right to point out the imbalance.

Europe united CAN defend itself against Russia. Without US involvement.

That doesn't mean it wasn't extremely foolish of Trump to suggest Putin invade NATO members. There would be considerable loss of life in repulsing Russia, on both sides.

Trump's remarks made a Russian invasion less likely by forcing the countries in question to take defence slightly more seriously.

While in office, Trump did nothing to persuade Putin to pull back from Crimea or the Donbas.

Thank you for again highlighting the fact that Russia gained territory on Obama and Biden's watch and not while Trump was in power.

But he did nothing to "urge" Putin to withdraw.

Scott_xP said:

JosiasJessop said:

I'm wondering which PB poster will go ballistic and off-reservation this election. We usually have one.

This year, with both the UK and USA elections, we might have a bumper crop...

Leon

It's always Leon...

kinabalu said:

malcolmg said:

kinabalu said:

malcolmg said:

kinabalu said:

I don't think people here fully grasp what a moment this is, coming up on 4th July. Absent an almighty shock we are going to see something which although not quite Haley’s comet is nevertheless a vanishingly rare event - a change of governing party at Westminster. In my entire adult life, as I have ripened from callow teen to the sweet old fruit I am today, 45 winters and 44 summers, I've experienced this only twice. So I don't go with all this 'yawn' and 'no enthusiasm' talk. I'm excited.

Changing one set of lying useless arseholes for another set of lying useless arseholes is far from exciting.

But a Labour arsehole is fundamentally different to a Tory one. And we're talking here about something that comes along less than once a decade. Think about world cups and olympic games, how momentous each one seems, being only every 4 years. Well, this is almost four times as rare. In fact if we look specifically at the Tories being kicked out of power, I'm 63 and it's happened just once in my adult lifetime. Once.

I am totally cynical about all politician's nowadays, they are all only on the make for themselves, grab as much as they can and F*** the public, that includes the silent ones who just take the money and hide except to vote.

"All" is surely overdoing the cynicism. Eg you like Salmond, don't you. And look at the last 3 Labour leaders down here. Brown, Corbyn, Miliband. You might not rate them but they weren't charlatans or phonies out only for themselves. Starmer doesn't seem to be either. Or Reeves or Lammy or Cooper. Course they might turn out to be wrong uns but there's no particular reason to expect that.

Fishing said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

malcolmg said:

kinabalu said:

malcolmg said:

kinabalu said:

I don't think people here fully grasp what a moment this is, coming up on 4th July. Absent an almighty shock we are going to see something which although not quite Haley’s comet is nevertheless a vanishingly rare event - a change of governing party at Westminster. In my entire adult life, as I have ripened from callow teen to the sweet old fruit I am today, 45 winters and 44 summers, I've experienced this only twice. So I don't go with all this 'yawn' and 'no enthusiasm' talk. I'm excited.

Changing one set of lying useless arseholes for another set of lying useless arseholes is far from exciting.

But a Labour arsehole is fundamentally different to a Tory one. And we're talking here about something that comes along less than once a decade. Think about world cups and olympic games, how momentous each one seems, being only every 4 years. Well, this is almost four times as rare. In fact if we look specifically at the Tories being kicked out of power, I'm 63 and it's happened just once in my adult lifetime. Once.

I am totally cynical about all politician's nowadays, they are all only on the make for themselves, grab as much as they can and F*** the public, that includes the silent ones who just take the money and hide except to vote.

"All" is surely overdoing the cynicism. Eg you like Salmond, don't you. And look at the last 3 Labour leaders down here. Brown, Corbyn, Miliband. You might not rate them but they weren't charlatans or phonies out only for themselves. Starmer doesn't seem to be either. Or Reeves or Lammy or Cooper. Course they might turn out to be wrong uns but there's no particular reason to expect that.

Brown was undoubtedly a charlatan. His central political strategy was a kind of confidence trick to convince people he had hidden depths, and he relied on intimidating his rivals into submission.

What I mean is he did not view politics as a vehicle to enrich himself, to attain power for power's sake, or as primarily a game.

I agree he didn't view it as a vehicle to enrich himself. And yes, he took it, and himself, far too seriously to see it mostly as a game.

But to attain power for its own sake, I'm not so sure. Brown schemed, plotted and bided his time for ten years to become PM, and, when he did, obviously had no idea what to do with it. Everybody assumed there would be some great package of reforms, but there was nothing at all. Given that he didn't want money, the only thing I can assume is that he did actually want power for its own sake.

JosiasJessop said:

PoodleInASlipstream said:

JosiasJessop said:

He was always a businessman, first and foremost. As was Jobs (who left the early technical work to Woz and others).

Indeed. Gates was a never an amiable nerd, right from the start when Microsoft negotiated the DOS contract with IBM he was a ruthless businessman, always looking to push Microsoft's interests forward no matter what. Many of the tactics MS employed under Gates were reminiscent of the old robber barons, and courts punished the company accordingly in the end.

I wouldn't go quite that far - I've always had a bit of a soft spot for Gates. But the way he and Ballmer treated Paul Allen was terrible.

And if you think what MS did was bad, then what do you think of Apple's behaviour? But Apple is trendy and cool; MS never was...

kle4 said:

dixiedean said:

Mexicanpete said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13464019/Rishi-Sunak-National-Service-election-teenagers-boomers.html?ito=windows-widget-push-notification&ci=583237

Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

Jesus.
The comments below that article.
A searing hatred of young people, who simply wouldn't have the physical or mental capacity to do the unpaid labour that none of the commenters ever did.

Is it all Boomers cosplaying as though they were the Greatest Generation?

JosiasJessop said:

Cleitophon said:

JosiasJessop said:

I'm wondering which PB poster will go ballistic and off-reservation this election. We usually have one.

This year, with both the UK and USA elections, we might have a bumper crop...

I have a real feeling that the right are going to go crackers when labour take office. The moderating effect of government is gone, the betrayal narrative is rampant, frustration is rife.... it wouldn't surprise me if something serious happens. Just like it did when Trump lost.

It didn't happen in 1997. Nowhere near.

I'd actually argue the hard left / pro-Hamas section are more likely to go ballistic.

rcs1000 said:

The Conservative Party will outperform expectations on 4 July, and will get more than 200 seats. The LibDems will more than double their seat count, and will do rather better in terms of vote share than the current polls predict, but will miss out on a dozen seats by small margins. The SNP will hold on to their number two spot, getting around 30 seats. And Labour will manage an inverse of 2019, achieving a majority of around 80.

You heard it here first.

Cleitophon said:

RobD said:

Cleitophon said:

megasaur said:

Cleitophon said:

JosiasJessop said:

I'm wondering which PB poster will go ballistic and off-reservation this election. We usually have one.

This year, with both the UK and USA elections, we might have a bumper crop...

I have a real feeling that the right are going to go crackers when labour take office. The moderating effect of government is gone, the betrayal narrative is rampant, frustration is rife.... it wouldn't surprise me if something serious happens. Just like it did when Trump lost.

The relevant right are 60 and older. And unarmed.

That has been the electoral basis true, but there is a very aggressive core of young uneducated white men with no prospects who are extremely active on the far right....

They are a problem no matter who is in government.

Conflict sociology says otherwise. Political violence is not a random or spontaneous thing. It is well understood. It has precursors and tigger points.