Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It is now an 91% chance that TMay will be out this year

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited May 13 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It is now an 91% chance that TMay will be out this year

From Betdata.io chart of Betfair market

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 7,221
    edited May 13
    1. Is the approximate probability of her departure this year.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 1,816
    edited May 13
    Second and yes, I concur with OGH. No value in betting on her going this year.

    "Bloody difficult woman" is one way of putting it. I think SeanT's description was less flattering but they amount to the same thing.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 24,114
    I once described the Conservative Party as the living undead; as the decades progress it evolves and changes, never dying even if its position is the polar opposite of ones it held generations ago as it sucks the policies out of other parties.

    I now wonder if it was Dorian Grey, and Brexit the knife plunged into the heart of the picture.

    If so, is there a chance that May may be not only the last Conservative PM, but the last leader of a Conservative Party as a significant electoral force?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,537
    I was interested in the D’Hondt discussion and thought I would do some modelling (CORRECTED POST)

    I took a region like London with eight seats, assumed seven political parties, and split the vote randomly between them so that each party scored somewhere between 3-35% of the total vote. Using Excel I worked out the seats for each party, then replicated the exercise over and over to model a large number of outcomes.

    The results in terms of seats for vote share were are follows (percentage vote shares rounded to the nearest whole number, so “7%” really means 6.5-7.49%):

    8% or less = no seats (at 8%, a 7% chance of a seat)
    9% = 75% chance of a seat
    10% = 99% chance of a seat
    11%-15% = one seat
    16% = one seat, 8% chance of a second
    17% = one seat, 32% chance of a second
    18% = two seats three quarters of the time, otherwise one
    19% = two seats except for 8% of the time with one
    20% = two seats 99% of the time
    21%-23% = two seats
    24% = two seats, 8% chance of a third
    25% = two seats, 28% chance of a third
    26% = two seats or three seats (50/50)
    27%-28% = three seats except 16% of the time with two
    29%-30% = three seats except 4% of the time with two
    31%-33% = three seats

    At 34% and above there was a small chance for a fourth seat

    The critical zones where additional votes are most likely to “count” are therefore around 9% for winning the first seat, and 17-18% for winning the second, and 25-26% for the third. At all other ratings the number of seats was pretty much a given regardless of how other parties performed.

    I then looked at over- and under-representation, and interestingly the pattern was (roughly - I couldn’t be bothered to count up) as follows:

    Above 28% vote share a party is over-represented
    Between 25%-27% a party is twice as likely to be over as under-represented
    Between 20%-25% a party is over-represented
    Between 18%-19% a party is twice as likely to be over as under-represented
    At 17% there is a mix of over- and under-representation
    At 16% a party is much more likely to be under than over-represented
    Between 13-15% a party is under-represented
    Between 10-12% a party is over-represented
    At 9% a party is more likely to be over- than under-represented
    At 8% and lower a party is un(der)-represented

    Compared to my earlier erroneous posting, the advantage for larger vote shares is clearer, but nevertheless there are bands such as the 10-12% one where a party generally gets more than its proportional entitlement.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 489
    It's brave money that goes on a TMPM exit date market.

    I told someone behind the counter in Corals (IRL, not on here) in late 2016 that an independent UK obviously had no need of UKIP, to expect them to fade into obscurity as the process of leaving progressed, and to expect Farage to be doing after-dinner speaking at golf club dinners by now.

    Today I had to sheepishly revise that (again IRL) to UKIP fading into obscurity as they lost their rasion d'etre and became the We Don't Like The Muslims party, and Farage becoming the leader of the country's largest EP party as the process of leaving stalled.

    Anyway, any thoughts on Eurovision? Consider this a tip: Denmark at 25/1 to make top four. Very weird performance but charming song, in four languages, written by someone who's written an EV winner before. Longer 'to win' punt: Switzerland at 20/1. It's the only one you'd remember thirty minutes later.

    DYOR, obviously, as Eurovision is an absolute crapshoot.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 7,221
    > @JosiasJessop said:
    > I once described the Conservative Party as the living undead; as the decades progress it evolves and changes, never dying even if its position is the polar opposite of ones it held generations ago as it sucks the policies out of other parties.
    >
    > I now wonder if it was Dorian Grey, and Brexit the knife plunged into the heart of the picture.
    >
    > If so, is there a chance that May may be not only the last Conservative PM, but the last leader of a Conservative Party as a significant electoral force?

    Ever since 1979 at the latest, it has always been the conventional wisdom at any given time that one of Lab/the tories would never gain power again. CUK have just given us the clearest possible reminder that it is easier to parasitise a major party from within than to strike out on one's own. The tory brand is here to stay, even if the ingredients change.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,540
    edited May 13
    Ishmael_Z said:

    1. Is the approximate probability of her departure this year.

    1 in what? 1 in 1? 1 in 100? 1 in 10? One chance that the stupid bastards in the European Remainers Group muffed last year?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 24,114
    Ishmael_Z said:

    > @JosiasJessop said:

    > I once described the Conservative Party as the living undead; as the decades progress it evolves and changes, never dying even if its position is the polar opposite of ones it held generations ago as it sucks the policies out of other parties.

    >

    > I now wonder if it was Dorian Grey, and Brexit the knife plunged into the heart of the picture.

    >

    > If so, is there a chance that May may be not only the last Conservative PM, but the last leader of a Conservative Party as a significant electoral force?



    Ever since 1979 at the latest, it has always been the conventional wisdom at any given time that one of Lab/the tories would never gain power again. CUK have just given us the clearest possible reminder that it is easier to parasitise a major party from within than to strike out on one's own. The tory brand is here to stay, even if the ingredients change.

    I'm minded to agree with you: but I just get this sense of impending doom for the party. And Labour's not much better either: although as long as the union link remains, they're probably safe in some form.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 7,729
    > @JosiasJessop said:
    > I once described the Conservative Party as the living undead; as the decades progress it evolves and changes, never dying even if its position is the polar opposite of ones it held generations ago as it sucks the policies out of other parties.
    >
    > I now wonder if it was Dorian Grey, and Brexit the knife plunged into the heart of the picture.
    >
    > If so, is there a chance that May may be not only the last Conservative PM, but the last leader of a Conservative Party as a significant electoral force?

    The longer she stays in post the worse things will get for the Tories and the greater the chance that the party will be displaced. However, I think that there are enough people hostile enough to the EU to support one main anti-EU party.

    So if the Tories do disappear it will be because the Brexit Party, or something similar, has eclipsed them.

    Thus the best case scenario for a lefty Remainer is for the Tories to recover in opposition under the leadership of a Leaver leader. The only problem is that currently seems to require Corbyn to be PM.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,537
    edited May 13
    One point about my D’Hondt analysis is that the larger party advantage starts to kick in, with a growing chance of getting half the seats (in London) for not much more than a third of the vote, as vote share rises through the mid 30s. In the past, one or both main parties would be in this position, squeezing out the smaller rivals.

    This time, the likely more even distribution of the vote across more parties directs towards a more proportional outcome, since there won’t be a significant largest party advantage unless Farage can get at least into the mid-30s.

