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 a mistake to look at the next election though the prism

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited April 9 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It is a mistake to look at the next election though the prism of the last one

Given what happened on June 8th last year you would have thought people would have worked out by now is that you cannot look at the next election by thinking back to the last one and applying the same sort of judgements relating to what happened.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    edited April 9
    First.

    Wow, must buy a lottery ticket tonight.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,867
    Second
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    On topic I hope that Mike is right but the fact is that by the next election the Tories will have been in power one way or another for more than a decade. They are already a minority government and it is not easy to see them making progress despite the quality of opposition.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,008
    Very rare for sitting governments to improve their standing. Especially after - in terms of vote share - already having done so once.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,617
    edited April 9
    IanB2 said:

    Very rare for sitting governments to improve their standing. Especially after - in terms of vote share - already having done so once.

    I think I'm right in saying the last party to increase a majority after seeing it reduced at the previous election were the Liberals under Palmerston in 1865.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    IanB2 said:

    Very rare for sitting governments to improve their standing. Especially after - in terms of vote share - already having done so once.

    Though in 1992 Major managed to lose just 0.3% of the 1987 Tory voteshare which was enough to keep the Tories in power for a fourth consecutive term.

    The Tory leader at the next general election will have to repeat his feat
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986
    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

    Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,151
    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    Or motivate Labour supporters to vote while many Tory supporters sit at home, particularly the Remainers.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

    Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.
    To be fair that applies to both parties
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

    Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.
    The LDs have been squeezed to 7% which seems to be their core vote and are unlikely to go much lower, UKIP collapsed completely at the last general election and the Greens were also down on 2015 and SNP and Plaid votes going to Labour does little to help them actually take many Tory seats.

    Turnout at the 2017 general election was also the highest since 1997, it is more likely turnout will fall next time than go up further
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    edited April 9
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    Or motivate Labour supporters to vote while many Tory supporters sit at home, particularly the Remainers.
    Tory voters won't sit at home when there is a risk of Corbyn becoming PM
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711
    It is true that just because Corbyn did so well during the campaign last time it does not automatically mean he will next time. Though my recollection is it wasn't about assuming Lab were overstated in the polls like Ed M, but that the few polls that put it as close were not held to be as convincing because they were so much the outlier that it seemed unlikely, all else being equal, that only those ones were calling it right.
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    Or motivate Labour supporters to vote while many Tory supporters sit at home, particularly the Remainers.
    It's possible. If the Tories are divided, and unappealing enough after 12 years in office even with Corbyn being the opponent, then they could well lose.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 1,447
    I see today PB’s Shrewd Army has decreed that a) a centrist party is only bad for Labour b) the 2022 election can be won only by the Tories c) a poll showing the public want another say on the Brexit deal is to be ignored.

    It is written.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,151

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

    Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.
    To be fair that applies to both parties
    Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

    Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

    The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

    Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,147
    edited April 9
    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    Anazina said:

    I see today PB’s Shrewd Army has decreed that a) a centrist party is only bad for Labour b) the 2022 election can be won only by the Tories c) a poll showing the public want another say on the Brexit deal is to be ignored.

    It is written.

    You must read different threads from me. Does FB filter contributions to those that match your preconceived views or something?

    I think at best people are saying that the Tories have a chance if Corbyn is the opposition; that a new centrist party is unwanted and unlikely to be successful and that the polling on Brexit was an exercise in demonstrating how slightly different wording led to different conclusions. But maybe my threads are being similarly edited.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,151
    edited April 9
    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,380
    I still think it is more likely that both parties will go into the next election with new leaders than both stick with the same leader.

    Until the leadership questions are settled we are in a phony war.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584
    Barnesian said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

    Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.
    To be fair that applies to both parties
    Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

    Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

    The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

    Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.
    If we are honest there is no way of knowing which government or the make up of that government will win next time and usually we tend to look at it, understandably, by our own loyalties

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584
    Anazina said:

    I see today PB’s Shrewd Army has decreed that a) a centrist party is only bad for Labour b) the 2022 election can be won only by the Tories c) a poll showing the public want another say on the Brexit deal is to be ignored.

    It is written.

    I accept your points though I am not a part of the shrewd army
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584

    I still think it is more likely that both parties will go into the next election with new leaders than both stick with the same leader.

    Until the leadership questions are settled we are in a phony war.

    If they do the pendulum is likely to swing towards labour, but as long as Corbyn, McDonnell or Milne are not involved
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819

    I still think it is more likely that both parties will go into the next election with new leaders than both stick with the same leader.

    Until the leadership questions are settled we are in a phony war.

    That's probably right Sandy but we need to fill the intervening time somehow (maybe Trump will assist).
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,151

    Barnesian said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

    Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.
    To be fair that applies to both parties
    Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

    Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

    The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

    Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.
    If we are honest there is no way of knowing which government or the make up of that government will win next time and usually we tend to look at it, understandably, by our own loyalties

    That's true too. Four years is a long time and the political scene may be unrecognisable.

    For what it's worth, Betfair, on a thin market, is showing the following probabilities:

    Conservative majority 34%
    Labour majority 29%
    No overall majority 37%
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584
    Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

    Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.
    To be fair that applies to both parties
    Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

    Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

    The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

    Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.
    If we are honest there is no way of knowing which government or the make up of that government will win next time and usually we tend to look at it, understandably, by our own loyalties

    That's true too. Four years is a long time and the political scene may be unrecognisable.

