politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At 4-1 the CON most votes/LAB most seats bet is still the b

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At 4-1 the CON most votes/LAB most seats bet is still the best GE2015 punt

My current reading is that UKIP returnees will gradually boost CON shares while LAB will retain almost all the 2010 LD switchers which has been the bed-rock of their polling for nearly four years.

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

I'm on these bets for a while, with Ladbrokes and Paddy Power.

8/1 I think on Con most votes/Lab most seats.

TheScreamingEagles

I'm coming to the conclusion, that if we do have a hung parliament, there's not going to be a viable coalition, ie both Con + LD or Lab + LD will be less than 325.

What happens then?

GIN1138

A sizzling Saturday night in mid-summer.

#passmethepimms

YossariansChild

FPT
@HurstLlama

You make a good point about the variation in tactics that is perhaps worth reflecting on. In contrast to the stereotype of the inflexible British General in fact in the British Army of WW1 Battalion commanders had a wide degree of latitude in their tactics. Impressively the British Army then learned from differing approaches and reflected those lessons the next time it saw action. - An example here is the "Russian Sap" a trench leading into 'no-mans land' to act as a staging post prior to attacking the German first line. Some Battalion commanders used this, others did not. After read AAR (After Action Reports) it became clear that when "Russian saps" has been used success had been greater than in sections where they had not. Next time they would be used across all formation. The British Army of WW1 was not the inflexible monolith of Blackadder. It was a flexible, innovative and by 1918 the most successful army in the field.

And now dinner, anon.

Scrapheap_as_was

Soldado as PL top scorer and Tory Maj of 25+.

Easy.

Time for another pimms.

Morris_Dancer

Good evening, everyone.

Mr. Eagles, then, the enormo-haddock strike!

Just watched the qualifying highlights. Magnussen's definitely starting from the pit lane, Hamilton probably will. Not sure who goes first.

That's significantly worse for Hamilton, because it means he'll miss the opportunity to mug half a dozen slower cars at the start. Interesting that everyone seems to think he'll struggle to make headway. Hard to overtake at Hungary but his car's a monster.

Anyway, time to start work on the pre-race piece.

GIN1138

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm coming to the conclusion, that if we do have a hung parliament, there's not going to be a viable coalition, ie both Con + LD or Lab + LD will be less than 325.

What happens then?

Don't know, but anybody with shares, investments or a business will be worried.

Suspect whoever has most seats will spend a few months running a minority administration (i.e. all opposition parties agree to abstain in first Queens Speech) and we have another election in October 2015?

woody662

I'm on at 8-1 which I'm happy with. Things are pointing towards a 3-4% Tory lead come election day with remarkably few conservative to labour swing voters.

Wonder what result av would have given!!

HurstLlama

YossariansChild said:

FPT
@HurstLlama

You make a good point about the variation in tactics that is perhaps worth reflecting on. In contrast to the stereotype of the inflexible British General in fact in the British Army of WW1 Battalion commanders had a wide degree of latitude in their tactics. Impressively the British Army then learned from differing approaches and reflected those lessons the next time it saw action. - An example here is the "Russian Sap" a trench leading into 'no-mans land' to act as a staging post prior to attacking the German first line. Some Battalion commanders used this, others did not. After read AAR (After Action Reports) it became clear that when "Russian saps" has been used success had been greater than in sections where they had not. Next time they would be used across all formation. The British Army of WW1 was not the inflexible monolith of Blackadder. It was a flexible, innovative and by 1918 the most successful army in the field.

And now dinner, anon.

You are absolutely correct, Mr. Child. However, you mustn't go around speaking the truth even on here. It is not what people, even TSE with whom I had credited more sense, want to hear.

GIN1138

I see that the first Thursday of October 2015 is October 1st.

Thursday 1st October 2015 seems a good date to hold a second election?

peter_from_putney

I took this bet also, at odds of 6/1 iirc. Given the current share of the vote between the other parties (incl the LibDems), the attraction of this bet is that it is likely to deliver were the Tories to win between 34.5% - 37.5% or thereabouts which appears to be quite a likely outcome, or at least more than 20% likely, which is what odds of 4/1 would suggest.
This is precisely the type of bet where OGH is ace at spotting not only a winning opportunity, but also great value. Ask him how many seats the LibDems will lose and his judgement might become a little more suspect!

TheScreamingEagles

HurstLlama said:

YossariansChild said:

FPT
@HurstLlama

You make a good point about the variation in tactics that is perhaps worth reflecting on. In contrast to the stereotype of the inflexible British General in fact in the British Army of WW1 Battalion commanders had a wide degree of latitude in their tactics. Impressively the British Army then learned from differing approaches and reflected those lessons the next time it saw action. - An example here is the "Russian Sap" a trench leading into 'no-mans land' to act as a staging post prior to attacking the German first line. Some Battalion commanders used this, others did not. After read AAR (After Action Reports) it became clear that when "Russian saps" has been used success had been greater than in sections where they had not. Next time they would be used across all formation. The British Army of WW1 was not the inflexible monolith of Blackadder. It was a flexible, innovative and by 1918 the most successful army in the field.

And now dinner, anon.

You are absolutely correct, Mr. Child. However, you mustn't go around speaking the truth even on here. It is not what people, even TSE with whom I had credited more sense, want to hear.

I'm sorry, my knowledge of the First World War is coloured by reading Alan Clark's book.

I just read about some of the casualties in some of the engagements and think, there's a pattern here.

TheScreamingEagles

GIN1138 said:

I see that the first Thursday of October 2015 is October 1st.

Thursday 1st October 2015 seems a good date to hold a second election?

But what about the fixed term parliament act?

isam

Anyone seen the Paul Newman film 'Hombre'?

TheScreamingEagles

peter_from_putney said:

I took this bet also, at odds of 6/1 iirc. Given the current share of the vote between the other parties (incl the LibDems), the attraction of this bet is that it is likely to deliver were the Tories to win between 34.5% - 37.5% or thereabouts which appears to be quite a likely outcome, or at least more than 20% likely, which is what odds of 4/1 would suggest.
This is precisely the type of bet where OGH is ace at spotting not only a winning opportunity, but also great value. Ask him how many seats the LibDems will lose and his judgement might become a little more suspect!

I think the 7/4 Shadsy is offering on 31-40 LD seats seems about right.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, I believe it gets discounted if no Queen's Speech gets passed. Besides, which party would want to vote against repealing it if an election was necessary? They might as well tattoo "Coward" on their foreheads.

peter_from_putney

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm coming to the conclusion, that if we do have a hung parliament, there's not going to be a viable coalition, ie both Con + LD or Lab + LD will be less than 325.

What happens then?

In those circs the SNP and Plaid would throw their left wing weight behind Labour, giving them another 10 seats or thereabouts and Miliband would pay whatever price is demanded.

hucks67

If Israel continue to breach international law on proportionaility, then I can see friendly countries start to openly criticise them. Surely Cameron/Hammond must be very close to making statements condeming Israeli actions.