    Also worth noting that my probabilities don’t apply to a ‘traditional’ two-big-and-many-small election, since I have randomly allocated party vote share clustering in the 10-30% range. This was a rough and ready way of modelling current polling volatility and hence uncertainty.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 9,537
    Focus on local issues affecting the voters at the Euros.

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/labour-send-euro-vote-campaign-15681951

    Welsh Labour wants your vote in Scotland.
  • isamisam Posts: 27,192
    edited May 13
    That debate is a big price to take place

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,540
    isam said:
    Says a man who is now on his third party and hasn't won a democratic vote yet.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,537
    > @JosiasJessop said:
    > I once described the Conservative Party as the living undead; as the decades progress it evolves and changes, never dying even if its position is the polar opposite of ones it held generations ago as it sucks the policies out of other parties.
    >
    > I now wonder if it was Dorian Grey, and Brexit the knife plunged into the heart of the picture.
    >
    > If so, is there a chance that May may be not only the last Conservative PM, but the last leader of a Conservative Party as a significant electoral force?

    If you are right, you are nevertheless wrong to portray Brexit as an external event. Its an event that the Conservative party (or a significant part of it) has nurtured from the beginning, until it grew strong enough to overwhelm all instinct for self preservation, and their fingerprints are all over that knife.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,881
    > @Ishmael_Z said:
    > > @JosiasJessop said:
    > > I once described the Conservative Party as the living undead; as the decades progress it evolves and changes, never dying even if its position is the polar opposite of ones it held generations ago as it sucks the policies out of other parties.
    > >
    > > I now wonder if it was Dorian Grey, and Brexit the knife plunged into the heart of the picture.
    > >
    > > If so, is there a chance that May may be not only the last Conservative PM, but the last leader of a Conservative Party as a significant electoral force?
    >
    > Ever since 1979 at the latest, it has always been the conventional wisdom at any given time that one of Lab/the tories would never gain power again. CUK have just given us the clearest possible reminder that it is easier to parasitise a major party from within than to strike out on one's own. The tory brand is here to stay, even if the ingredients change.

    Possibly. It depends on a combination of how/if Brexit is resolved, and what direction the party takes under the next leader.

    It is quite possible to envisage the Brexit Party or a similar populist successor displacing the Conservatives, with the latter surviving only as a niche party for well-to-do Southern voters (who still cleave towards the free market rather than North London left-liberalism,) and a re-floated Unionist Party in Scotland.

    The Ulsterization theory of English politics seems relevant here. The longer Brexit dominates over every other issue, the greater the risk that all else comes to be viewed through the prism of where the parties stand on it - and this mitigates strongly against parties that cannot agree a position, and potentially also those that attempt to seek compromise. As we all know, the electoral payoff the UUP and SDLP received for their leadership of the NI peace process was to be filleted at the ballot box by their harder line rivals.

    If this lame Parliament continues to hobble on for another year, or two years, or even to the end of its miserable life in 2022, then we ought not to be wholly surprised if the subsequent General Election is a contest between the Brexit Party and the Liberal Democrats to see which can pick the most flesh from the carcasses of the Tories and Labour. Both are hopelessly divided over the European question and both suffer simultaneously from an awful image (the hopeless incompetents versus the militant anti-Semites) with most of the electorate.

    It's only tribal loyalty allied to seemingly impregnable majorities that keeps most Labour and Tory MPs in their safe seats for decade after decade. The moment that people finally give up on those parties, and begin to think it may just be possible to turf the incumbents out, they're done.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,009
    May will only go if she loses a VONC of Tory MPs. For that to happen before December the 1922 has to agree to change the rules (quite likely I guess) the requisite number of letters need to go in (also quite likely) a deal then a majority of MPs need to decide that having a no deal Brexiter installed as leader is a sensible step. This seems very unlikely to me, none of the cabinet leadership contenders will want an early contest and hard Brexiteers do not have a majority amongst Tory MPs.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 24,114
    IanB2 said:

    > @JosiasJessop said:

    > I once described the Conservative Party as the living undead; as the decades progress it evolves and changes, never dying even if its position is the polar opposite of ones it held generations ago as it sucks the policies out of other parties.

    >

    > I now wonder if it was Dorian Grey, and Brexit the knife plunged into the heart of the picture.

    >

    > If so, is there a chance that May may be not only the last Conservative PM, but the last leader of a Conservative Party as a significant electoral force?



    If you are right, you are nevertheless wrong to portray Brexit as an external event. Its an event that the Conservative party (or a significant part of it) has nurtured from the beginning, until it grew strong enough to overwhelm all instinct for self preservation, and their fingerprints are all over that knife.

    That fits in rather well with the story of Dorian Gray ...
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 3,510
    > @ydoethur said:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Says a man who is now on his third party and hasn't won a democratic vote yet.

    So you make him wrong now then?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,537
    > @ydoethur said:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Says a man who is now on his third party and hasn't won a democratic vote yet.

    It is nevertheless tragic that after so many have said for so long that our country needs political reform and needs a new centre-left movement to champion it, the bunch of individuals brave enough to make the leap have proved so inept and inadequate when the moment arrived.

    It is still possible that the future course of Brexit, or its abandonment, generates a significant new influx of defectors from either or both Tory or Labour that injects new life into the new party.

    Failing that, if they are beaten by the LibDems in the Euros, their MPs face the choice between joining the existing UK third party or retiring to tend their gardens.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,540

    > @ydoethur


    > Says a man who is now on his third party and hasn't won a democratic vote yet.

    So you make him wrong now then?

    I was going to say, 'when was he ever right?'

    Then I realised that could be read two ways!

    So I will content myself with saying, when was he NOT wrong?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,537
    > @anothernick said:
    > May will only go if she loses a VONC of Tory MPs. For that to happen before December the 1922 has to agree to change the rules (quite likely I guess) the requisite number of letters need to go in (also quite likely) a deal then a majority of MPs need to decide that having a no deal Brexiter installed as leader is a sensible step. This seems very unlikely to me, none of the cabinet leadership contenders will want an early contest and hard Brexiteers do not have a majority amongst Tory MPs.

    This unprecedented EGM of Conservative Associations will meanwhile be a very tricky event to survive?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,540
    IanB2 said:

    Failing that, if they are beaten by the LibDems in the Euros, their MPs face the choice between joining the existing UK third party or retiring to tend their gardens.

    The Lib Dems are not the third party, except in number of candidates.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 53,591
    Blair is the politician I always associate with Dorien Grey
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 3,510
    There are a large number of ostriches on here. How can you tell? They can only talk out of their arses.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 24,114

    > @JosiasJessop said:

    > I once described the Conservative Party as the living undead; as the decades progress it evolves and changes, never dying even if its position is the polar opposite of ones it held generations ago as it sucks the policies out of other parties.

    >

    > I now wonder if it was Dorian Grey, and Brexit the knife plunged into the heart of the picture.

    >

    > If so, is there a chance that May may be not only the last Conservative PM, but the last leader of a Conservative Party as a significant electoral force?