    For what it's worth, Betfair, on a thin market, is showing the following probabilities:

    Conservative majority 34%
    Labour majority 29%
    No overall majority 37%
    The one thing that could change that is if Corbyn's cult was sidelined and someone like Emily Thornberry took over.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,147
    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    The Russians have been been consolidating their badged personnel for days. Unbadged might just get left to their fate.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,698
    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,698
    Y0kel said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    The Russians have been been consolidating their badged personnel for days. Unbadged might just get left to their fate.
    That is interesting too - what do you make of that Yokel?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    Anazina said:

    I see today PB’s Shrewd Army has decreed that a) a centrist party is only bad for Labour b) the 2022 election can be won only by the Tories c) a poll showing the public want another say on the Brexit deal is to be ignored.

    It is written.

    Nobody has said a or b, in terms of c of course you have largely ignored the actually Leave vote since the day it was cast
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711

    I still think it is more likely that both parties will go into the next election with new leaders than both stick with the same leader.

    Until the leadership questions are settled we are in a phony war.

    That's my favourite kind of war.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,981
    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    He converted at least some 2015 Tories in 2017. In my constituency Labour's vote went up by 11.5% with the Lib Dems and the Greens hardly changing. It's not too much of a stretch to see him shaving off a few percent more.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    Barnesian said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

    Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.
    To be fair that applies to both parties
    Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

    Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

    The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

    Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.
    To get a majority for either party it almost certainly does require vote switching between the two main parties given the Tories need a lead of at least 3% over Labour for a majority and Labour need a lead of at least 6% over the Tories for a majority.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    edited April 9

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    He converted at least some 2015 Tories in 2017. In my constituency Labour's vote went up by 11.5% with the Lib Dems and the Greens hardly changing. It's not too much of a stretch to see him shaving off a few percent more.
    On a net basis there was virtually no movement from Tory to Labour in 2017 taking the UK as a whole
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    kle4 said:

    I still think it is more likely that both parties will go into the next election with new leaders than both stick with the same leader.

    Until the leadership questions are settled we are in a phony war.

    That's my favourite kind of war.
    Amen to that.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,910
    Floater said:

    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again

    We need to be prepared for an asymmetric response.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584
    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

    Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.
    To be fair that applies to both parties
    Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

    Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

    The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

    Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.
    To get a majority for either party it almost certainly does require vote switching between the two main parties given the Tories need a lead of at least 3% over Labour for a majority and Labour need a lead of at least 6% over the Tories for a majority.
    You really are amazing with statistics (and interesting)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819

    Floater said:

    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again

    We need to be prepared for an asymmetric response.
    There was an excellent early West Wing episode based around that idea. Part of the President's learning curve. Of course Bartlet was written a lot smarter than Trump will ever be.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

    Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.
    To be fair that applies to both parties
    Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

    Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

    The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

    Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.
    To get a majority for either party it almost certainly does require vote switching between the two main parties given the Tories need a lead of at least 3% over Labour for a majority and Labour need a lead of at least 6% over the Tories for a majority.
    You really are amazing with statistics (and interesting)
    Thankyou, I do like my stats!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

    Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.
    To be fair that applies to both parties
    Absolutely, and with a minority government, and a lot of uncertainty in the future, economically, politically, and militarily in the world, the Betfair market of thirds (Lab, NOC, Con) sounds a little optimistic for Labour, but not by much.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,698
    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,218
    "last general election proved to be such a disaster for those in the prediction business was that people were looking at it through the prism of 2015."

    Thinks.
    Did I have money on Con most seats in 2017?
    Why yes. Yes I did.
    Did I win that particular bet and did the bookies pay out?
    Yes. Yes they did.
    Am I a particularly smug and wobbly old Viewcode?
    Yes. Yes I am.
    Pause.
    Grins.
    Evening all.
    [meanders off, whistling the them to "Dixon of Dock Green"...]
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,981
    It's hard to see us getting to 2022 without at least one and possibly several big issues that will affect voting patterns. We might have British ground troops in Syria. A full scale trade war might break out. Brexit might provoke wage increases that make everyone feel better or price rises that make everyone feel worse. Or something that nobody predicts. It's a shame you can't bet on 'someone nobody thought for a minute would get the job'.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 26,691
    FPT
    Floater said:

    nielh said:

    Reflecting on Russia, I think they have a major credibility problem after what happened in Crimea. Putin got what he wanted without the cost of a conventional war, but the harm to Russia's international reputation was immeasurable. The episode exposed them as completely untrustworthy. This has really come back to haunt them with the Salisbury incident.

    Personally - I thought helping shoot down a civilian airliner was a low point
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,576
    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    Trump might also need to wonder just how much dirt (if any) the Russians have on him.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986

    It's hard to see us getting to 2022 without at least one and possibly several big issues that will affect voting patterns. We might have British ground troops in Syria. A full scale trade war might break out. Brexit might provoke wage increases that make everyone feel better or price rises that make everyone feel worse. Or something that nobody predicts. It's a shame you can't bet on 'someone nobody thought for a minute would get the job'.

