peterw

I think it may depend if peter Bone decides to run as an independent as that may squeeze the Tory vote. Plus its going to be in the winter which will potentially further squeeze the 'blue rinsed brigade vote'. If Labour say the right things and show their faces enough they could take the by-election.

If only it was that easy. its nigh on impossible to engage with the actors on the ground and in the area without a series of 'whataboutery' and one side not taking responsibility but blaming the other for any of their own actions. This then spreads to the wider diaspora and whether even by 'neutral' you take a state-centric stance that a state under attack has the right to defend itself. This is all taking sides (without wanting either side to necessarily win, or demonising the side). Its virtually impossible to look at what s going on through the lens of total impartiality and offering balanced commentary.

Wales 24- 12 Argentina Ireland 12- 18 NZ England 24 - 20 Fiji France 9 - 18 SA I just think Ireland have been playing almost too well and that's hard to replicate throughout the WC. I'd like to see them win it (after England, but thanks to a fortunate draw we could get to the semis before a hiding) but I don't think they will. The biggest intrigue will be FRA - ZAF. France will probably be favourites but i have a sneaky feeling that South Africa will win the tournament. No doubt the semis will now be Argentina v Ireland and Fiji v France.

There is the chance that a Trump presidency may benefit Ukraine. A small chance admittedly. trump cares for no-one other than a legacy for himself and having to gain adoration. His folly with Kim Jong On was based wholly on him receiving accolades and (Nobel) prizes for saving the world from itself. Hs narcissistic tendencies have played themselves out over the past few years and I see any involvement with Russia through the same lens. He said he'd be able to end the war in 24 hours but that doesn't necessarily mean he'd give in to russia. He's a businessman first and foremost and he looks at everything like a business deal - he doesn't fully get international relations but he may be as best placed as anyone to see what deal may be acceptable. You may argue, and it would be valid, that why would anyone come to the table when nothing new is being offered, however this is the President of the US and carries a lot more sway than anyone else that has entered the talks on the future. There is a deal to be done and I think the it is on Crimea. Ukraine may have to renounce all claims to the territory for Russia to withdraw. There will also probably be some level of autonomy for Donbass. Ukraine may not like it, and as Russia does not hold all of that territory it cannot claim it as being Russian either. No NATO expansion into Ukraine may also need to be agreed, although EU accession also need to be accepted by Russia. The starting point needs to be the end of hostilities and Russian withdrawal, although that is unlikely. The end point is how much Zelenskiy thinks he can continue fighting, and by that stage does he think he'll have a better hand to bargain with then, or now.

The draw is what it is, don't forget that back in 2013 (I'm not too sure) England were in a group with Wales and Australia when all 3 were strong. It happens. I think though, that there should be groups of 6 groups 4 and not 4 of 5. Top two qualify automatically and top qualifies automatically and best placed next two. It sounds rubbish as I'm typing it though.

I think the wider context of what this means to Jews who aren't in israel is often overlooked in this. I've had it mentioned by a work colleague, but also David Baddiel highlighted it last night on the BBC podcast that is aired after Newsnight. He pointed out that whenever there are attacks against israel it becomes a real safety concern for all Jews as rates of attacks against them increases. They are almost pulled into the debate about Israel even if they have no direct link with the country because everyone associates every Jewish person with every act that Israel is involved in or when attacked. He points out that is past religion and is racial, because as an atheist someone looking to hard someone who is Jewish wouldn't care if they're practicing or not. Its also noteworthy that he is referred to as Jewish without context of his own atheism. It is difficult to approach this without taking sides. Hamas have been barbarous, and Israel are going to you'd imagine inflict deaths on many more civilians. Its a never ending cycle and the only hope is that Hamas are destroyed, that the Palestinian Authority do have leadership that is open and accountable, that Israel is lead by someone willing to see and treat Palestinians as equals, and that there is genuine will for the two state system. However, that looks as far away now as it ever has.

They are at the next election but will probably still be second and they will bounce back. When Blair was winning elections by massive amounts the conversation similarly was of the Conservatives being a spent force and the Party splintering into two or more factions, and their electability had gone. Like wise Labour under Corbyn and in the aftermath of the last election. The major parties will unite after a drubbing and maintain their base support which solidifies when their is chance of power. The Conservative's problems haven't just been from Johnson and Truss but the inevitable climax made worse by those two, that Osborne and Cameron perpetrated not in 2010, but in 2015. Continuing an austerity programme was unnecessary and purely political whilst allowing Brexit to tear the country in two. The last 8 years have been a disaster and they will pay for it next year. But the hope for them is that someone electable and sensible like Penny Mourdant will take the reins and get them moving as one group rather than the infighting that is so glaringly obvious as just positioning for power from cabinet members.