HurstLlama

TheScreamingEagles said:

HurstLlama said:

YossariansChild said:

FPT
@HurstLlama

You make a good point about the variation in tactics that is perhaps worth reflecting on. In contrast to the stereotype of the inflexible British General in fact in the British Army of WW1 Battalion commanders had a wide degree of latitude in their tactics. Impressively the British Army then learned from differing approaches and reflected those lessons the next time it saw action. - An example here is the "Russian Sap" a trench leading into 'no-mans land' to act as a staging post prior to attacking the German first line. Some Battalion commanders used this, others did not. After read AAR (After Action Reports) it became clear that when "Russian saps" has been used success had been greater than in sections where they had not. Next time they would be used across all formation. The British Army of WW1 was not the inflexible monolith of Blackadder. It was a flexible, innovative and by 1918 the most successful army in the field.

And now dinner, anon.

You are absolutely correct, Mr. Child. However, you mustn't go around speaking the truth even on here. It is not what people, even TSE with whom I had credited more sense, want to hear.

I'm sorry, my knowledge of the First World War is coloured by reading Alan Clark's book.

I just read about some of the casualties in some of the engagements and think, there's a pattern here.

Fair enough, Mr. Eagles. In your professional life I expect you don't believe everything a client tells you, even less a witness. Why you should take as gospel the writings of someone like Clark and think it worth repeating, well, the mind boggles.

TheScreamingEagles

peter_from_putney said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm coming to the conclusion, that if we do have a hung parliament, there's not going to be a viable coalition, ie both Con + LD or Lab + LD will be less than 325.

What happens then?

In those circs the SNP and Plaid would throw their left wing weight behind Labour, giving them another 10 seats or thereabouts and Miliband would pay whatever price is demanded.

I can't see a rainbow coalition featuring the Nats lasting very long

peter_from_putney

TheScreamingEagles said:

peter_from_putney said:

I took this bet also, at odds of 6/1 iirc. Given the current share of the vote between the other parties (incl the LibDems), the attraction of this bet is that it is likely to deliver were the Tories to win between 34.5% - 37.5% or thereabouts which appears to be quite a likely outcome, or at least more than 20% likely, which is what odds of 4/1 would suggest.
This is precisely the type of bet where OGH is ace at spotting not only a winning opportunity, but also great value. Ask him how many seats the LibDems will lose and his judgement might become a little more suspect!

I think the 7/4 Shadsy is offering on 31-40 LD seats seems about right.

Yes I agree, with the risk on the downside - Fisher for example has them winning just < 30 seats.

Morris_Dancer

Betting Post

Still writing the piece, but the bet will be backing Red Bull to top score (Ladbrokes) 3.5.

Really rather hot here. Might be heat addled nonsense, but I reserve the right to call it a cunning call if it proves green.

TheScreamingEagles

Iff we're all of the opinion that Nick Clegg is safe until the election, then the 1/5 that Ladbrokes offer on Clegg being Lib Dem leader at the General election should be taken.

20% return in less than one year.

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, I believe it gets discounted if no Queen's Speech gets passed. Besides, which party would want to vote against repealing it if an election was necessary? They might as well tattoo "Coward" on their foreheads.

Maybe, maybe not

TCPoliticalBetting

peter_from_putney said:

... This is precisely the type of bet where OGH is ace at spotting not only a winning opportunity, but also great value. Ask him how many seats the LibDems will lose and his judgement might become a little more suspect!

OGH "The Tories, however, are going to struggle to win many of the LD seats that national swing calculations suggest they will. "
What is many? The losses are starting to look like 30 overall split 50/50 with 15 Conservatives and 15 Lab/SNP.
That is if "LAB will retain almost all the 2010 LD switchers".
The LDs have 10 retirement/deselections so far. 7 look to be lost.

stodge

Evening all

No argument re: the thread header - it clearly represents value and was even better at 8s.

Back to WW1 - the other key element was the much higher level of civilian casualties in WW2 but attacks on civilian targets were expected as was the widespread use of gas. The German attacks on Hartlepool and the first air raids in WW1 were completely unexpected and caused panic as well as high death tolls.

TheScreamingEagles

HurstLlama said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HurstLlama said:

YossariansChild said:

FPT
@HurstLlama

You make a good point about the variation in tactics that is perhaps worth reflecting on. In contrast to the stereotype of the inflexible British General in fact in the British Army of WW1 Battalion commanders had a wide degree of latitude in their tactics. Impressively the British Army then learned from differing approaches and reflected those lessons the next time it saw action. - An example here is the "Russian Sap" a trench leading into 'no-mans land' to act as a staging post prior to attacking the German first line. Some Battalion commanders used this, others did not. After read AAR (After Action Reports) it became clear that when "Russian saps" has been used success had been greater than in sections where they had not. Next time they would be used across all formation. The British Army of WW1 was not the inflexible monolith of Blackadder. It was a flexible, innovative and by 1918 the most successful army in the field.

And now dinner, anon.

You are absolutely correct, Mr. Child. However, you mustn't go around speaking the truth even on here. It is not what people, even TSE with whom I had credited more sense, want to hear.

I'm sorry, my knowledge of the First World War is coloured by reading Alan Clark's book.

I just read about some of the casualties in some of the engagements and think, there's a pattern here.

Fair enough, Mr. Eagles. In your professional life I expect you don't believe everything a client tells you, even less a witness. Why you should take as gospel the writings of someone like Clark and think it worth repeating, well, the mind boggles.

I have read other sources.

If the first world war happened a century later, it wouldn't have continued.

The public wouldn't have tolerated such losses.

Smarmeron

"At the Battle of Mons the BEF had c. 80,000 men in the Cavalry Division, an independent cavalry brigade and two corps, each with two infantry divisions.[11] I Corps was commanded by Sir Douglas Haig and was composed of the 1st and 2nd Divisions. II Corps was commanded by Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien and consisted of the 3rd and 5th Divisions.[9] Each division had 18,073 men and 5,592 horses, in three brigades of four battalions. Each division had twenty-four Vickers machine guns – two per battalion – and three field artillery brigades with fifty-four 18-pounder guns, one field howitzer brigade of eighteen 4.5-inch howitzers and a heavy artillery battery of four 60-pounder guns.[12]

There is the number of machine guns the BEF had at it's disposal. Two per battalion.
Now Mr. Llama.... your mission should you accept it is to find the number each German battalion had.

TheScreamingEagles

peter_from_putney said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

peter_from_putney said:

I took this bet also, at odds of 6/1 iirc. Given the current share of the vote between the other parties (incl the LibDems), the attraction of this bet is that it is likely to deliver were the Tories to win between 34.5% - 37.5% or thereabouts which appears to be quite a likely outcome, or at least more than 20% likely, which is what odds of 4/1 would suggest.
This is precisely the type of bet where OGH is ace at spotting not only a winning opportunity, but also great value. Ask him how many seats the LibDems will lose and his judgement might become a little more suspect!