    I think that the last sentence is wrong, all that is required is laying the favourites. Generally that is good betting advice this far out, but a lot of money to tie up.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    I doubt the Russians will do much more than expel a few more diplomats or impose trade sanctions if as is likely all Trump does is lob a few missiles at Assad
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    Trump might also need to wonder just how much dirt (if any) the Russians have on him.
    Might Corbyn?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    The Russian threat is massively overblown. Putin seems to be believing his own PR these days and thinks he is much more powerful than he is.

    At the moment the risk of a trade war with China is more serious in my opinion. That could be seriously disruptive and I can see Trump staggering into it by accident.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986
    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

    May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,550

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    Trump might also need to wonder just how much dirt (if any) the Russians have on him.
    Not really. What would shock us about Trump these days? Almost everything is priced in.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 26,691
    kle4 said:

    I still think it is more likely that both parties will go into the next election with new leaders than both stick with the same leader.

    Until the leadership questions are settled we are in a phony war.

    That's my favourite kind of war.
    "Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?"
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,110
    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    Anyone else get the feeling we are sleepwalking in to a catastrophe?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

    May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.
    Are we not already bombing ISIS in Syria? Admittedly in a fairly trivial kind of way?
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,147
    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    The Russian threat is massively overblown. Putin seems to be believing his own PR these days and thinks he is much more powerful than he is.

    At the moment the risk of a trade war with China is more serious in my opinion. That could be seriously disruptive and I can see Trump staggering into it by accident.
    Agreed but because he hasn't been put back in his box earlier, it gets harder to do now.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

    May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.
    Are we not already bombing ISIS in Syria? Admittedly in a fairly trivial kind of way?
    We are. Bombing both sides in the same war seems a bit over the top to me.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,151
    edited April 9
    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

    Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.
    To be fair that applies to both parties
    Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

    Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

    The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

    Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.
    To get a majority for either party it almost certainly does require vote switching between the two main parties given the Tories need a lead of at least 3% over Labour for a majority and Labour need a lead of at least 6% over the Tories for a majority.
    Differential turnout makes a big difference.

    I can't find the turnouts for Tory and Labour supporters in GE17 but I seem to remember that the Tory turnout was significantly higher - being more elderly.

    As an illustration. suppose the turnouts were 75% for Tory supporters and 65% for Labour supporters.

    If the number of supporters stays the same (no vote switching) but, for example, the turnouts equalise at 70% because of different levels of motivation, then simple maths shows that the actual result of 42% Tory, 40% Labour changes to 39% Tory, 43% Labour. This is not a prediction. Just an illustration.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    edited April 9
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    I doubt the Russians will do much more than expel a few more diplomats or impose trade sanctions if as is likely all Trump does is lob a few missiles at Assad
    Russia is not in a position to impose trade sanctions on the US. Its small, commodity based economy is much more vulnerable to retaliation. There are reasons why Oligarch related shares were falling so sharply today.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

    May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.
    All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,218

    kle4 said:

    I still think it is more likely that both parties will go into the next election with new leaders than both stick with the same leader.

    Until the leadership questions are settled we are in a phony war.

    That's my favourite kind of war.
    "Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?"
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,110
    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    The Russian threat is massively overblown. Putin seems to be believing his own PR these days and thinks he is much more powerful than he is.

    At the moment the risk of a trade war with China is more serious in my opinion. That could be seriously disruptive and I can see Trump staggering into it by accident.
    The problem is that there are multiple possible flashpoints. Trump evidently doesn't have the temprament to make decisions based on advice.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    edited April 9
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

    Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.
    To be fair that applies to both parties
    Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

    Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

    The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

    Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.
    To get a majority for either party it almost certainly does require vote switching between the two main parties given the Tories need a lead of at least 3% over Labour for a majority and Labour need a lead of at least 6% over the Tories for a majority.
    Differential turnout makes a big difference.

    I can't find the turnouts for Tory and Labour supporters in GE17 but I seem to remember that the Tory turnout was significantly higher - being more elderly.

    As an illustration. suppose the turnouts were 75% for Tory supporters and 65% for Labour supporters.

    If the number of supporters stays the same (no vote switching) but, for example, the turnouts equalise at 70% because of different levels of motivation, then simple maths shows that the actual result of 42% Tory, 40% Labour changes to 39% Tory, 43% Labour. This is not a prediction. Just an illustration.

    Which would still not be enough for a Labour majority.

    Every night canvassing so far I have had at least 1 or 2 Tories mention unprompted how they do not want 'that Marxist' anywhere near power. Corbyn is a great motivator for Tory turnout
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

    May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.
    Are we not already bombing ISIS in Syria? Admittedly in a fairly trivial kind of way?
    We are. Bombing both sides in the same war seems a bit over the top to me.
    Seem to recall it was very profitable in Catch 22.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986
    edited April 9
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

    May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.
    All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground
    A British soldier died last week embedded with US troops in Syria. We already have Boots on the Ground.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    I doubt the Russians will do much more than expel a few more diplomats or impose trade sanctions if as is likely all Trump does is lob a few missiles at Assad
    Russia is not in a position to impose trade sanctions on the US. Its small, commodity based economy is much more vulnerable to retaliation. There are reasons why Oligarch related shares were falling so sharply today.
    Well they will just leave it to the expulsions then
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    nielh said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    Anyone else get the feeling we are sleepwalking in to a catastrophe?
    How could you not have confidence in President Trump? What could possibly go wrong? I am ever more disappointed that McMaster is no longer in the Whitehouse. We need some adults in the room. And I don't mean the Stormy Daniels type either.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 14,584
    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

    Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.
    To be fair that applies to both parties
    Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

    Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

    The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

    Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.
    To get a majority for either party it almost certainly does require vote switching between the two main parties given the Tories need a lead of at least 3% over Labour for a majority and Labour need a lead of at least 6% over the Tories for a majority.
    Differential turnout makes a big difference.