    The longer she stays in post the worse things will get for the Tories and the greater the chance that the party will be displaced. However, I think that there are enough people hostile enough to the EU to support one main anti-EU party.



    So if the Tories do disappear it will be because the Brexit Party, or something similar, has eclipsed them.



    Thus the best case scenario for a lefty Remainer is for the Tories to recover in opposition under the leadership of a Leaver leader. The only problem is that currently seems to require Corbyn to be PM.

    "So if the Tories do disappear it will be because the Brexit Party, or something similar, has eclipsed them."

    And that's what may happen. It is often said that opposition parties have the advantage of not having to govern and therefore make hard decisions; in the case of the Brexit Party, their total lack of any policy aside from BREXIT! allows people to project whatever they want on to it, which is why they can suck up so many people with different views of the way the world should be, from left to right.

    The question is whether, when Brexit occur, the Brexit party disappears. And that depends on Farage: will he abandon it as he did UKIP, or will he see it as a way of furthering his own agenda ?

    But as I've said before, where UKIP went, the Brexit Party will surely follow. As such it is sure to descend into the racist, misogynistic and nasty cesspit that will make it a worthy successor to the Conservatives (*). ;)

    (*) In the eyes of some.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 3,510
    > @ydoethur said:
    > > @ydoethur
    >
    >
    > > Says a man who is now on his third party and hasn't won a democratic vote yet.
    >
    > So you make him wrong now then?
    >
    > I was going to say, 'when was he ever right?'
    >
    > Then I realised that could be read two ways!
    >
    > So I will content myself with saying, when was he NOT wrong?

    I was actually looking forwards, so we'll see won't we.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 8,545
    isam said:

    That debate is a big price to take place

    He's become very Trumpian in his delivery hasn't he? I'm not criticising the content, I don't blame him for giving CUK a pasting.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,537
    > @williamglenn said:
    >

    It never seems to dawn on these pensioners watching their war films that in reality the Soviets supplied the manpower and the Americans supplied the resources, and our main contribution arose from our country being situated geographically proximate to France and Germany,
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 1,690
    > @williamglenn said:
    >

    If only she replied "Well they do not like it up'em."

    The picture would have been complete.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 3,510
    > @IanB2 said:
    > > @williamglenn said:
    > >
    >
    > It never seems to dawn on these pensioners watching their war films that in reality the Soviets supplied the manpower and the Americans supplied the resources, and our main contribution arose from our country being situated geographically proximate to France and Germany,

    The history of WWII in one sentence - brilliant?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,537
    > @ydoethur said:
    > Failing that, if they are beaten by the LibDems in the Euros, their MPs face the choice between joining the existing UK third party or retiring to tend their gardens.
    >
    > The Lib Dems are not the third party, except in number of candidates.

    Across the UK, their vote share in the last GE puts them clearly in third place. Until this changes in a future GE, it is reasonable to treat them as the UK’s third party. In parliament of course the advantage our voting system gives to geographically concentrated support has given third place to the SNP.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 642
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Failing that, if they are beaten by the LibDems in the Euros, their MPs face the choice between joining the existing UK third party or retiring to tend their gardens.

    The Lib Dems are not the third party, except in number of candidates.
    Looks as if the LDs are the only option for a renewed standard issue metro/BBC/Guardian centre party, it's a hollowed out shell that could be revived in principle. Could it be possible that Brexit party could morph into the fabled centre party currently missing presumed dead with old Labour: social democrat left leaning on social housing, nationalisation of utilities, protectionism; right leaning on flag, family, fighting and faith? It would be huge fun to have one again.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,540
    edited May 13
    IanB2 said:

    > @ydoethur said:

    > Failing that, if they are beaten by the LibDems in the Euros, their MPs face the choice between joining the existing UK third party or retiring to tend their gardens.

    >

    > The Lib Dems are not the third party, except in number of candidates.



    Across the UK, their vote share in the last GE puts them clearly in third place. Until this changes in a future GE, it is reasonable to treat them as the UK’s third party. In parliament of course the advantage our voting system gives to geographically concentrated support has given third place to the SNP.

    It's vote share per candidate that counts. If a party stands in one constituency and gets 100% of the vote, it's reasonable to say it's more popular than a party that stands in 100 constituencies and gets 1% of the vote in each.

    By any reasonable standard, the SNP is the third party. I wish they weren't but they are.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 24,114
    IanB2 said:

    > @williamglenn said:

    >





    It never seems to dawn on these pensioners watching their war films that in reality the Soviets supplied the manpower and the Americans supplied the resources, and our main contribution arose from our country being situated geographically proximate to France and Germany,
    I quite like the saying: "The Russians provided the blood, the Americans the money, and the Brits the time."

    Whilst all three provided bits of all three, I think that sums it up quite well. Without the Russians expending millions of their own men stalling the German offensive in the East, without the Americans moving their massive economy onto a war footing, and without us defying Hitler for a couple of years, the war might have turned out very differently.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,537
    > @ydoethur said:
    > > @ydoethur said:
    >
    > > Failing that, if they are beaten by the LibDems in the Euros, their MPs face the choice between joining the existing UK third party or retiring to tend their gardens.
    >
    > >
    >
    > > The Lib Dems are not the third party, except in number of candidates.
    >
    >
    >
    > Across the UK, their vote share in the last GE puts them clearly in third place. Until this changes in a future GE, it is reasonable to treat them as the UK’s third party. In parliament of course the advantage our voting system gives to geographically concentrated support has given third place to the SNP.
    >
    > It's vote share per candidate that counts. If a party stands in one constituency and gets 100% of the vote, it's reasonable to say it's more popular than a party that stands in 100 constituencies and gets 1% of the vote in each.
    >
    > By any reasonable standard, the SNP is the third party. I wish they weren't but they are.

    By my reasonable standard, 2.4 million votes trumps one million. But apply your own standards as you wish.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,537
    > @JosiasJessop said:
    > > @williamglenn said:
    >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > It never seems to dawn on these pensioners watching their war films that in reality the Soviets supplied the manpower and the Americans supplied the resources, and our main contribution arose from our country being situated geographically proximate to France and Germany,
    >
    > I quite like the saying: "The Russians provided the blood, the Americans the money, and the Brits the time."
    >
    > Whilst all three provided bits of all three, I think that sums it up quite well. Without the Russians expending millions of their own men stalling the German offensive in the East, without the Americans moving their massive economy onto a war footing, and without us defying Hitler for a couple of years, the war might have turned out very differently.

    In the counter-factual where Britain hadn’t provided the time, the Americans would have dropped H-bombs on Germany in 1945.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,960
    > @IanB2 said:
    >
    > In the counter-factual where Britain hadn’t provided the time, the Americans would have dropped H-bombs on Germany in 1945.

    Germany might not have declared war on the USA in the first place in those circumstances.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 48,431
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 7,221
    ydoethur said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    1. Is the approximate probability of her departure this year.