I think the 7/4 Shadsy is offering on 31-40 LD seats seems about right.

Yes I agree, with the risk on the downside - Fisher for example has them winning just < 30 seats.

I think he's wrong, I think the Lord Ashcroft poll recently made me think the Lib Dems will do better than anticipated.

Morris_Dancer

F1: pre-race stuff here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/hungary-pre-race.html

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, and if the Second Punic War had happened a few centuries later Rome would have surrendered after Cannae.

And if Alexander the Great had been born five thousand years later he would have ridden into battle on a mecha-horse and wielded a laser rifle.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

isam said:

Anyone seen the Paul Newman film 'Hombre'?

Not seen it myself but managed to get a copy of it for mate who pestered me for ages to find it for him.

ToryJim

TheScreamingEagles said:

HurstLlama said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HurstLlama said:

YossariansChild said:

FPT
@HurstLlama

You make a good point about the variation in tactics that is perhaps worth reflecting on. In contrast to the stereotype of the inflexible British General in fact in the British Army of WW1 Battalion commanders had a wide degree of latitude in their tactics. Impressively the British Army then learned from differing approaches and reflected those lessons the next time it saw action. - An example here is the "Russian Sap" a trench leading into 'no-mans land' to act as a staging post prior to attacking the German first line. Some Battalion commanders used this, others did not. After read AAR (After Action Reports) it became clear that when "Russian saps" has been used success had been greater than in sections where they had not. Next time they would be used across all formation. The British Army of WW1 was not the inflexible monolith of Blackadder. It was a flexible, innovative and by 1918 the most successful army in the field.

And now dinner, anon.

You are absolutely correct, Mr. Child. However, you mustn't go around speaking the truth even on here. It is not what people, even TSE with whom I had credited more sense, want to hear.

I'm sorry, my knowledge of the First World War is coloured by reading Alan Clark's book.

I just read about some of the casualties in some of the engagements and think, there's a pattern here.

Fair enough, Mr. Eagles. In your professional life I expect you don't believe everything a client tells you, even less a witness. Why you should take as gospel the writings of someone like Clark and think it worth repeating, well, the mind boggles.

I have read other sources.

If the first world war happened a century later, it wouldn't have continued.

The public wouldn't have tolerated such losses.

Given the public now believe that anyone requiring more than an aspirin and a sticking plaster is an unacceptable casualty...

Morris_Dancer

Anyway, going somewhere cooler. Tomorrow's meant to be cooler, thankfully.

peter_from_putney

TheScreamingEagles said:

peter_from_putney said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

peter_from_putney said:

I took this bet also, at odds of 6/1 iirc. Given the current share of the vote between the other parties (incl the LibDems), the attraction of this bet is that it is likely to deliver were the Tories to win between 34.5% - 37.5% or thereabouts which appears to be quite a likely outcome, or at least more than 20% likely, which is what odds of 4/1 would suggest.
This is precisely the type of bet where OGH is ace at spotting not only a winning opportunity, but also great value. Ask him how many seats the LibDems will lose and his judgement might become a little more suspect!

I think the 7/4 Shadsy is offering on 31-40 LD seats seems about right.

Yes I agree, with the risk on the downside - Fisher for example has them winning just < 30 seats.

I think he's wrong, I think the Lord Ashcroft poll recently made me think the Lib Dems will do better than anticipated.

So remind me, how many seats does Ashcroft think the LibDems will win, or isn't he brave enough to come up with an actual figure?

I wouldn't take the 1/5 on Clegg being LD leader at the next GE ..... I think there are better shots than this and on the basis that he's definitely on his way out, who knows what offers might come his way over the coming months?

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Anyway, going somewhere cooler. Tomorrow's meant to be cooler, thankfully.

I'm not saying my living room is hot, but two hobbits just came round, and threw a ring in it.

MikeK

It's starting up again:

Retweeted by The Times of Israel
Ilån Bεn Zıon ‏@IlanBenZion 7m
Sirens in southern Israel, again. Hamas spox says no agreement to extension of ceasefire to midnight

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Anyway, going somewhere cooler. Tomorrow's meant to be cooler, thankfully.

I'm not saying my living room is hot, but two hobbits just came round, and threw a ring in it.

*slow clap*

TheScreamingEagles

peter_from_putney said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

peter_from_putney said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

peter_from_putney said:

I took this bet also, at odds of 6/1 iirc. Given the current share of the vote between the other parties (incl the LibDems), the attraction of this bet is that it is likely to deliver were the Tories to win between 34.5% - 37.5% or thereabouts which appears to be quite a likely outcome, or at least more than 20% likely, which is what odds of 4/1 would suggest.
This is precisely the type of bet where OGH is ace at spotting not only a winning opportunity, but also great value. Ask him how many seats the LibDems will lose and his judgement might become a little more suspect!

I think the 7/4 Shadsy is offering on 31-40 LD seats seems about right.

Yes I agree, with the risk on the downside - Fisher for example has them winning just < 30 seats.

I think he's wrong, I think the Lord Ashcroft poll recently made me think the Lib Dems will do better than anticipated.

So remind me, how many seats does Ashcroft think the LibDems will win, or isn't he brave enough to come up with an actual figure?

I wouldn't take the 1/5 on Clegg being LD leader at the next GE ..... I think there are better shots than this and on the basis that he's on his way out, who knows what offers might come his way over the coming months?

It is also important to emphasise again that like all polls, this is a snapshot not a forecast. Taken together, though, my two latest battleground surveys suggest up to half of all Lib Dem MPs could be at risk next May.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/07/liberal-democrat-labour-battleground/

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, and if the Second Punic War had happened a few centuries later Rome would have surrendered after Cannae.

And if Alexander the Great had been born five thousand years later he would have ridden into battle on a mecha-horse and wielded a laser rifle.

Nah, everyone knew Hannibal was loser and would eventually lead Carthage to a major ass whooping.

TheScreamingEagles

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Anyway, going somewhere cooler. Tomorrow's meant to be cooler, thankfully.

I'm not saying my living room is hot, but two hobbits just came round, and threw a ring in it.

*slow clap*

Hey! That's the cleanest joke I've ever posted on PB.

Smarmeron

Just in case Mr. Llama is late with his intelligence gathering mission, and as he pointed out that intelligence is important.

"Unfortunately for Maxim the British army high command could see no real use for the oil-cooled machine gun he demonstrated to them in 1885; other officers even regarded the weapon as an improper form of warfare.

Not so the German army which quickly produced a version of Maxim's invention (the Maschinengewehr 08) in large quantities at a Spandau arsenal; by the time war broke out in August 1914 the Germans had 12,000 at their disposal, a number which eventually ballooned to 100,000.