    I can't find the turnouts for Tory and Labour supporters in GE17 but I seem to remember that the Tory turnout was significantly higher - being more elderly.

    As an illustration. suppose the turnouts were 75% for Tory supporters and 65% for Labour supporters.

    If the number of supporters stays the same (no vote switching) but, for example, the turnouts equalise at 70% because of different levels of motivation, then simple maths shows that the actual result of 42% Tory, 40% Labour changes to 39% Tory, 43% Labour. This is not a prediction. Just an illustration.

    Which would still not be enough for a Labour majority.

    Every night canvassing so far I have had at least 1 or 2 Tories mention unprompted how they do not want 'that Marxist' anywhere near power. Corbyn is a great motivator for Tory turnout
    He motivates my wife and I against him in a way no one has done before
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

    May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.
    All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground
    A British soldier died last week embedded with US troops in Syria. We already have Boots on the Ground.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria
    We have a handful of special forces, nothing like the almost 50,000 we had in Iraq or the thousands we had in Afghanistan
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    edited April 9
    Talking of sanctions on Russia I thought that this quote on the BBC was hilarious (even if the BBC seemed to be reporting it straight):

    "The Kremlin slammed the sanctions. "This is an outrageous business from the point of view of illegality, from the point of view of flouting all the norms, and of course careful analysis is needed here," said spokesman Dmitry Peskov."
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,067

    FPT

    Floater said:

    nielh said:

    Reflecting on Russia, I think they have a major credibility problem after what happened in Crimea. Putin got what he wanted without the cost of a conventional war, but the harm to Russia's international reputation was immeasurable. The episode exposed them as completely untrustworthy. This has really come back to haunt them with the Salisbury incident.

    Personally - I thought helping shoot down a civilian airliner was a low point
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
    The difference is, the US admitted to it....

    In 1996, the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident...".As part of the settlement, even though the United States did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran, they still agreed to pay US$61.8 million on an ex gratia basis, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,110
    DavidL said:

    nielh said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    Anyone else get the feeling we are sleepwalking in to a catastrophe?
    How could you not have confidence in President Trump? What could possibly go wrong? I am ever more disappointed that McMaster is no longer in the Whitehouse. We need some adults in the room. And I don't mean the Stormy Daniels type either.
    To my mind, the volatility in the White House means that the risk of a catastrophic conflict is much higher than at any point in the last 70 years.
    On the other hand, at least Trump appears to have been diverted from his apparent admiration for Putin.
    We've still got the North Korea meeting to look forward to.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

    Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.
    To be fair that applies to both parties
    Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

    Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

    The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

    Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.
    To get a majority for either party it almos Tories for a majority.
    Differential turnout makes a big difference.

    I can't find the turnouts for Tory and Labour supporters in GE17 but I seem to remember that the Tory turnout was significantly higher - being more elderly.

    As an illustration. suppose the turnouts were 75% for Tory supporters and 65% for Labour supporters.

    If the number of supporters stays the same (no vote switching) but, for example, the turnouts equalise at 70% because of different levels of motivation, then simple maths shows that the actual result of 42% Tory, 40% Labour changes to 39% Tory, 43% Labour. This is not a prediction. Just an illustration.

    Which would still not be enough for a Labour majority.

    Every night canvassing so far I have had at least 1 or 2 Tories mention unprompted how they do not want 'that Marxist' anywhere near power. Corbyn is a great motivator for Tory turnout
    He motivates my wife and I against him in a way no one has done before
    Certainly he is the biggest driver of Tory turnout since Kinnock and probably even more so than him
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

    Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.
    To be fair that applies to both parties
    Yes it does.

    The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

    Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.
    To get a majority for either party it almost certainly does require vote switching between the two main parties given the Tories need a lead of at least 3% over Labour for a majority and Labour need a lead of at least 6% over the Tories for a majority.
    Differential turnout makes a big difference.

    I can't find the turnouts for Tory and Labour supporters in GE17 but I seem to remember that the Tory turnout was significantly higher - being more elderly.

    As an illustration. suppose the turnouts were 75% for Tory supporters and 65% for Labour supporters.

    If the number of supporters stays the same (no vote switching) but, for example, the turnouts equalise at 70% because of different levels of motivation, then simple maths shows that the actual result of 42% Tory, 40% Labour changes to 39% Tory, 43% Labour. This is not a prediction. Just an illustration.

    Which would still not be enough for a Labour majority.