    1 in what? 1 in 1? 1 in 100? 1 in 10? One chance that the stupid bastards in the European Remainers Group muffed last year?
    I see you don't moonlight teaching statistics classes. Probabilities are often expressed as fractions of one, so .5 =50% and 1 is certainty.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 1,790
    > @anothernick said:
    > May will only go if she loses a VONC of Tory MPs. For that to happen before December the 1922 has to agree to change the rules (quite likely I guess) the requisite number of letters need to go in (also quite likely) a deal then a majority of MPs need to decide that having a no deal Brexiter installed as leader is a sensible step. This seems very unlikely to me, none of the cabinet leadership contenders will want an early contest and hard Brexiteers do not have a majority amongst Tory MPs.
    >

    Faced with the evidence of unprecedented electoral meltdown in 10 days time, with a vote share likely to be in the lower teens at best, then Conservative MPs will be viewing things primarily in terms of their own electoral survival.

    The 1922 Committee will vote to change their rules, no later than after she loses the confidence vote at the Assocations' EGM. In December, 200 of her MPs backed her, but her authority has collapsed since then. If only 42 of those 200 decide to switch, then she is a goner.

    I think that outcome very likely, if not quite 91% likely.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 220
    > @IanB2 said:

    > In the counter-factual where Britain hadn’t provided the time, the Americans would have dropped H-bombs on Germany in 1945.

    Didn't we provide quite a lot of scientific info regarding the Manhattan project? I've read that we would have developed an A-Bomb on our own by 1947.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 2,091
    > @Scott_P said:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > These people are allowed to vote...

    Tragic . I really despise these constant references to the war .
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 14,668
    > @Scott_P said:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > These people are allowed to vote...

    Does that include David 'Junior Partner' Cameron ?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 3,921
    Of course she is probably out this year but that is a ridiculous price. "Lay me" is what it's saying. "And do it now because soon I will be gone".
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 24,114
    IanB2 said:

    > @JosiasJessop said:

    > > @williamglenn said:

    >

    > >



    >

    >

    >

    >

    >

    > It never seems to dawn on these pensioners watching their war films that in reality the Soviets supplied the manpower and the Americans supplied the resources, and our main contribution arose from our country being situated geographically proximate to France and Germany,

    >

    > I quite like the saying: "The Russians provided the blood, the Americans the money, and the Brits the time."

    >

    > Whilst all three provided bits of all three, I think that sums it up quite well. Without the Russians expending millions of their own men stalling the German offensive in the East, without the Americans moving their massive economy onto a war footing, and without us defying Hitler for a couple of years, the war might have turned out very differently.



    In the counter-factual where Britain hadn’t provided the time, the Americans would have dropped H-bombs on Germany in 1945.
    If they had been at war with each other (as Mr Glenn says below, that was not guaranteed), the question comes where the US would have been able to fly the bombers from to strike Germany.

    That's a genuine question: I have no idea. With Europe, Russia and North Africa under German control, or with German-friendly governments, where could the US have flown a bomber from with a near-certainty it wouldn't be shot down? It was a six-hour flight with a heavy load, most of it over the ocean. To get to Germany, you would have to fly over land that would be very hot with German fighters and interceptors.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 14,668
    > @IanB2 said:
    > > @williamglenn said:
    > >
    >
    > It never seems to dawn on these pensioners watching their war films that in reality the Soviets supplied the manpower and the Americans supplied the resources, and our main contribution arose from our country being situated geographically proximate to France and Germany,

    I think we provided the money so that the USA could make the profits.
  • BromBrom Posts: 1,578
    edited May 13
    I understand Nigel is a cut above Heidi Allen and his party are polling 10 times the amount hers are, thus he has nothing to gain from a debate, but the perfect response would have been to agree to a debate if Change UK offered to put their candidates up for a by-election. The response would have been interesting!
  • BromBrom Posts: 1,578
    > @Scott_P said:
    >

    He's only saying what the British public are thinking!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 45,631
    nico67 said:

    > @Scott_P said:

    >



    >

    >

    >

    > These people are allowed to vote...



    Tragic . I really despise these constant references to the war .
    Agreed. There are not as many of them as people think, but unfortunately they do happen and it is absolute bollocks.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 11,801
    She's doing the decent thing. Hanging on so Boris doesn't become PM. We all owe her a debt for that.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 220
    OT: London moped gang jailed for string of raids and robberies https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/13/london-moped-gang-jailed-for-string-of-raids-and-robberies

    Funny how most of them are white :lol:
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 5,442
    The difference between Heidi and Farage is that she's an MP - something that he has failed seven to to achieve.

    Clearly this has impacted on his confidence - he should have been the candidate in Peterborough but he chickened out.
  • BromBrom Posts: 1,578
    > @MikeSmithson said:
    > The difference between Heidi and Farage is that she's an MP - something that he has failed seven to to achieve.
    >
    > Clearly this has impacted on his confidence - he should have been the candidate in Peterborough but he chickened out.
    >
    >

    No chance. Mike Greene is an excellent candidate and far better suited. The fact Change UK bottled fighting Peterborough says it all.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 45,631

    Ishmael_Z said:

    > @JosiasJessop said:

    > I once described the Conservative Party as the living undead; as the decades progress it evolves and changes, never dying even if its position is the polar opposite of ones it held generations ago as it sucks the policies out of other parties.

    >

    > I now wonder if it was Dorian Grey, and Brexit the knife plunged into the heart of the picture.

    >

    > If so, is there a chance that May may be not only the last Conservative PM, but the last leader of a Conservative Party as a significant electoral force?



    Ever since 1979 at the latest, it has always been the conventional wisdom at any given time that one of Lab/the tories would never gain power again. CUK have just given us the clearest possible reminder that it is easier to parasitise a major party from within than to strike out on one's own. The tory brand is here to stay, even if the ingredients change.

    I'm minded to agree with you: but I just get this sense of impending doom for the party. And Labour's not much better either: although as long as the union link remains, they're probably safe in some form.
    Yes, things look potentially quite bad for Labour, but very certainly bad for the Tories. How do they come back from this in any meaningful way? They want to be the Brexit Party, it is as plain as day, and incompetent as they are the only ones seeking less extreme solutions are despised by their own members, by and large. Labour have paths out of this mess, but I don't see one for the Tories in the short term.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 14,668
    > @kle4 said:
    > > @Scott_P said:
    >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > > These people are allowed to vote...
    >
    >
    >
    > Tragic . I really despise these constant references to the war .
    >
    > Agreed. There are not as many of them as people think, but unfortunately they do happen and it is absolute bollocks.

    The obsession with WWII is curious. **

    Is it because it was the last time we were convinced of our 'moral rightness' or perhaps because of the rationing and government control it is thought of as a time of equality and fairness and successful socialism ?

    ** If we really want to find the period which made Britain Great then the second half of the 18th century with its colonial gains and industrial revolution is it.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 702
    > @Pulpstar said:
    > Blair is the politician I always associate with Dorien Grey

    Hardly. He looks his age these days.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 45,631

    A follow up to Corbyn's warning about voters not understanding what Labour is saying:



    Eh, the colonies are all the same aren't they? There's no way they would ever turn on the party.

    The difference between Heidi and Farage is that she's an MP - something that he has failed seven to to achieve.