In contrast the British and French had access to a mere few hundred equivalents when war began."

Apologies, but when someone calls you out on facts of which they are ignorant of, I tend to get slightly miffed

JohnLilburne

hucks67 said:

If Israel continue to breach international law on proportionaility, then I can see friendly countries start to openly criticise them. Surely Cameron/Hammond must be very close to making statements condeming Israeli actions.

Is there such a thing as international law on proportionality? Israel would surely be justified in seeking out and utterly destroying the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, they are combatants. Instead it seems to be deliberately waging war on schoolchildren and the sick.

HurstLlama

TheScreamingEagles said:

HurstLlama said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HurstLlama said:

YossariansChild said:

FPT
@HurstLlama

You make a good point about the variation in tactics that is perhaps worth reflecting on. In contrast to the stereotype of the inflexible British General in fact in the British Army of WW1 Battalion commanders had a wide degree of latitude in their tactics. Impressively the British Army then learned from differing approaches and reflected those lessons the next time it saw action. - An example here is the "Russian Sap" a trench leading into 'no-mans land' to act as a staging post prior to attacking the German first line. Some Battalion commanders used this, others did not. After read AAR (After Action Reports) it became clear that when "Russian saps" has been used success had been greater than in sections where they had not. Next time they would be used across all formation. The British Army of WW1 was not the inflexible monolith of Blackadder. It was a flexible, innovative and by 1918 the most successful army in the field.

And now dinner, anon.

You are absolutely correct, Mr. Child. However, you mustn't go around speaking the truth even on here. It is not what people, even TSE with whom I had credited more sense, want to hear.

I'm sorry, my knowledge of the First World War is coloured by reading Alan Clark's book.

I just read about some of the casualties in some of the engagements and think, there's a pattern here.

Fair enough, Mr. Eagles. In your professional life I expect you don't believe everything a client tells you, even less a witness. Why you should take as gospel the writings of someone like Clark and think it worth repeating, well, the mind boggles.

I have read other sources.

If the first world war happened a century later, it wouldn't have continued.

The public wouldn't have tolerated such losses.

If they knew about them, if they knew about them. The great British Public was quite immune to casualty rates of 24% in Afghanistan (25% on the Somme). In fact, save the people directly concerned, nobody gave a shit. Remember any questions in the house? Remember any member of the opposition kicking up a fuss about the casualty rates? No? Me neither.

Total numbers maybe will make a difference, but if you are one of those 24 plus percent that really don't matter.

peter_from_putney

TheScreamingEagles said:

peter_from_putney said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

peter_from_putney said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

peter_from_putney said:

I took this bet also, at odds of 6/1 iirc. Given the current share of the vote between the other parties (incl the LibDems), the attraction of this bet is that it is likely to deliver were the Tories to win between 34.5% - 37.5% or thereabouts which appears to be quite a likely outcome, or at least more than 20% likely, which is what odds of 4/1 would suggest.
This is precisely the type of bet where OGH is ace at spotting not only a winning opportunity, but also great value. Ask him how many seats the LibDems will lose and his judgement might become a little more suspect!

I think the 7/4 Shadsy is offering on 31-40 LD seats seems about right.

Yes I agree, with the risk on the downside - Fisher for example has them winning just < 30 seats.

I think he's wrong, I think the Lord Ashcroft poll recently made me think the Lib Dems will do better than anticipated.

So remind me, how many seats does Ashcroft think the LibDems will win, or isn't he brave enough to come up with an actual figure?

I wouldn't take the 1/5 on Clegg being LD leader at the next GE ..... I think there are better shots than this and on the basis that he's on his way out, who knows what offers might come his way over the coming months?

It is also important to emphasise again that like all polls, this is a snapshot not a forecast. Taken together, though, my two latest battleground surveys suggest up to half of all Lib Dem MPs could be at risk next May.

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/07/liberal-democrat-labour-battleground/

"up to half" and "could be at risk" are pretty weasly words! Let's assume that in plain English he thinks one third of LibDem seats will actually be lost, then according to my bead frame this would leave them with around 38 seats ...... he could well be right!

MikeK

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Anyway, going somewhere cooler. Tomorrow's meant to be cooler, thankfully.

I'm not saying my living room is hot, but two hobbits just came round, and threw a ring in it.

Now that IS funny.

RobD

MikeK said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Anyway, going somewhere cooler. Tomorrow's meant to be cooler, thankfully.

I'm not saying my living room is hot, but two hobbits just came round, and threw a ring in it.

Now that IS funny.

Don't encourage him

CD13

Cooling off nicely in the NW.

All we need now is for Lewis Hamilton to board a Malaysian Airways plane and watch the other passengers run for the exit.

RobD

CD13 said:

Cooling off nicely in the NW.

All we need now is for Lewis Hamilton to board a Malaysian Airways plane and watch the other passengers run for the exit.

Ooo, too soon!

Verulamius

Another interesting blog from rosebud, aka Ian Warren, on the lib dem win in the local Maidstone byelection this week and the potential UKIP impact in C/LD marginals.

http://election-data.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/lessons-from-maidstone-lib-dems-winning.html

MikeK

RobD said:

MikeK said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Anyway, going somewhere cooler. Tomorrow's meant to be cooler, thankfully.

I'm not saying my living room is hot, but two hobbits just came round, and threw a ring in it.

Now that IS funny.

Don't encourage him

That's funny too.

TCPoliticalBetting

There may be more retiring LDs?
John Thurso 60 yrs old has not been reselected to fight his seat 4k majority.
Sir Robert Smith, 55 yrs old has Parkinson's and has been reselected.
Has Michael Moore 48 yrs old been selected yet?

TheScreamingEagles

HurstLlama said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HurstLlama said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HurstLlama said:

YossariansChild said:

FPT
@HurstLlama

You make a good point about the variation in tactics that is perhaps worth reflecting on. In contrast to the stereotype of the inflexible British General in fact in the British Army of WW1 Battalion commanders had a wide degree of latitude in their tactics. Impressively the British Army then learned from differing approaches and reflected those lessons the next time it saw action. - An example here is the "Russian Sap" a trench leading into 'no-mans land' to act as a staging post prior to attacking the German first line. Some Battalion commanders used this, others did not. After read AAR (After Action Reports) it became clear that when "Russian saps" has been used success had been greater than in sections where they had not. Next time they would be used across all formation. The British Army of WW1 was not the inflexible monolith of Blackadder. It was a flexible, innovative and by 1918 the most successful army in the field.

And now dinner, anon.

You are absolutely correct, Mr. Child. However, you mustn't go around speaking the truth even on here. It is not what people, even TSE with whom I had credited more sense, want to hear.

I'm sorry, my knowledge of the First World War is coloured by reading Alan Clark's book.

I just read about some of the casualties in some of the engagements and think, there's a pattern here.