    Every night canvassing so far I have had at least 1 or 2 Tories mention unprompted how they do not want 'that Marxist' anywhere near power. Corbyn is a great motivator for Tory turnout
    He motivates my wife and I against him in a way no one has done before
    Jezza certainly is Marmite, but Tories canvassing their own voters and ignoring the DNVs was how they got 2017 wrong. Who could vote for a thick, Marxist, terrorist supporting looney? Well the answer was 40% of the Great British Public. The Tories were either wrong about Corbyn, or wrong about the public, or a bit of both.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

    May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.
    All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground
    A British soldier died last week embedded with US troops in Syria. We already have Boots on the Ground.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria
    We have a handful of special forces, nothing like the almost 50,000 we had in Iraq or the thousands we had in Afghanistan
    50,000?? You are having a laugh. We started under 10K and fell to less than half of that. We could not possibly put 50K in the field. We would really struggle with 20K.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,910
    edited April 9
    nielh said:

    To my mind, the volatility in the White House means that the risk of a catastrophic conflict is much higher than at any point in the last 70 years.

    Trump may be the least of your worries.

    https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/bild-international/zapad-2017-english-54233658.bild.html

    Zapad 2017 was neither an “anti-terror exercise” nor “purely defensive”, but a “dry run” for a “full-scale conventional war against NATO in Europe”. According to these sources, the drill rehearsed the capture of the Baltic states (and Belarus) as well as a “shock campaign” against Western European NATO nations such as Germany and the Netherlands, but also against Poland, Norway and the non-aligned states of Sweden and Finland.

    image
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,986
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

    May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.
    All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground
    A British soldier died last week embedded with US troops in Syria. We already have Boots on the Ground.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria
    We have a handful of special forces, nothing like the almost 50,000 we had in Iraq or the thousands we had in Afghanistan
    According to the article, there are 2000 US forces in Syria, with clearly some Brits too.

    The endgame of the Syrian war is likely to be very tough on the remaining rebel enclaves, the Kurds, and their backers.

    Assad is a bastard, but is he worse than the opposition? debateable at worst.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

    Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.
    To be fair that applies to both parties
    Yes it does.

    The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

    Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.
    To get a majority for either party it almost certainly does require vote switching between the two main parties given the Tories need a lead of at least 3% over Labour for a majority and Labour need a lead of at least 6% over the Tories for a majority.
    Differential turnout makes a big difference.

    I can't find the turnouts for Tory and Labour supporters in GE17 but I seem to remember that the Tory turnout was significantly higher - being more elderly.

    As an illustration. suppose the turnouts were 75% for Tory supporters and 65% for Labour supporters.

    If the number of supporters stays the same (no vote switching) but, for example, the turnouts equalise at 70% because of different levels of motivation, then simple maths shows that the actual result of 42% Tory, 40% Labour changes to 39% Tory, 43% Labour. This is not a prediction. Just an illustration.

    Which wout
    He motivates my wife and I against him in a way no one has done before
    Jezza certainly is Marmite, but Tories canvassing their own voters and ignoring the DNVs was how they got 2017 wrong. Who could vote for a thick, Marxist, terrorist supporting looney? Well the answer was 40% of the Great British Public. The Tories were either wrong about Corbyn, or wrong about the public, or a bit of both.
    Actually I have been canvassing plenty of unknowns or previous undecideds too.

    However the question was about Tory turnout and let us not forget the Tory voteshare in 2017 at 42% was the highest since 1983, even if Corbyn managed to get the highest Labour voteshare since 2001 he still got less than the Tory voteshare
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,698
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an snip
    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709

    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much more closely associated with the regime. Hitting some remote and not particularly occupied airfield will not meet the criteria this time. This will of course greatly increase the risk of something going wrong.

    The Russians are about to have their bluff called. If it is not a bluff then there may not be many PB threads left. Yikes! All that time wasted on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

    May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.
    All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground
    A British soldier died last week embedded with US troops in Syria. We already have Boots on the Ground.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria
    If memory serves airstrikes were used on Russian backed militia who were moving towards a joint US / UK spec ops base in Syria.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyoneed up of foreign wars.
    All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground
    A British soldier died last week embedded with US troops in Syria. We already have Boots on the Ground.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria
    We have a handful of special forces, nothing like the almost 50,000 we had in Iraq or the thousands we had in Afghanistan
    According to the article, there are 2000 US forces in Syria, with clearly some Brits too.

    The endgame of the Syrian war is likely to be very tough on the remaining rebel enclaves, the Kurds, and their backers.

    Assad is a bastard, but is he worse than the opposition? debateable at worst.
    Not even Trump is proposing toppling Assad, just giving him a message after massacring 70 civilians
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,151
    nielh said:

    DavidL said:

    nielh said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    .
    Anyone else get the feeling we are sleepwalking in to a catastrophe?
    How could you not have confidence in President Trump? What could possibly go wrong? I am ever more disappointed that McMaster is no longer in the Whitehouse. We need some adults in the room. And I don't mean the Stormy Daniels type either.
    To my mind, the volatility in the White House means that the risk of a catastrophic conflict is much higher than at any point in the last 70 years.
    On the other hand, at least Trump appears to have been diverted from his apparent admiration for Putin.
    We've still got the North Korea meeting to look forward to.
    Trump's volatility and unpredictability could be a plus. I'm reminded of Nixon's "Madman" theory where he got Kissinger to privately let the Soviets and Chinese know that he Nixon was irrational.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

    If Putin and Xi and Kim all think that Trump is slightly crazy they are less likely to go to the edge. With cool rational Obama they knew just how far they could play him. Trump knows this.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/13/donald-trumps-doctrine-unpredictability-world-edge
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