    Clearly this has impacted on his confidence - he should have been the candidate in Peterborough but he chickened out.

    Even if so, what does it matter? His personal bravery or lack thereof in standing for parliament and winning seems pretty irrelevant to what he is trying to achieve.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 45,631
    If May is not out this year then it will be because she has been declared eternal PM and will never stand down or be removed.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 14,668
    > @MikeSmithson said:
    > The difference between Heidi and Farage is that she's an MP - something that he has failed seven to to achieve.
    >
    > Clearly this has impacted on his confidence - he should have been the candidate in Peterborough but he chickened out.
    >
    >

    Perhaps Heidi Allen should have given it a go.

    Weren't we told that the splitters wanted to contest marginal constituencies ?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 45,631
    Roger said:

    She's doing the decent thing. Hanging on so Boris doesn't become PM. We all owe her a debt for that.

    Boris would not have been able to implement a no deal, parliament would have prevented it, so I don't see how he could be that much worse, other than being personally more odious.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,009
    > @IanB2 said:
    > > @williamglenn said:
    > >
    >
    > It never seems to dawn on these pensioners watching their war films that in reality the Soviets supplied the manpower and the Americans supplied the resources, and our main contribution arose from our country being situated geographically proximate to France and Germany,

    And most of them weren't actually there during the war, you'd need to be well over 80 now to have any real memories of it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,537
    edited May 13
    > @JosiasJessop said:
    > > @JosiasJessop said:
    >
    > > > @williamglenn said:
    >
    > >
    >
    > > >
    >
    >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > > It never seems to dawn on these pensioners watching their war films that in reality the Soviets supplied the manpower and the Americans supplied the resources, and our main contribution arose from our country being situated geographically proximate to France and Germany,
    >
    > >
    >
    > > I quite like the saying: "The Russians provided the blood, the Americans the money, and the Brits the time."
    >
    > >
    >
    > > Whilst all three provided bits of all three, I think that sums it up quite well. Without the Russians expending millions of their own men stalling the German offensive in the East, without the Americans moving their massive economy onto a war footing, and without us defying Hitler for a couple of years, the war might have turned out very differently.
    >
    >
    >
    > In the counter-factual where Britain hadn’t provided the time, the Americans would have dropped H-bombs on Germany in 1945.
    >
    > If they had been at war with each other (as Mr Glenn says below, that was not guaranteed), the question comes where the US would have been able to fly the bombers from to strike Germany.
    >
    > That's a genuine question: I have no idea. With Europe, Russia and North Africa under German control, or with German-friendly governments, where could the US have flown a bomber from with a near-certainty it wouldn't be shot down? It was a six-hour flight with a heavy load, most of it over the ocean. To get to Germany, you would have to fly over land that would be very hot with German fighters and interceptors.

    A large part of the Operation Torch landings in North Africa came direct from the US, with further contingents from Gibraltar. So a North African base would have been achievable. At the high altitude the H-bombers were able to fly, how vulnerable were they to detection and interception?

    The alternative would be to have arranged something with the advancing Soviets.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 9,996
    > @another_richard said:
    > > @kle4 said:
    > > > @Scott_P said:
    > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > >
    > >
    > > >
    > >
    > > >
    > >
    > > > These people are allowed to vote...
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Tragic . I really despise these constant references to the war .
    > >
    > > Agreed. There are not as many of them as people think, but unfortunately they do happen and it is absolute bollocks.
    >
    > The obsession with WWII is curious. **
    >
    > Is it because it was the last time we were convinced of our 'moral rightness' or perhaps because of the rationing and government control it is thought of as a time of equality and fairness and successful socialism ?
    >
    > ** If we really want to find the period which made Britain Great then the second half of the 18th century with its colonial gains and industrial revolution is it.

    The war nostalgia is an understandable desire for unity of purpose and community. Perhaps a false memory, but deep within the British psyche.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 45,631





    "No breakthrough but constructive" - how many weeks has that been the line? Nobody seems to have the energy or imagination to describe the talks with any sort of variety on that take.
    It's an indication of how token and shameless the whole rigmarole has been. It's been said to death but still bears repeating, what the bloody hell are they possibly talking about all this time? There's not much complicated about this anymore in terms of options, and the whole time the MPs on both sides have been pretty blatant in essentially saying if, by remote chance, there was agreement, they'd not follow it anyway.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 45,631
    Foxy said:

    > @another_richard said:

    > > @kle4 said:

    > > > @Scott_P said:

    > >

    > > >



    > >

    > >

    > >

    > > >

    > >

    > > >

    > >

    > > >

    > >

    > > > These people are allowed to vote...

    > >

    > >

    > >

    > > Tragic . I really despise these constant references to the war .

    > >

    > > Agreed. There are not as many of them as people think, but unfortunately they do happen and it is absolute bollocks.

    >

    > The obsession with WWII is curious. **

    >

    > Is it because it was the last time we were convinced of our 'moral rightness' or perhaps because of the rationing and government control it is thought of as a time of equality and fairness and successful socialism ?

    >

    > ** If we really want to find the period which made Britain Great then the second half of the 18th century with its colonial gains and industrial revolution is it.



    The war nostalgia is an understandable desire for unity of purpose and community. Perhaps a false memory, but deep within the British psyche.
    Might as well yearn back to the days before the Norman yoke for all it matters.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 9,996
    > @MikeSmithson said:
    > The difference between Heidi and Farage is that she's an MP - something that he has failed seven to to achieve.
    >
    > Clearly this has impacted on his confidence - he should have been the candidate in Peterborough but he chickened out.
    >
    >

    But these are Euro elections. Any debate should be MEP candidate vs MEP candidate.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,960
    > @Foxy said:
    >
    > The war nostalgia is an understandable desire for unity of purpose and community. Perhaps a false memory, but deep within the British psyche.

    It comes from people who grew up in the shadow of the war, not people who experienced it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,329
    > @kle4 said:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "No breakthrough but constructive" - how many weeks has that been the line? Nobody seems to have the energy or imagination to describe the talks with any sort of variety on that take.
    >
    > It's an indication of how token and shameless the whole rigmarole has been. It's been said to death but still bears repeating, what the bloody hell are they possibly talking about all this time? There's not much complicated about this anymore in terms of options, and the whole time the MPs on both sides have been pretty blatant in essentially saying if, by remote chance, there was agreement, they'd not follow it anyway.

    Extend and pretend. Its what passes for policy these days and not just in relation to Brexit.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 489
    > @williamglenn said:
    >

    She'd dug herself a hole with her first answer but a better answer to the 'why' would be that the UK (1) has a living memory of conflict on domestic and continental soil (2) picked the right side when confronted with each of fascism and communism* (3) has institutions, surviving citizens and a culture that have not been found wanting when set alone against those two forces and so (4) ought not to be cowed by the rather lesser proposition of moderate administrative difficulties expected in severing ties with a supranational organisation (5) sought and obtained in each of those wars the assistance of Empire / Commonwealth allies who will likely make good global trading counterparties. The continent's history on those points is rather more chequered.