Fair enough, Mr. Eagles. In your professional life I expect you don't believe everything a client tells you, even less a witness. Why you should take as gospel the writings of someone like Clark and think it worth repeating, well, the mind boggles.

I have read other sources.

If the first world war happened a century later, it wouldn't have continued.

The public wouldn't have tolerated such losses.

If they knew about them, if they knew about them. The great British Public was quite immune to casualty rates of 24% in Afghanistan (25% on the Somme). In fact, save the people directly concerned, nobody gave a shit. Remember any questions in the house? Remember any member of the opposition kicking up a fuss about the casualty rates? No? Me neither.

Total numbers maybe will make a difference, but if you are one of those 24 plus percent that really don't matter.

I'm talking about the sheer volume.

If we get upset and question the war over nearly 500 deaths in 13 years in Afghanistan how do you think we'd react with 19,000 deaths and 36,000 casualties in in one day as per the first day of Somme?

HurstLlama

Smarmeron said:

Just in case Mr. Llama is late with his intelligence gathering mission, and as he pointed out that intelligence is important.

"Unfortunately for Maxim the British army high command could see no real use for the oil-cooled machine gun he demonstrated to them in 1885; other officers even regarded the weapon as an improper form of warfare.

Not so the German army which quickly produced a version of Maxim's invention (the Maschinengewehr 08) in large quantities at a Spandau arsenal; by the time war broke out in August 1914 the Germans had 12,000 at their disposal, a number which eventually ballooned to 100,000.

In contrast the British and French had access to a mere few hundred equivalents when war began."

Apologies, but when someone calls you out on facts of which they are ignorant of, I tend to get slightly miffed

Comrade, well done you google-foo is obviously strong this evening, though you seem to have missed the Haig quote about two machine guns per battalion being sufficient (I thought everyone knew about that one).

It doesn't really help though. You see, no matter how many machine guns the Germans had at their command in 1914, if they really understood the power of small arms in defence more than the Brits and Frogs then the "Massacre of the Innocents" would not have happened. Furthermore none of that has anything to do with the great offensives later in the war.

Tim_B

Stop Press!

The NHL is concerned that global warming could endanger it.

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/morning_call/2014/07/nhl-warns-that-hockey-could-be-endangered-by.html

Time to get the puck out of here....

Pulpstar

Back seperately for better odds.

Quincel

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm coming to the conclusion, that if we do have a hung parliament, there's not going to be a viable coalition, ie both Con + LD or Lab + LD will be less than 325.

What happens then?

Doesn't fixed term parliament act just cause a new election? Difficult to see how we could avoid a no confidence vote being passed, which triggers a non-fixed term election.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I think the 7/4 Shadsy is offering on 31-40 LD seats seems about right.

I think predictions that the LDs will hold 35ish seats assume a LD swingback too. Which might happen, but I'm increasingly unconvinced. 20-30 seats at 3/1 is the value in my mind.

On a different note, I thank you in advance for the titters I'll get from friends and family when I steal your excellent joke and use it as my own.

RobD

Tim_B said:

Stop Press!

The NHL is concerned that global warming could endanger it.

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/morning_call/2014/07/nhl-warns-that-hockey-could-be-endangered-by.html

Time to get the puck out of here....

Alternatively, it will remove the inherent advantage Canada and the Scandinavian states have in this sport ;-)

Tim_B

Just heard on the news that Israel offered to extend its 12 hour ceasefire by 4 hours, Hamas rejects it and fires more rockets into Israel.

I'm curious how Israel will get blamed for this but I'm sure they'll find a way.

GIN1138

TheScreamingEagles said:

GIN1138 said:

I see that the first Thursday of October 2015 is October 1st.

Thursday 1st October 2015 seems a good date to hold a second election?

But what about the fixed term parliament act?

Well if a Parliaments not viable, it's not viable.

For the good of the nation a way around the fixed term will be found.

Now, what happens if the second election yeilds the same unviable Parliament as the first is anyone's guess.

Various splits and factions with parts of Labour, Conservative and Lib-Dem forming some sort of "Grand Coalition" and other factions of these parties (possibly with a few UKIP MP's) going off into Opposition?

2015 really could be the most extraordinary year since 1931 maybe.

HurstLlama

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm talking about the sheer volume.

If we get upset and question the war over nearly 500 deaths in 13 years in Afghanistan how do you think we'd react with 19,000 deaths and 36,000 casualties in in one day as per the first day of Somme?

Very badly, but it is a nonsense question out of the context of its time. We are not and, Gods willing, never will be again in a fight for our national survival. If we were then based on the most recent evidence (i.e Afghanistan) then I expect the British public to withstand casualty level equal to that of past wars with the same equanimity.

P.S. Mr. Eagles, to get mass casualties then, absent a nuclear attack, one must have mass armies and that in the UK context is a joke.

TheScreamingEagles

Tim_B said:

Just heard on the news that Israel offered to extend its 12 hour ceasefire by 4 hours, Hamas rejects it and fires more rockets into Israel.

I'm curious how Israel will get blamed for this but I'm sure they'll find a way.

It's about the proportionately.

How many Israeli civilians have been killed by Hamas' rockets and how many Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel's offensive?

Smarmeron

@HurstLlama
I would advise you to look more deeply into the tactics the German army had developed before the "Great War". The BEF thought it was going to be a rerun of the Boer War.
Due to the esteem of the cavalry units, and the numbers of their officers in the upper echelons, it took them a while to figure out that this war was going to be a lot different.
Those of the lower ranks worked this out damned quickly, and the regulars like my grandfather (and their immediate commanders also) would look on orders more as guidelines than yer actual rules.
The war was a shambles on all sides, as all wars were and are. The British and French armies did learn eventually, and may have defeated the German army without the influx of American troops, but they sure as hell helped.

GIN1138

GIN1138 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

GIN1138 said:

I see that the first Thursday of October 2015 is October 1st.

Thursday 1st October 2015 seems a good date to hold a second election?

But what about the fixed term parliament act?

Well if a Parliaments not viable, it's not viable.

For the good of the nation a way around the fixed term will be found.

Now, what happens if the second election yeilds the same unviable Parliament as the first is anyone's guess.

Various splits and factions with parts of Labour, Conservative and Lib-Dem forming some sort of "Grand Coalition" and other factions of these parties (possibly with a few UKIP MP's) going off into Opposition?

2015 really could be the most extraordinary year since 1931 maybe.

Cameron's Conservatives, the Lib-Dems and the Blairite wing of Labour could all work together easily in a Grand Coalition, I think and in time could even merge into a Democrat Party, IMO.

Right wing Tories and characters like Boris Johnson would probably join UKIP and could form a main Opposition party called something strident like The Nationalists.

Then you'd still have the rump of Labour hanging around as well as Greens maybe.

Seems far fetched, but I do get the feeling one of those once in a century shake up's could be on the way soon.