    May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.
    All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground
    A British soldier died last week embedded with US troops in Syria. We already have Boots on the Ground.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria
    We have a handful of special forces, nothing like the almost 50,000 we had in Iraq or the thousands we had in Afghanistan
    50,000?? You are having a laugh. We started under 10K and fell to less than half of that. We could not possibly put 50K in the field. We would really struggle with 20K.
    There are 153,000 total UK armed forces personnel and 46 000 in Iraq at the 2003 peak
    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121203223314/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsFactsheets/OperationsInIraqFactsandFigures.htm
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    Barnesian said:

    nielh said:

    DavidL said:

    nielh said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    .
    Anyone else get the feeling we are sleepwalking in to a catastrophe?
    How could you not have confidence in President Trump? What could possibly go wrong? I am ever more disappointed that McMaster is no longer in the Whitehouse. We need some adults in the room. And I don't mean the Stormy Daniels type either.
    To my mind, the volatility in the White House means that the risk of a catastrophic conflict is much higher than at any point in the last 70 years.
    On the other hand, at least Trump appears to have been diverted from his apparent admiration for Putin.
    We've still got the North Korea meeting to look forward to.
    Trump's volatility and unpredictability could be a plus. I'm reminded of Nixon's "Madman" theory where he got Kissinger to privately let the Soviets and Chinese know that he Nixon was irrational.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

    If Putin and Xi and Kim all think that Trump is slightly crazy they are less likely to go to the edge. With cool rational Obama they knew just how far they could play him. Trump knows this.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/13/donald-trumps-doctrine-unpredictability-world-edge
    That works well when one side is rational. But I have my doubts about Putin too.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,698
    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

    Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.
    To be fair that applies to both parties
    Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

    Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

    The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

    Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.
    To get a majority for either party it almost certainly does require vote switching between the two main parties given the Tories need a lead of at least 3% over Labour for a majority and Labour need a lead of at least 6% over the Tories for a majority.
    Differential turnout makes a big difference.

    I can't find the turnouts for Tory and Labour supporters in GE17 but I seem to remember that the Tory turnout was significantly higher - being more elderly.

    As an illustration. suppose the turnouts were 75% for Tory supporters and 65% for Labour supporters.

    If the number of supporters stays the same (no vote switching) but, for example, the turnouts equalise at 70% because of different levels of motivation, then simple maths shows that the actual result of 42% Tory, 40% Labour changes to 39% Tory, 43% Labour. This is not a prediction. Just an illustration.

    Which would still not be enough for a Labour majority.

    Every night canvassing so far I have had at least 1 or 2 Tories mention unprompted how they do not want 'that Marxist' anywhere near power. Corbyn is a great motivator for Tory turnout
    Neither I or my wife are tories but we are both determined to vote for whomever has best chance of keeping that .... poison ... .from power
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,151
    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    nielh said:

    DavidL said:

    nielh said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did mention the other day that everyone is looking to the Med for action but the US can deploy resources from California via the Pacific if it feels like it.

    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with the Shayrat strike in 2017. He made it clear that any repetition would be dealt with more severely. He's got himself in a bit of a corner and the chances of Russian casualties on the ground are high. It is a dangerous time.
    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    .
    Anyone else get the feeling we are sleepwalking in to a catastrophe?
    How could you not have confidence in President Trump? What could possibly go wrong? I am ever more disappointed that McMaster is no longer in the Whitehouse. We need some adults in the room. And I don't mean the Stormy Daniels type either.
    To my mind, the volatility in the White House means that the risk of a catastrophic conflict is much higher than at any point in the last 70 years.
    On the other hand, at least Trump appears to have been diverted from his apparent admiration for Putin.
    We've still got the North Korea meeting to look forward to.
    Trump's volatility and unpredictability could be a plus. I'm reminded of Nixon's "Madman" theory where he got Kissinger to privately let the Soviets and Chinese know that he Nixon was irrational.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

    If Putin and Xi and Kim all think that Trump is slightly crazy they are less likely to go to the edge. With cool rational Obama they knew just how far they could play him. Trump knows this.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/13/donald-trumps-doctrine-unpredictability-world-edge
    That works well when one side is rational. But I have my doubts about Putin too.
    I think Putin is a master chess player.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 26,691

    FPT

    Floater said:

    nielh said:

    Reflecting on Russia, I think they have a major credibility problem after what happened in Crimea. Putin got what he wanted without the cost of a conventional war, but the harm to Russia's international reputation was immeasurable. The episode exposed them as completely untrustworthy. This has really come back to haunt them with the Salisbury incident.

    Personally - I thought helping shoot down a civilian airliner was a low point
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
    The difference is, the US admitted to it....

    In 1996, the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident...".As part of the settlement, even though the United States did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran, they still agreed to pay US$61.8 million on an ex gratia basis, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims.
    You missed:

    the United States did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Barnesian said:



    I think Putin is a master chess player.

    I think he's better suited to Risk
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    .
    I think that he will be looking for targets much on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyone other than Syrians.