    Doesn't make for a good tweet though.

    * proper fascism and communism, not 2019 internet fascism (aka mean tweets) and 2019 internet communism (aka top rate income tax)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 9,028
    algarkirk said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Failing that, if they are beaten by the LibDems in the Euros, their MPs face the choice between joining the existing UK third party or retiring to tend their gardens.

    The Lib Dems are not the third party, except in number of candidates.
    Looks as if the LDs are the only option for a renewed standard issue metro/BBC/Guardian centre party, it's a hollowed out shell that could be revived in principle. Could it be possible that Brexit party could morph into the fabled centre party currently missing presumed dead with old Labour: social democrat left leaning on social housing, nationalisation of utilities, protectionism; right leaning on flag, family, fighting and faith? It would be huge fun to have one again.

    "Could it be possible that Brexit party could morph into the fabled centre party"?

    Er, no.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,537
    edited May 13
    > @williamglenn said:
    > > @Foxy said:
    > >
    > > The war nostalgia is an understandable desire for unity of purpose and community. Perhaps a false memory, but deep within the British psyche.
    >
    > It comes from people who grew up in the shadow of the war, not people who experienced it.

    I feel it myself - I grew up in the 60s and 70s, when for adults it was a recent memory, even if it didn’t seem that way to me as a child. I remember when the Battle of Britain film came out, my school arranged showings in the assembly hall instead of lessons. I love the war films and have a good collection on DVD. I just don’t apply the emotions from them directly to our political situation eighty years later - and insofar as there is a connection, I am grateful that we have the EU and the peaceful institutional co-operation with our neighbours nowadays, after centuries of never ending conflict.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 2,091
    edited May 13
    Yes the WW2 obsessives who say no problem , we survived the war so no deal is no problem.

    Not withstanding the fact that Leave was sold as the land of milk and honey and not ration books most of these Empire flag wavers know nothing about the hardship of those times .

    They treat the EU as if it’s got tanks on the Mall , fed on a diet of right wing crap for the last 20 years .
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 5,442
    > @Foxy said:
    > > @MikeSmithson said:
    > > The difference between Heidi and Farage is that she's an MP - something that he has failed seven to to achieve.
    > >
    > > Clearly this has impacted on his confidence - he should have been the candidate in Peterborough but he chickened out.
    > >
    > >
    >
    > But these are Euro elections. Any debate should be MEP candidate vs MEP candidate.

    True. And all Heidi is doing is trying to get some publicity.

    CHUK really needs to get something on May 23rd or it will just wither and die. So far the LDs have established themselves as THE party opposed to Brexit and need to crush the patronising usurpers of CHUK who only weeks ago were saying that Cable's party should have been the supplicants in any relationship.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 13,683
    edited May 13
    > @Drutt said:
    > > @williamglenn said:
    > >
    >
    > She'd dug herself a hole with her first answer but a better answer to the 'why' would be that the UK (1) has a living memory of conflict on domestic and continental soil (2) picked the right side when confronted with each of fascism and communism* (3) has institutions, surviving citizens and a culture that have not been found wanting when set alone against those two forces and so (4) ought not to be cowed by the rather lesser proposition of moderate administrative difficulties expected in severing ties with a supranational organisation (5) sought and obtained in each of those wars the assistance of Empire / Commonwealth allies who will likely make good global trading counterparties. The continent's history on those points is rather more chequered.
    >
    > Doesn't make for a good tweet though.
    >
    > * proper fascism and communism, not 2019 internet fascism (aka mean tweets) and 2019 internet communism (aka top rate income tax)

    And that explains we’d be better off with no deal how ?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 24,114
    IanB2 said:


    A large part of the Operation Torch landings in North Africa came direct from the US, with further contingents from Gibraltar. So a North African base would have been achievable. At the high altitude the H-bombers were able to fly, how vulnerable were they to detection and interception?



    The alternative would be to have arranged something with the advancing Soviets.

    That's interesting. But we're talking about a sstrategic situation that would have been very different from what really happened in 1945. Would Operation Torch-style landings have worked without the fighting already going on in North Africa? could they even have got past Gibraltar into the Med?

    And without the UK and US providing support, it's hard to see Russia having been in the fight in 1945. They would either have been conquered or come to terms with Germany (and the latter would have been unlikely given Hitler's dislike of them).
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 14,668
    > @IanB2 said:
    > > @williamglenn said:
    > > > @Foxy said:
    > > >
    > > > The war nostalgia is an understandable desire for unity of purpose and community. Perhaps a false memory, but deep within the British psyche.
    > >
    > > It comes from people who grew up in the shadow of the war, not people who experienced it.
    >
    > I feel it myself - I grew up in the 60s and 70s, when for adults it was a recent memory, even if it didn’t seem that way to me as a child. I remember when the Battle of Britain film came out, my school arranged showings in the assembly hall instead of lessons. I love the war films and have a good collection on DVD. I just don’t apply the emotions from them directly to our political situation eighty years later - and insofar as there is a connection, I am grateful that we have the EU and the peaceful institutional co-operation with our neighbours nowadays, after centuries of never ending conflict.

    The conflict took on other forms.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 45,631
    nico67 said:

    Yes the WW2 obsessives who say no problem , we survived the war so no deal is no problem.



    Not withstanding the fact that Leave was sold as the land of milk and honey and not ration books most of these Empire flag wavers know nothing about the hardship of those times .



    They treat the EU as if it’s got tanks on the Mall , fed on a diet of right wing crap for the last 20 years .

    In a not unfamiliar situation, those most in favour of one position do the best in putting me off that position. Applies to leave and remain, but at least the latter usually only risks epic smugness and frustration.
  • isamisam Posts: 27,192
    edited May 13
    Foxy said:

    > @MikeSmithson said:

    > The difference between Heidi and Farage is that she's an MP - something that he has failed seven to to achieve.

    >

    > Clearly this has impacted on his confidence - he should have been the candidate in Peterborough but he chickened out.

    >

    >



    But these are Euro elections. Any debate should be MEP candidate vs MEP candidate.

    It would be hypocritical beyond belief for almost anyone on this site to argue that Farage should debate Heidi Allen, after years of quoting tv guidelines to argue that Farage couldn’t debate anyone!

    That said, if ChUK were riding high in the polls I’d say to hell with the guidelines, and he should debate her, but what’s the point when they’re on 3-4%?

    And why should Farage get the exposure either? Batten is the leader of the party who won last time, and Corbyn and Cable or May of those in 2nd and 3rd. It doesn’t work on any level
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 7,994
    > @IanB2 said:
    > > @ydoethur said:
    > > Failing that, if they are beaten by the LibDems in the Euros, their MPs face the choice between joining the existing UK third party or retiring to tend their gardens.
    > >
    > > The Lib Dems are not the third party, except in number of candidates.
    >
    > Across the UK, their vote share in the last GE puts them clearly in third place. Until this changes in a future GE, it is reasonable to treat them as the UK’s third party. In parliament of course the advantage our voting system gives to geographically concentrated support has given third place to the SNP.
    >

    In terms of Parliamentary strength, the LDs are a distant fourth.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,960
    Drutt said:

    She'd dug herself a hole with her first answer but a better answer to the 'why' would be that the UK (1) has a living memory of conflict on domestic and continental soil (2) picked the right side when confronted with each of fascism and communism* (3) has institutions, surviving citizens and a culture that have not been found wanting when set alone against those two forces and so (4) ought not to be cowed by the rather lesser proposition of moderate administrative difficulties expected in severing ties with a supranational organisation (5) sought and obtained in each of those wars the assistance of Empire / Commonwealth allies who will likely make good global trading counterparties. The continent's history on those points is rather more chequered.