Mind you, the upshot is that in the end we'd probably finish up with something similar to the 19th century Conservative/Liberal set-up, just called something different.

What goes around comes around...

TCPoliticalBetting

GIN1138 said:

GIN1138 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

GIN1138 said:

I see that the first Thursday of October 2015 is October 1st.

Thursday 1st October 2015 seems a good date to hold a second election?

But what about the fixed term parliament act?

Well if a Parliaments not viable, it's not viable.

For the good of the nation a way around the fixed term will be found.

Now, what happens if the second election yeilds the same unviable Parliament as the first is anyone's guess.

Various splits and factions with parts of Labour, Conservative and Lib-Dem forming some sort of "Grand Coalition" and other factions of these parties (possibly with a few UKIP MP's) going off into Opposition?

2015 really could be the most extraordinary year since 1931 maybe.

....Right wing Tories and characters like Boris Johnson would probably join UKIP and could form a main Opposition party called something strident like The Nationalists......

Boris is a Europhile not a Eurosceptic.

SquareRoot

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tim_B said:

Just heard on the news that Israel offered to extend its 12 hour ceasefire by 4 hours, Hamas rejects it and fires more rockets into Israel.

I'm curious how Israel will get blamed for this but I'm sure they'll find a way.

It's about the proportionately.

How many Israeli civilians have been killed by Hamas' rockets and how many Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel's offensive?

It might be about proportionality in the eyes of the media, but from an Israeli point of view, its taking out the people firing rockets. There has been a lot of collateral damage, and that's v sad, but then again if Hamas were not firing rockets at Israel nor killing three teenagers in cold blood and if Israel was not perched in the occupied territories..

That's why its an irresolvable problem..

Both as bad as each other. In many ways its similar to Sunni v Shia


BTW Congrats to David Herdson and his wife.

GIN1138

TCPoliticalBetting said:

GIN1138 said:

GIN1138 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

GIN1138 said:

I see that the first Thursday of October 2015 is October 1st.

Thursday 1st October 2015 seems a good date to hold a second election?

But what about the fixed term parliament act?

Well if a Parliaments not viable, it's not viable.

For the good of the nation a way around the fixed term will be found.

Now, what happens if the second election yeilds the same unviable Parliament as the first is anyone's guess.

Various splits and factions with parts of Labour, Conservative and Lib-Dem forming some sort of "Grand Coalition" and other factions of these parties (possibly with a few UKIP MP's) going off into Opposition?

2015 really could be the most extraordinary year since 1931 maybe.

....Right wing Tories and characters like Boris Johnson would probably join UKIP and could form a main Opposition party called something strident like The Nationalists......

Boris is a Europhile not a Eurosceptic.

I know, but in my scenario Boris would be one of the leading figures that was against the national government/Democrat party movement, IMO.

He's probably join the "Nationalists" and try to mold it in his own image.

Grandiose

GIN1138 said:

GIN1138 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

GIN1138 said:

I see that the first Thursday of October 2015 is October 1st.

Thursday 1st October 2015 seems a good date to hold a second election?

But what about the fixed term parliament act?

Well if a Parliaments not viable, it's not viable.

For the good of the nation a way around the fixed term will be found.

Now, what happens if the second election yeilds the same unviable Parliament as the first is anyone's guess.

Various splits and factions with parts of Labour, Conservative and Lib-Dem forming some sort of "Grand Coalition" and other factions of these parties (possibly with a few UKIP MP's) going off into Opposition?

2015 really could be the most extraordinary year since 1931 maybe.

Cameron's Conservatives, the Lib-Dems and the Blairite wing of Labour could all work together easily in a Grand Coalition, I think and in time could even merge into a Democrat Party, IMO.

Right wing Tories and characters like Boris Johnson would probably join UKIP and could form a main Opposition party called something strident like The Nationalists.

Then you'd still have the rump of Labour hanging around as well as Greens maybe.

Seems far fetched, but I do get the feeling one of those once in a century shake up's could be on the way soon.

Mind you, the upshot is that in the end we'd probably finish up with something similar to the 19th century Conservative/Liberal set-up, just called something different.

What goes around comes around...

Labour's left-wing and the Greens could agree in a high level of state intervention, workers' collectives, and so on.

Not sure right-wing Tories would *join* UKIP, exactly. They could leave the party, and maybe eventually join a reorganised UKIP alliance.

SquareRoot

Gin1138.... how is your mouth after all the problems u had?

rcs1000

peter_from_putney said:

Ask him how many seats the LibDems will lose and his judgement might become a little more suspect!

The issue with LibDem seats is... that it's an incredibly hard thing to forecast.

If the LibDems were to get 14-15%, and UKIP were to get a similar vote share, then they might retain as many as 40 of their seats.

On the other hand, if the LibDems are around 10% (and UKIP is also squeezed), then then they could well have just a dozen seats.

Watford will not be a Liberal Democrat gain, you heard it here first.

justin124

In the event of another Hung Parliament the incumbent PM can opt to stay in office and try to get the Commons to approve his Queens Speech.Brown could have done this in 2010- despite the Coalition agreement having been reached between the Tories and LibDems - and remained in office til late May when his government would have been defeated on the Queens Speech. In 2015 Cameron could do likewise even if he is very well short of a majority.However,on being defeated on the Queen's Speech - approx. 3 weeks after polling day - he would have to resign and Milliband would be asked to form a government.If he also failed to get his Queens Speech approved another election would be likely - though with Milliband as PM.

peter_from_putney

"Cameron's Conservatives, the Lib-Dems and the Blairite wing of Labour could all work together easily in a Grand Coalition"

Really??? A good number of Tory MPs would happily jettison Cameron for a more Euro-sceptic leader, most LibDems hate the Tories (as evidenced on this site) and the so-called "Blairite wing of Labour" surely no longer exists - half killed off by Brown with the job finished off by EdM and his Union buddies ...... name me say 3 or 4 Blairites in the present shadow cabinet, you can't, there aren't any!
Back to the drawing board I'm afraid Mr Gin.

HurstLlama

Smarmeron said:

@HurstLlama
I would advise you to look more deeply into the tactics the German army had developed before the "Great War". The BEF thought it was going to be a rerun of the Boer War.
Due to the esteem of the cavalry units, and the numbers of their officers in the upper echelons, it took them a while to figure out that this war was going to be a lot different.
Those of the lower ranks worked this out damned quickly, and the regulars like my grandfather (and their immediate commanders also) would look on orders more as guidelines than yer actual rules.
The war was a shambles on all sides, as all wars were and are. The British and French armies did learn eventually, and may have defeated the German army without the influx of American troops, but they sure as hell helped.

If you say so, Comrade. You might perhaps want to read a little deeper. I'd recommend Rawlinson as a starting point. He was GOC 4th Army on the Somme and a man I was determine to hate as a vicious incompetent at the start of my studies. Yet the more I read an the more I learned the less dogmatic I feel I can be.