    May needs to be careful. If we get involved militarily in Syria and it goes tits up, it is Jezza that will come out smelling of roses. Britons are fed up of foreign wars.
    All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground
    A British soldier died last week embedded with US troops in Syria. We already have Boots on the Ground.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria
    We have a handful of special forces, nothing like the almost 50,000 we had in Iraq or the thousands we had in Afghanistan
    50,000?? You are having a laugh. We started under 10K and fell to less than half of that. We could not possibly put 50K in the field. We would really struggle with 20K.
    There are 153,000 total UK armed forces personnel and 46 000 in Iraq at the 2003 peak
    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121203223314/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsFactsheets/OperationsInIraqFactsandFigures.htm
    (including those outside of Iraq in support of the operation) it says. So basically including all naval personnel in the area and probably some of those on Cyprus as well. At no time since WW2 have we had "almost 50,000 in Iraq". We simply cannot deploy that kind of force and have not been able to do so for decades.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,110
    Floater said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    e.
    To be fair that applies to both parties
    Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

    Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

    The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

    Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.
    To get a majority for either party it almost certainly does require vote switching between the two main parties given the Tories need a lead of at least 3% over Labour for a majority and Labour need a lead of at least 6% over the Tories for a majority.
    Differential turnout makes a big difference.

    I can't find the turnouts for Tory and Labour supporters in GE17 but I seem to remember that the Tory turnout was significantly higher - being more elderly.

    As an illustration. suppose the turnouts were 75% for Tory supporters and 65% for Labour supporters.

    If the number of supporters stays the same (no vote switching) but, for example, the turnouts equalise at 70% because of different levels of motivation, then simple maths shows that the actual result of 42% Tory, 40% Labour changes to 39% Tory, 43% Labour. This is not a prediction. Just an illustration.

    Which would still not be enough for a Labour majority.

    Every night canvassing so far I have had at least 1 or 2 Tories mention unprompted how they do not want 'that Marxist' anywhere near power. Corbyn is a great motivator for Tory turnout
    Neither I or my wife are tories but we are both determined to vote for whomever has best chance of keeping that .... poison ... .from power
    Yep. And lots of former labour voters will vote conservative for that reason.
    I suspect though that they will be outnumbered by the number of people who are unconcerned by the prospect of a Corbyn led government, and different factors altogether will influence their decision.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,867
    edited April 9

    nielh said:

    To my mind, the volatility in the White House means that the risk of a catastrophic conflict is much higher than at any point in the last 70 years.

    Trump may be the least of your worries.

    https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/bild-international/zapad-2017-english-54233658.bild.html

    Zapad 2017 was neither an “anti-terror exercise” nor “purely defensive”, but a “dry run” for a “full-scale conventional war against NATO in Europe”. According to these sources, the drill rehearsed the capture of the Baltic states (and Belarus) as well as a “shock campaign” against Western European NATO nations such as Germany and the Netherlands, but also against Poland, Norway and the non-aligned states of Sweden and Finland.

    image
    One wonders, is Putin being advised by General Orlov?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750
    Floater said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Corbyn did well to get his vote to 40% by uniting the leftwing vote behind him, getting Labour to the 43% he needs for an overall majority though will be a much harder task, for that he has to convert 2017 Tories to his party

    Quite clearly, he doesn't have to do anything of the sort. There are 17% of votes up for grabs that were not for either of the big 2 parties last time, on top of any direct switchers from the Tories.

    Then there are potential new voters, previous non voters, lower turnout by 2017 Tory voters, or combinatuons of all of the above.
    To be fair that applies to both parties
    Yes it does. But it doesn't require vote switching between the two main parties as HYUFD suggests. I think vote switching to any significant degree is unlikely.

    Motivation and differential turnout will be key. A desire for change is a big motivator for Labour supporters. Strong and Stable and Long Term Economic Plan is not such a big motivator for Tory supporters though Stop Corbyn will be. Stop Moggsy or Boris could be a big motivator too.

    The other difference will be the ground and social media operation which will favour Labour.

    Salisbury and anti-antisemitism will be just as ineffective (yawn) as friend of the IRA and Hamas was.
    To get a majority for either party it almost certainly does require vote switching between the two main parties given the Tories need a lead of at least 3% over Labour for a majority and Labour need a lead of at least 6% over the Tories for a majority.
    Differential turnout makes a big difference.

    I can't find the turnouts for Tory and Labour supporters in GE17 but I seem to remember that the Tory turnout was significantly higher - being more elderly.

    As an illustration. suppose the turnouts were 75% for Tory supporters and 65% for Labour supporters.

    If the number of suppor% Labour changes to 39% Tory, 43% Labour. This is not a prediction. Just an illustration.

    Which would still not be enough for a Labour majority.

    Every night canvassing so far I have had at least 1 or 2 Tories mention unprompted how they do not want 'that Marxist' anywhere near power. Corbyn is a great motivator for Tory turnout
    Neither I or my wife are tories but we are both determined to vote for whomever has best chance of keeping that .... poison ... .from power
    Yes, Corbyn polarises opinion dramatically
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,151

    Barnesian said:



    I think Putin is a master chess player.

    I think he's better suited to Risk
    :) You need allies in Risk. Who are Putin's allies? Iran. Syria. He's weak but he's good at bluff and asymmetric warfare.

    I might try putting all the world's various alliances on a Risk board to see what it looks like.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,218
    RobD said:

    nielh said:

    To my mind, the volatility in the White House means that the risk of a catastrophic conflict is much higher than at any point in the last 70 years.