    Doesn't make for a good tweet though.



    * proper fascism and communism, not 2019 internet fascism (aka mean tweets) and 2019 internet communism (aka top rate income tax)

    The sentiment doesn't get any better in your rendering of it. The implied comparison between the ideologies of fascism and communism and the EU is offensive.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 9,996
    > @isam said:
    > > @MikeSmithson said:
    >
    > > The difference between Heidi and Farage is that she's an MP - something that he has failed seven to to achieve.
    >
    > >
    >
    > > Clearly this has impacted on his confidence - he should have been the candidate in Peterborough but he chickened out.
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > But these are Euro elections. Any debate should be MEP candidate vs MEP candidate.
    >
    > It would be hypocritical beyond belief for almost anyone on this site to argue that Farage should debate Heidi Allen, after years of quoting tv guidelines to argue that Farage couldn’t debate anyone!
    >
    > That said, if ChUK were riding high in the polls I’d say to hell with the guidelines, and he should debate her, but what’s the point when they’re on 3-4%?
    >
    > And why should Farage get the exposure either? Batten is the leader of the party who won last time, and Corbyn and Cable or May of those in 2nd and 3rd. It doesn’t work on any level

    I don't think the can happen without all parties being involved, but it is too late for that
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 7,994
    > @Wulfrun_Phil said:
    >
    > > @anothernick said:
    > > May will only go if she loses a VONC of Tory MPs. For that to happen before December the 1922 has to agree to change the rules (quite likely I guess) the requisite number of letters need to go in (also quite likely) a deal then a majority of MPs need to decide that having a no deal Brexiter installed as leader is a sensible step. This seems very unlikely to me, none of the cabinet leadership contenders will want an early contest and hard Brexiteers do not have a majority amongst Tory MPs.
    > >
    >
    > Faced with the evidence of unprecedented electoral meltdown in 10 days time, with a vote share likely to be in the lower teens at best, then Conservative MPs will be viewing things primarily in terms of their own electoral survival.
    >
    > The 1922 Committee will vote to change their rules, no later than after she loses the confidence vote at the Assocations' EGM. In December, 200 of her MPs backed her, but her authority has collapsed since then. If only 42 of those 200 decide to switch, then she is a goner.
    >
    > I think that outcome very likely, if not quite 91% likely.
    >
    >

    On the other hand, Tory MPs - and indeed Labour MPs - will surely not take the EU results literally. Turnout is likely to be low and people generally have a pretty frivolous attitude towards them.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 13,683
    > @IanB2 said:
    > > @williamglenn said:
    > > > @Foxy said:
    > > >
    > > > The war nostalgia is an understandable desire for unity of purpose and community. Perhaps a false memory, but deep within the British psyche.
    > >
    > > It comes from people who grew up in the shadow of the war, not people who experienced it.
    >
    > I feel it myself - I grew up in the 60s and 70s, when for adults it was a recent memory, even if it didn’t seem that way to me as a child. I remember when the Battle of Britain film came out, my school arranged showings in the assembly hall instead of lessons. I love the war films and have a good collection on DVD. I just don’t apply the emotions from them directly to our political situation eighty years later - and insofar as there is a connection, I am grateful that we have the EU and the peaceful institutional co-operation with our neighbours nowadays, after centuries of never ending conflict.

    A lot of that sounds familiar to me too. Good film, though...

    To many of the immediate postwar generation, the war seems to retain an outsize importance.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 9,596
    Drutt said:

    > @williamglenn said:

    >





    She'd dug herself a hole with her first answer but a better answer to the 'why' would be that the UK (1) has a living memory of conflict on domestic and continental soil (2) picked the right side when confronted with each of fascism and communism* (3) has institutions, surviving citizens and a culture that have not been found wanting when set alone against those two forces and so (4) ought not to be cowed by the rather lesser proposition of moderate administrative difficulties expected in severing ties with a supranational organisation (5) sought and obtained in each of those wars the assistance of Empire / Commonwealth allies who will likely make good global trading counterparties. The continent's history on those points is rather more chequered.



    Doesn't make for a good tweet though.



    * proper fascism and communism, not 2019 internet fascism (aka mean tweets) and 2019 internet communism (aka top rate income tax)
    Those are good points (except for your fifth: I'd question the basis for the world "likely") but nothing in those points address the question, which was "why does our victory in WW2 ensure we would come off best in a No Deal scenario?"
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 9,996
    edited May 13
    > @MikeSmithson said:
    > > @Foxy said:
    > > > @MikeSmithson said:
    > > > The difference between Heidi and Farage is that she's an MP - something that he has failed seven to to achieve.
    > > >
    > > > Clearly this has impacted on his confidence - he should have been the candidate in Peterborough but he chickened out.
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > > But these are Euro elections. Any debate should be MEP candidate vs MEP candidate.
    >
    > True. And all Heidi is doing is trying to get some publicity.
    >
    > CHUK really needs to get something on May 23rd or it will just wither and die. So far the LDs have established themselves as THE party opposed to Brexit and need to crush the patronising usurpers of CHUK who only weeks ago were saying that Cable's party should have been the supplicants in any relationship.

    I think CHUK have rather floundered since their original formation, but may have a future when a hard Brexiteer replaces May. Their niche is the place for right wing pro-Europeans. I wouldn't want them to wind up before sucking out more Tory defectors.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,960
    Nigelb said:

    A lot of that sounds familiar to me too. Good film, though...

    To many of the immediate postwar generation, the war seems to retain an outsize importance.

    One common false perception seems to be that the defeated or occupied countries had it easy after the war compared to Britain. Many people think that we didn't get any Marshall plan aid, for example, when in fact we got the most of any country.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 7,994
    > @isam said:
    > > @MikeSmithson said:
    >
    > > The difference between Heidi and Farage is that she's an MP - something that he has failed seven to to achieve.
    >
    > >
    >
    > > Clearly this has impacted on his confidence - he should have been the candidate in Peterborough but he chickened out.
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > But these are Euro elections. Any debate should be MEP candidate vs MEP candidate.
    >
    > It would be hypocritical beyond belief for almost anyone on this site to argue that Farage should debate Heidi Allen, after years of quoting tv guidelines to argue that Farage couldn’t debate anyone!
    >
    > That said, if ChUK were riding high in the polls I’d say to hell with the guidelines, and he should debate her, but what’s the point when they’re on 3-4%?
    >
    > And why should Farage get the exposure either? Batten is the leader of the party who won last time, and Corbyn and Cable or May of those in 2nd and 3rd. It doesn’t work on any level

    But were the guidelines to be ignored. other parties would almost certainly have gone to Court to seek Injunctions etc - and I am sure the Broadcasters know that.
  • thecommissionerthecommissioner Posts: 165
    edited May 13
    kle4 said:





    "No breakthrough but constructive" - how many weeks has that been the line? Nobody seems to have the energy or imagination to describe the talks with any sort of variety on that take.
    It's an indication of how token and shameless the whole rigmarole has been. It's been said to death but still bears repeating, what the bloody hell are they possibly talking about all this time? There's not much complicated about this anymore in terms of options, and the whole time the MPs on both sides have been pretty blatant in essentially saying if, by remote chance, there was agreement, they'd not follow it anyway.
    The Tories are paying for a lack of delivery, while Labour is paying for a lack of honesty. Neither knows a way out of this and both are staring down the barrel.