You have this wonderful idea that the Germans in 1914 understood the power of small arms because of the number of machine guns they had bought. Yet the "Massacre of the Innocents" happened. So maybe the German understanding was not as different as you claim.

The idea that the British Generals in WWI were hidebound, callous, fools is really a work of fiction and quite unsupported, save maybe in in one exception, by the facts.

GIN1138

SquareRoot said:

Gin1138.... how is your mouth after all the problems u had?

My mouth is doing well, thanks.

Seem's to be completely cured and if all is still looking good in January I shall be discharged from hospital back to dentist.

I'm still left wondering why somebody that doesn't smoke and only drank occasionally and not heavily, should have had a pre-cancerous lesion in the mouth, but there we go.

The human body can be a mystery.

Grandiose

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tim_B said:

Just heard on the news that Israel offered to extend its 12 hour ceasefire by 4 hours, Hamas rejects it and fires more rockets into Israel.

I'm curious how Israel will get blamed for this but I'm sure they'll find a way.

It's about the proportionately.

How many Israeli civilians have been killed by Hamas' rockets and how many Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel's offensive?

What is a proportionate response to Israeli civilian deaths?

While it a common way of describing the line, I can't help but think one's view of what is or is not proportionate already reflects one's attitude to the conflict, rather than informing it.

GIN1138

peter_from_putney said:

"Cameron's Conservatives, the Lib-Dems and the Blairite wing of Labour could all work together easily in a Grand Coalition"

Really??? A good number of Tory MPs would happily jettison Cameron for a more Euro-sceptic leader, most LibDems hate the Tories (as evidenced on this site) and the so-called "Blairite wing of Labour" surely no longer exists - half killed off by Brown with the job finished off by EdM and his Union buddies ...... name me say 3 or 4 Blairites in the present shadow cabinet, you can't, there aren't any!
Back to the drawing board I'm afraid Mr Gin.

I don't believe half of the "split's" between the present coalition parties, personally. Most of it is all put on for the media and party membership.

And by the "Blairite" wing of Labour, I guess I really mean, right wing Labour MP's.

I may have got the various combinations wrong, but when you look at the way party membership is in freefall, the way Con and Lab are struggling around 30% of the vote. The trend towards small and local party movements. The anti-politics mood, etc... I just feel a big shake up is on the way.

We'll see.

peter_from_putney

Are we expecting any polls this evening? The bet suggested by OGH at the top of this thread would become significantly more attractive were the Tories able to establish a 35% share of the vote bridge head over the short term. Of course, Shadsy might then shave the odds ...... life's never easy.

TheScreamingEagles

Grandiose said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tim_B said:

Just heard on the news that Israel offered to extend its 12 hour ceasefire by 4 hours, Hamas rejects it and fires more rockets into Israel.

I'm curious how Israel will get blamed for this but I'm sure they'll find a way.

It's about the proportionately.

How many Israeli civilians have been killed by Hamas' rockets and how many Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel's offensive?

What is a proportionate response to Israeli civilian deaths?

While it a common way of describing the line, I can't help but think one's view of what is or is not proportionate already reflects one's attitude to the conflict, rather than informing it.

Well the current figures aren't proportional.

When you occupy someone's home, you're going to expect some blowback.

Both sides dehumanise each other, and it's not making for pleasant living for either side.

Time for a Balfour declaration for Palestine.

Hereward

peter_from_putney said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm coming to the conclusion, that if we do have a hung parliament, there's not going to be a viable coalition, ie both Con + LD or Lab + LD will be less than 325.

What happens then?

In those circs the SNP and Plaid would throw their left wing weight behind Labour, giving them another 10 seats or thereabouts and Miliband would pay whatever price is demanded.


Isn't this the England shaped elephant in the room? As far as Westminster is concerned most domestic policy is affects England only. How would a Labour minority govern, let alone a nat supported rainbow coalition?

Smarmeron

@HurstLlama
The order to advance in line towards the enemy trenches was not caused by a belief all the Germans would be dead, (that was a morale thing) but because the replacements units were not fully trained and it was decided that it would be easier to keep order that way.
This lead to my grandfathers unit, and those at the other end of the advance reaching their objectives because they were using the shell holes as cover and advancing that way.
Having achieved their objective, they then had to retreat as the center had been shot to pieces by enfilading machine gun fire.
A quick look at the early trenches of the respective participants would confirm this fact to you, but you seem more concerned about making some point about British superiority and military acumen.

TheScreamingEagles

peter_from_putney said:

Are we expecting any polls this evening? The bet suggested by OGH at the top of this thread would become significantly more attractive were the Tories able to establish a 35% share of the vote bridge head over the short term. Of course, Shadsy might then shave the odds ...... life's never easy.

Just the YouGov I think.

peter_from_putney

Hereward said:

peter_from_putney said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm coming to the conclusion, that if we do have a hung parliament, there's not going to be a viable coalition, ie both Con + LD or Lab + LD will be less than 325.

What happens then?

In those circs the SNP and Plaid would throw their left wing weight behind Labour, giving them another 10 seats or thereabouts and Miliband would pay whatever price is demanded.


Isn't this the England shaped elephant in the room? As far as Westminster is concerned most domestic policy is affects England only. How would a Labour minority govern, let alone a nat supported rainbow coalition?

If Labour and its LibDem/SNP/Plaid allies reach 326 seats or thereabouts, it governs full stop. In reality circa 320 seats would probably suffice.
Sorry I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

Tim_B

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tim_B said:

Just heard on the news that Israel offered to extend its 12 hour ceasefire by 4 hours, Hamas rejects it and fires more rockets into Israel.

I'm curious how Israel will get blamed for this but I'm sure they'll find a way.

It's about the proportionately.

How many Israeli civilians have been killed by Hamas' rockets and how many Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel's offensive?

Israel is entitled to do what it has to do to protect its borders and people.

They need to stop the rockets and demolish all the tunnels etc used by Hamas.

Given the military capability they have at their disposal, their response thus far has been very restrained.

Given Hamas' tactics of basing rockets in homes and schools, including 2 UN run schools, collateral damage is inevitable, and Hamas actions suggest that this is a choice they are prepared to make.

http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/07/hamas-rockets-found-in-second-united-nations-school/374874/

TheScreamingEagles

Tim_B said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tim_B said:

Just heard on the news that Israel offered to extend its 12 hour ceasefire by 4 hours, Hamas rejects it and fires more rockets into Israel.

I'm curious how Israel will get blamed for this but I'm sure they'll find a way.

It's about the proportionately.

How many Israeli civilians have been killed by Hamas' rockets and how many Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel's offensive?

Israel is entitled to do what it has to do to protect its borders and people.

They need to stop the rockets and demolish all the tunnels etc used by Hamas.

Given the military capability they have at their disposal, their response thus far has been very restrained.