Lactose free substitutes. I used to get migraines back in the day but they stopped more or less the same time the body decided to become lactose intolerant. Now I have to check everything for milk in the ingredients. But the thing that pees me off more than anything is when you get milk substitutes, I mean I'm virtually vegan when it comes to restaurants and takeaways and even that isn't that much of an issue compared to going to a Costa, or sandwich places, cinema or anywhere serving refreshments. When it comes to asking for lactose free milk they give you a million and one shitty vegan options - soya, oat, coconut, belt, table and all sorts of other shi*e. I once tried to suggest to one establishment that there was lactose free milk, which is normal milk without the lactose and maybe that could also stock that. Returned at a later date and its still the same old shi*e.

Going back to the question of Labour's position and who they are appealing to. Quite often we hear about Labour's traditional support but without any real understanding or analysis of who that is. I would wager that there are many people whose socio-economic position would put them outside of the image of a traditional working-class person; however why should they be. The labour party of the early 1900s, and the demographic that it represented has largely disappeared and that should be celebrated as a good thing. Worker's rights have been largely protected, housing and welfare no longer a major contribution to illnesses and deaths of millions, and poverty to be no longer a accepted by product of society but an ill to fight against. Those growing up in a working-classes background/family are likely now to be homeowners, car owners, have holidays, and live with mod cons and a lot more comfortable than those even 40 or 50 years ago. Those people may not be in the inner cities but the suburbs, but are still Labour voters. They still have the Labour tenets running true to how they see society expanding and developing. Just because someone is now earning 40 or £50 000 pa does not mean they are not what is now traditional. Like culture it moves on to its new true. Labour appealing to that demographic is not an abandoning of anybody but it becoming a modern day Labour party to represent the many peoples that have grown out the tough working-classes beginnings. It is also worth noting that those even more so on the left only veer towards the Labour party when they need it, as a vehicle for their agenda. There is nothing wrong with that but it has limited mass appeal, and clearly less people voting for that labour party demonstrates that the party's core support may well not be this far left leaning 'traditional' image that is becoming hackneyed. Same as not every Conservative voter is a land-owning toff that does not care for the worse off in society. I sometimes do not get the identity crisis that exists amongst some of Labour's support. That Starmer does not represent them. that he is Tory-lite. That he does not represent true labour. Well, yes he does. He represents Labour of the late 20th and early 20th century. the Labour that only lost power because Cameron's charm and the banking crisis condemned it to the political wilderness. Starmer does stand for labour and for many of its supporters. those that aren't hard-up, that aren't on the poverty line, but whose family were once there and they appear to be the majority.

The selection of Phillips tells us all that you need o know about Southgate. His justification for selecting him is that Phillips is one of a few players that play in that double pivot and there aren't many players behind him doing it at other clubs. Which is absolutely fair enough. Which should also scream out to any coach or manager that you have to adapt your system to suit the players that you do have, not shoehorn everyone into the one style that you have that has had no success anywhere, and where his rigidity shines a light squarely on him. Quite simply, if you don't have the players for the double pivot, don't play it. In the middle of the midfield we have Rice, Bellingham, Henderson (for now), Mount to come back at some point you'd think (unless he's on a Dele Alli spiral), Maddison, Gallagher (whether you like him or not), Ward-Prowse, and so on (that's not discounting Ramsey but he's injured and has yet to be capped). So the alternative options are there. That he wants to think of just his system first, which is one of trying not lose shows that he is rigid and scared to go for it on the pitch. He is a lsoer as a player, as a club manager, and now as an international manager. Why he is still in a job is beyond me.

Again, i doubt you'll see anything in terms of what would appear, or called by the press, 'radical'. That would only appear in a manifesto at the end of a first term of government.