    Trump may be the least of your worries.

    https://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/bild-international/zapad-2017-english-54233658.bild.html

    Zapad 2017 was neither an “anti-terror exercise” nor “purely defensive”, but a “dry run” for a “full-scale conventional war against NATO in Europe”. According to these sources, the drill rehearsed the capture of the Baltic states (and Belarus) as well as a “shock campaign” against Western European NATO nations such as Germany and the Netherlands, but also against Poland, Norway and the non-aligned states of Sweden and Finland.

    image
    One wonders, is Putin being advised by General Orlov?
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,147
    edited April 9
    Context:

    I posted a few weeks back there was internal debate with the US administration over whether to launch some kind of strike over renewed and increasingly blatant use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime from January 2018. This hasn't come out of nowhere even though from public perception point of view its landed in the space of a few days because we had a particularly notable event.

    At the time of that debate the most against it was James Mattis, the US Secretary of Defense and a man who believes that if you are going to use violence, you use it properly and like all military men can be very wary of military force being used without clear objectives. His comments today perhaps give best indication of sway.

    After the April 17 strike, reported and confirmed chemical weapons use dropped away dramatically and was very small scale until the turn of the year.

    Just one note about Trump's decision making. There was a lot of talk back in 2017 that his daughter had a major influence on him in the decision to strike.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 26,691
    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did m
    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyoneed up of foreign wars.
    All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground
    A British soldier died last week embedded with US troops in Syria. We already have Boots on the Ground.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria
    We have a handful of special forces, nothing like the almost 50,000 we had in Iraq or the thousands we had in Afghanistan
    According to the article, there are 2000 US forces in Syria, with clearly some Brits too.

    The endgame of the Syrian war is likely to be very tough on the remaining rebel enclaves, the Kurds, and their backers.

    Assad is a bastard, but is he worse than the opposition? debateable at worst.
    Not even Trump is proposing toppling Assad, just giving him a message after massacring 70 civilians
    What are the odds that Trump's air strikes will kill more than 70 civilians?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 26,691

    Barnesian said:



    I think Putin is a master chess player.

    I think he's better suited to Risk
    Tic Tac Toe :lol:
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    How is Corbyn actually too stupid to realise that his alignment with the Kremlin line since Salisbury would reinforce all of the most potent criticism previously levelled against him?

    Surely this means either he's too thick to tie his shoelaces, or he's scared that Putin will release the old tapes of him in East Germany?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819

    FPT

    Floater said:

    nielh said:

    Reflecting on Russia, I think they have a major credibility problem after what happened in Crimea. Putin got what he wanted without the cost of a conventional war, but the harm to Russia's international reputation was immeasurable. The episode exposed them as completely untrustworthy. This has really come back to haunt them with the Salisbury incident.

    Personally - I thought helping shoot down a civilian airliner was a low point
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
    The difference is, the US admitted to it....

    In 1996, the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement "...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident...".As part of the settlement, even though the United States did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran, they still agreed to pay US$61.8 million on an ex gratia basis, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims.
    You missed:

    the United States did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran
    I don't think the money has actually been paid either. I think it has been held up by various sanction regimes imposed on Iran since the agreement was reached. My daughter is a keen participant in model UN and they had a scenario based on this a few months ago.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,750

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    DavidL said:

    Barnesian said:

    Y0kel said:

    The mood music out of Washington is suggesting something substantive regarding Syria, not a 50 missile hit. Bear in mind the US has an unparalleled ability to bring resources to bear in a sustained manner. I did m
    Still in Trumpton its hard to know. At this point the rhetoric is such that someone is going to look stupid if one side backs down without a whimper or what we get is a token.

    Trump will be feeling very aggressive and emotional following the raid on his lawyer's office just now. Not good.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43706709
    He set the bar with
    Unless the Russians are bluffing they threaten "grave consequences" if USA acts again.

    Hard to see how he doesn't act though.

    I also wonder if the latest legal news tonight might make him think in a Clintonesque way - which ups the likelihood.

    Yokel generally provides accurate info, he said earlier that it looks like the US response will be beyond a missile strike.

    Very helpful of the Israelis to light up the local air defence at a time when up to date information will be critical to the US planners.

    I think that he will be looking for targets much on Brexit....
    Mankind survived Cuba - this might get unpleasant but hopefully not as bad as that time.
    Syria is not worth going to war over, for anyoneed up of foreign wars.
    All that will happen at most is a few airstrikes, nobody, including Trump, is talking boots on the ground
    A British soldier died last week embedded with US troops in Syria. We already have Boots on the Ground.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/30/british-soldier-killed-explosion-syria
    We have a handful of special forces, nothing like the almost 50,000 we had in Iraq or the thousands we had in Afghanistan
    According to the article, there are 2000 US forces in Syria, with clearly some Brits too.

    The endgame of the Syrian war is likely to be very tough on the remaining rebel enclaves, the Kurds, and their backers.

    Assad is a bastard, but is he worse than the opposition? debateable at worst.
    Not even Trump is proposing toppling Assad, just giving him a message after massacring 70 civilians
    What are the odds that Trump's air strikes will kill more than 70 civilians?
    A bit too high for comfort unfortunately
This discussion has been closed.