  • isamisam Posts: 27,192
    justin124 said:

    > @isam said:

    > > @MikeSmithson said:

    >

    > > The difference between Heidi and Farage is that she's an MP - something that he has failed seven to to achieve.

    >

    > >

    >

    > > Clearly this has impacted on his confidence - he should have been the candidate in Peterborough but he chickened out.

    >

    > >

    >

    > >

    >

    >

    >

    > But these are Euro elections. Any debate should be MEP candidate vs MEP candidate.

    >

    > It would be hypocritical beyond belief for almost anyone on this site to argue that Farage should debate Heidi Allen, after years of quoting tv guidelines to argue that Farage couldn’t debate anyone!

    >

    > That said, if ChUK were riding high in the polls I’d say to hell with the guidelines, and he should debate her, but what’s the point when they’re on 3-4%?

    >

    > And why should Farage get the exposure either? Batten is the leader of the party who won last time, and Corbyn and Cable or May of those in 2nd and 3rd. It doesn’t work on any level



    But were the guidelines to be ignored. other parties would almost certainly have gone to Court to seek Injunctions etc - and I am sure the Broadcasters know that.

    They don’t seem to make sense though really. If ChUK were on 25% and Brexit similar with the rest nowhere, it would be peculiar to not have their leaders on the debate, but people would argue its fair because the guidelines are based on past performance.
  • _Anazina__Anazina_ Posts: 1,810
    ...
  • isamisam Posts: 27,192
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,537
    > @thecommissioner said:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "No breakthrough but constructive" - how many weeks has that been the line? Nobody seems to have the energy or imagination to describe the talks with any sort of variety on that take.
    >
    > It's an indication of how token and shameless the whole rigmarole has been. It's been said to death but still bears repeating, what the bloody hell are they possibly talking about all this time? There's not much complicated about this anymore in terms of options, and the whole time the MPs on both sides have been pretty blatant in essentially saying if, by remote chance, there was agreement, they'd not follow it anyway.
    >
    > The Tories are paying for a lack of delivery, while Labour is paying for a lack of honesty. Neither knows a way out of this and both are staring down the barrel.

    Given all the Tory voters deserting the party for the LibDems and Greens, it’s rather more than lack of delivery. In their case, delivery will make things worse still.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 2,091
    I do like some of Change UK .

    As a Remainer though given the crowded field splitting the vote three ways is likely to lead to even less MEPs .

    The Lib Dems deserve to be rewarded for supporting a second vote when it was a very minority position .
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 9,028
    nico67 said:

    I do like some of Change UK .



    As a Remainer though given the crowded field splitting the vote three ways is likely to lead to even less MEPs .



    The Lib Dems deserve to be rewarded for supporting a second vote when it was a very minority position .

    Agreed - that's what I'll be doing.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 7,994
    > @isam said:
    > > @isam said:
    >
    > > > @MikeSmithson said:
    >
    > >
    >
    > > > The difference between Heidi and Farage is that she's an MP - something that he has failed seven to to achieve.
    >
    > >
    >
    > > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > > > Clearly this has impacted on his confidence - he should have been the candidate in Peterborough but he chickened out.
    >
    > >
    >
    > > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    > > But these are Euro elections. Any debate should be MEP candidate vs MEP candidate.
    >
    > >
    >
    > > It would be hypocritical beyond belief for almost anyone on this site to argue that Farage should debate Heidi Allen, after years of quoting tv guidelines to argue that Farage couldn’t debate anyone!
    >
    > >
    >
    > > That said, if ChUK were riding high in the polls I’d say to hell with the guidelines, and he should debate her, but what’s the point when they’re on 3-4%?
    >
    > >
    >
    > > And why should Farage get the exposure either? Batten is the leader of the party who won last time, and Corbyn and Cable or May of those in 2nd and 3rd. It doesn’t work on any level
    >
    >
    >
    > But were the guidelines to be ignored. other parties would almost certainly have gone to Court to seek Injunctions etc - and I am sure the Broadcasters know that.
    >
    > They don’t seem to make sense though really. If ChUK were on 25% and Brexit similar with the rest nowhere, it would be peculiar to not have their leaders on the debate, but people would argue its fair because the guidelines are based on past performance.

    Even were we looking at such a scenario , I believe the Broadcasters would face serious difficulties. A sudden shift in poll ratings a mere few weeks prior to an election - a shift which might well be short -term anyway - should not in itself carry too much weight. It should not be Pollsters who determine whether a party merits Major rather than Minor status - but votes cast at elections. Neither of these leaders has such a track record at all in respect of the parties they now lead.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,537
    edited May 13
    > @JosiasJessop said:
    > A large part of the Operation Torch landings in North Africa came direct from the US, with further contingents from Gibraltar. So a North African base would have been achievable. At the high altitude the H-bombers were able to fly, how vulnerable were they to detection and interception?
    >
    >
    >
    > The alternative would be to have arranged something with the advancing Soviets.
    >
    > That's interesting. But we're talking about a sstrategic situation that would have been very different from what really happened in 1945. Would Operation Torch-style landings have worked without the fighting already going on in North Africa? could they even have got past Gibraltar into the Med?
    >
    > And without the UK and US providing support, it's hard to see Russia having been in the fight in 1945. They would either have been conquered or come to terms with Germany (and the latter would have been unlikely given Hitler's dislike of them).

    I have not seen it argued before that western support was so critical to the Soviets, who depended mostly upon throwing waves of basic infantry at the enemy relying on force of numbers. To suggest they would have collapsed without the arctic convoys is stretching things?
  • isamisam Posts: 27,192
    edited May 13
    justin124 said:




    Even were we looking at such a scenario , I believe the Broadcasters would face serious difficulties. A sudden shift in poll ratings a mere few weeks prior to an election - a shift which might well be short -term anyway - should not in itself carry too much weight. It should not be Pollsters who determine whether a party merits Major rather than Minor status - but votes cast at elections. Neither of these leaders has such a track record at all in respect of the parties they now lead.

    I don’t know, if ChUK were neck and neck with Labour or the Tories I think it’d be right for Heidi Allen to debate one of them. The rules seem too inflexible to me
This discussion has been closed.