Individually it is possible but the costs involved in trying to renationalise all of the companies is so exorbitant to not be practicable as it stands. It doesn't mean that it would be preferable to keep things as they are, but the funds just aren't there to be able to cover those kind of costs. Also, the markets would be absolutely spooked if Labour were to openly say that they were to renationalise and the lack of investment would cause a panic similar to Truss times. I agree that an incremental change would be preferable but that could take many many years. Also, what is in it for Labour (using them as a case study on this thread)? This side of an election the right-wing press would crucify them and knowing the sway they have it would also lead to more 'loony left' 'no idea about the economy' slogans which have been used and stick in the minds of voters. At this point in time people still question Labour and economics despite a decade of Osborne/austerity/Truss , and so with a fragile balancing act it serves Starmer no use to bring this up now. In a second term in power maybe, but not yet. I don't think you'll find (m)any people that would disagree with your thoughts or sentiments but its how you strategize from a Labour perspective. Don't give your opponents any length of rope or try to appeal to their core base? I think the latter doesn't win an election whereas even now the former leads to accusations of weakness but is what Labour need in the long run-up to the General Election.

But your suggestion - from what i can see - is to just renationalise? Although I get where you're coming from it is not just possible for a government to take over contracts that are own by industry, as the markets would frown and there would be financial penalties for doing so, both in real terms and in terms of the UK seen as a place to invest. Where there have been examples of govt intervention it is usually the result of catastrophic failure or operators becoming financially incapable of honouring the existing contract. There is also the problem of fragmentation. There are roughly 25-30 water companies in the UK, and not all of whom are polluting waterways, so it wouldn't be practicable to nationalise the water industry, nor would it be practicable to part nationalise. Something needs to be done, yes, but to suggest nationalising is just as simply as saying it without acknowledging the associated costs of trying to do it, is where the argument for it weakens.

small compared to what France and Germany inflicted - which was occupation of Moscow and major cities but I take your point. As for the pact it was a non-aggression pact rather being allies in the conventional sense, and even if they were allies that was soon turned on its head.

I agree that they have the right to join NATO. Russia has hardly a leg to stand on when they invaded (by and large) eastern europe to create the buffer zone. But that buffer zone was created because of Nazi Germany (and to a degree napoleon's invasion). The more that join NATO the better as it puts the pressure on but it also backs him into an entrenched corner in Ukraine as he now cannot back down. This won't finish on the battlefield so the next question at some point is what should be done to end the conflict. Yes Russia should withdraw but that's not happening any time soon is it? As for the willingness of those countries to join NATO again that is entirely up to them, but it wouldn't have happened without US approval in effect, and the US would have been happy to creep closer to Russia's borders despite saying that wouldn't expand eastwards. Again, those countries have the right to join and get the security assurances from whoever they want, but its naive to think it was not a move on the US part to apply pressure on Russia.

I completely agree and domestically he is acting as a totalitarian despot, and what comes with that is what you entail. On the foreign front though he tends to be more calculated which makes his invasion of Ukraine even more odd as there can never be a good end to it for either side. he seems dug in now for the long-term to try and wear the west's interest and patience down. We can only hope that the US maintains the same level of interest and patience as he is showing.

Only the big historic ones of France and Nazi Germany. There are many other small incursions.

A cheap back-up that has plenty of Prem experience, wouldn't cost a packet and would come? How about Iheanacho at Leicester? Would know that he'd be on the bench for a while but would be a threat from the bench when needed. Imagine him v Hibs next week also instead of Watkins - you've fancy him to notch. Also, he'd be a perfect role model for Duran, both having left their countries and come from a different continent and culture in their teens. Duran could learn from him. He'd probably cost less than the reported Archer fee.

Russia has been attacked twice from the west with the intention of invading and occupying so you can understand the leadership creating a national psyche of unease of being attacked further. Of course, the current government will use any propaganda that they have to use it for their own benefit, but there's also no doubt that those in the west will try and unsettle and needle Russia at every given opportunity. As for Russia thinking NATO won't attack directly that's undoubtedly true, but they do fear that NATO (and US in particular) want to see the Russian federation break up as domestic chaos will result in a decline in their international influence. That is particularly pertinent in the relationship with Iran, Syria, and across Africa and in latin America where US influence (and the west as a result) is opening opportunities for an anti-western liberal democracy bloc to re-emerge very similar in outlook to Cold War days. It will also put pressure on China to consider its alignments in the world. It is an absolute priority to attempt to isolate Russia and reducing their sphere of influence in Eastern Europe was one step in that direction. This was done purely to act as a threat to Russia (more perceived maybe but it was an assertion of power when Russia was relatively weak). At that point there was no threat to Europe from Russia so you have to ask why you think a 'defensive alliance' such as NATO would need to creep closer to the Russian border knowing the reaction from Moscow. Up to the Maidan revolution Putin had in effect buffer zone on his western flank of the small Baltic states, Belarus and Ukraine. Finland was non-aligned and he undoubtedly didn't foresee them joining NATO. From those seeds we then got to a point of Putin justifying contravening Chapter 6 of the UN Charter, and using Responsibility to Protect (R2P) as a vehicle for the invasion of Ukraine (which began in 2014). Russia will pay in the long-term because the normative values of human security and human rights that are part of the international system mean that states aren't free to invade without consequence. China also has a policy of non-intervention and accepting sovereign borders which puts them in a tricky position with Russia, and BRICS espouses the same non-intervention unless absolutely clear the end objective is clear. This just has to be ridden through and unfortunately it means more deaths on the front line and in Ukraine (and some in Russia too), but Putin is calculating, and knowing this it has to be questioned what the motivation really was. He's not the evil demon as painted in the west, and nor is he protecting (Russian speaking) people in Ukraine as painted by Russian media, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Hopefully the war will be done before the US Election 2024, because the loss of US support would be catastrophic for Ukraine.

Nah, it will be the still beating heart of anyone who crossed him in getting the deal done, with blood dripping down the sides of his mouth.

I remember around my late teens saying 'top' a lot as an adjective that would describe the excellence of whatever was the main noun in focus. My phase abruptly stopped and i realised I wasn't being cool when I pronounce "top hat" to much confusion. I sounded a tit then as much as i do now recalling it.

The deal will be publicised and when it finally is we'll be falling over ourselves to opine at, "that's Monchi for you, right there". He'll have played a blinder somewhere, we just do not know it yet.

I mean, I'm no scientist, or science expert, but we can put people into space, give them somewhere to live up there, we can collide and split atoms and other particles, and we can save people with medicinal technology. So, we're quite cool as a species with engineering and stuff. Right, okay. So, why can't we build a big tube and point it at the sky, so when we have a build up of dark grey clouds we can just blow them away. Maybe a day or two of rain but a whole summer? Sod that, blow the bloody clouds away and we can be warm rather than wet. Surely that's not beyond reason?

You could of course just as easily argue this the other way, would Russia have invaded if NATO hadn't have put bases on their borders (as they see it) and threatening their security? There needs to be a long-term solution which to be is at UN level that would see how we can prevent going forward, as this needs to just play out for now as the two sides have entrenched positions that have gone on for too long for either to walk away. i think there needs to be a reform of the UNSC and in these types of particular cases (under the guise of R2P) a form of arbitration is needed. This is separate to the criminal prosecution seen through the ICC, and the ideal of justice for those citizens that have been terrorized through the form of aggression perpetrated. The arbitration body needs to be comprised of not only local actors that may understand the situation that resulted in the aggression commencing, but also covered by wider geopolitical groups. In that regard it would act as a body that could feed a decision into the current P5, that would rubberstamp its conclusion. The arbitration body would therefore have ten permanent seats and two non-permanent to be made of the local ‘involved’ actors. The ten permanent members would be split equally across global groupings. 2 from West Europe/North America, 2 from Latin America, 2 from Eastern Europe (covering the central Asian republics), 2 from Asia, and 2 from Africa. The two countries would be voted in by their individual regions and serve for a stipulated period. The proposals of the arbitration bloc would be debated in the General Assembly for approval, and any suggested amendments sent back to the arbitration group. An approval would need 2/3 in favour and a resolution would immediately be passed. If that resolution included the use of force then it would need to go to the P5. At that stage the P5 would debate the resolution and the use of a veto would be permissible; however, the vetoing state would have to explain why the veto has been used, and at that point it would go back to the arbitration group. The arbitration group would have to work on the resolution with the veto having been expressed, and an updated proposal then brought to the General Assembly, and then P5. This process would be followed a statuted number of times and should there not be an agreed resolution then the final decision goes back to the General Assembly where a 75% approval of those voting yes or no, would be needed to pass the final resolution which would by-pass the veto from the P5. If not reached, then that approval rate would drop to 65 or 70% needed to pass a resolution. If still not passed the resolution is defeated.