Given Hamas' tactics of basing rockets in homes and schools, including 2 UN run schools, collateral damage is inevitable, and Hamas actions suggest that this is a choice they are prepared to make.

http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/07/hamas-rockets-found-in-second-united-nations-school/374874/

The irony is, Hamas isn't allowed to do whatever to get their own state.

I mean, the Israelis never partook in terrorism prior to the formation of Israel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

edit or afterwards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

dodrade

Grandiose said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tim_B said:

Just heard on the news that Israel offered to extend its 12 hour ceasefire by 4 hours, Hamas rejects it and fires more rockets into Israel.

I'm curious how Israel will get blamed for this but I'm sure they'll find a way.

It's about the proportionately.

How many Israeli civilians have been killed by Hamas' rockets and how many Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel's offensive?

What is a proportionate response to Israeli civilian deaths?

While it a common way of describing the line, I can't help but think one's view of what is or is not proportionate already reflects one's attitude to the conflict, rather than informing it.

When Thatcher came within a hair's breadth of being assassinated by the IRA and Downing Street came under attack the British Government did not send in tanks and helicopter gunships to West Belfast and massacre civilians in a futile attempt to wipe out the IRA, it pursued the political and diplomatic path with eventual results. Israeli overkill hasn't worked in the previous conflicts with Hamas, why should it now?

JohnDC

The concept of "Proportionality" doesn't come to us from international law as such, but from Just War theory. It is one of the criteria, but is much misused. Proportionality refers to whether the force used is proportionate to the legitimate objectives, not whether the violence is equal on both sides.

So for example the Allies had to answer the question whether the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was proportionate to getting the Japanese to end the war, not whether it was proportionate to Japan's attacks. The Israelis have to demonstrate that the incursion and bombing of Gaza are proportionate to destroying the tunnels and stopping the rockets, not that there is some crude equivalence in the number of deaths on each side.

If someone comes at you with a knife, pulling a gun may be entirely 'proportionate'.

HurstLlama

Smarmeron said:

@HurstLlama
The order to advance in line towards the enemy trenches was not caused by a belief all the Germans would be dead, (that was a morale thing) but because the replacements units were not fully trained and it was decided that it would be easier to keep order that way.
This lead to my grandfathers unit, and those at the other end of the advance reaching their objectives because they were using the shell holes as cover and advancing that way.
Having achieved their objective, they then had to retreat as the center had been shot to pieces by enfilading machine gun fire.
A quick look at the early trenches of the respective participants would confirm this fact to you, but you seem more concerned about making some point about British superiority and military acumen.

"... you seem more concerned about making some point about British superiority and military acumen"

Not at all, Comrade, just that after some forty years of study I sometimes snap at bait when someone makes a simplistic claim. For example the Germans pre WWI understood the use of the machine gun whilst everyone else was stupid.

MikeK

dodrade said:

Grandiose said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tim_B said:

Just heard on the news that Israel offered to extend its 12 hour ceasefire by 4 hours, Hamas rejects it and fires more rockets into Israel.

I'm curious how Israel will get blamed for this but I'm sure they'll find a way.

It's about the proportionately.

How many Israeli civilians have been killed by Hamas' rockets and how many Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel's offensive?

What is a proportionate response to Israeli civilian deaths?

While it a common way of describing the line, I can't help but think one's view of what is or is not proportionate already reflects one's attitude to the conflict, rather than informing it.

When Thatcher came within a hair's breadth of being assassinated by the IRA and Downing Street came under attack the British Government did not send in tanks and helicopter gunships to West Belfast and massacre civilians in a futile attempt to wipe out the IRA, it pursued the political and diplomatic path with eventual results. Israeli overkill hasn't worked in the previous conflicts with Hamas, why should it now?

The IRA never had as an aim to wipe out the very existence of the English people.
Hamas has that very aim of wiping Israel and all it's inhabitants off the face of the earth.
A slight difference I would think

Smarmeron

@HurstLlama
The Germans had 10 times the number of machine guns, but didn't know how to use them, or had even bothered to look into the possibilities?
Those stupid blockhead sausage munchers.......
I really can't be bothered listening to your inanities anymore.

TCPoliticalBetting

Hereward said:

peter_from_putney said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm coming to the conclusion, that if we do have a hung parliament, there's not going to be a viable coalition, ie both Con + LD or Lab + LD will be less than 325.
What happens then?

In those circs the SNP and Plaid would throw their left wing weight behind Labour, giving them another 10 seats or thereabouts and Miliband would pay whatever price is demanded.
Isn't this the England shaped elephant in the room? As far as Westminster is concerned most domestic policy is affects England only. How would a Labour minority govern, let alone a nat supported rainbow coalition?

The SNP will probably never go into coalition with Labour. It would suit them better to either stay out or ask for massive benefits to Scotland in return for support.

Tim_B

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tim_B said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tim_B said:

Just heard on the news that Israel offered to extend its 12 hour ceasefire by 4 hours, Hamas rejects it and fires more rockets into Israel.

I'm curious how Israel will get blamed for this but I'm sure they'll find a way.

It's about the proportionately.

How many Israeli civilians have been killed by Hamas' rockets and how many Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel's offensive?

Israel is entitled to do what it has to do to protect its borders and people.

They need to stop the rockets and demolish all the tunnels etc used by Hamas.

Given the military capability they have at their disposal, their response thus far has been very restrained.

Given Hamas' tactics of basing rockets in homes and schools, including 2 UN run schools, collateral damage is inevitable, and Hamas actions suggest that this is a choice they are prepared to make.

http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/07/hamas-rockets-found-in-second-united-nations-school/374874/

The irony is, Hamas isn't allowed to do whatever to get their own state.

I mean, the Israelis never partook in terrorism prior to the formation of Israel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

edit or afterwards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

I don't want to get into a moral superiority argument - there's plenty of unfortunate history on both sides.

Israel is entitled to protect itself.

Regarding a Palestinian state, now we're into the quagmire that is the post world war 1 middle east, Sykes Picot and all.

Yes, I know Israel was post ww2, but these sort of problems pre-date that.

peter_from_putney

I'm off to bed a happy man having successfully backed Taghrooda (sired by the mighty all-conquering Sea The Stars) ante post in today's King George & QE2 Stakes.
Despite being the 7/2 second favourite, the C4 team pretty much wrote off the filly beforehand as being a no-hoper.
Following her magnificent victory, Taghrooda and the German owned and trained Sea The Moon (yes, also sired by Sea The Stars), are 6/1 joint favourites to win the Arc de Triomphe in October.

It looks like there's a new super star in the thoroughbred blood line.

Hereward

If Labour and its LibDem/SNP/Plaid allies reach 326 seats or thereabouts, it governs full stop. In reality circa 320 seats would probably suffice.
Sorry I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

In the circumstances you suggest, with Labour having 40-50 Scottish & Welsh seats, they'll be deciding English policy, education & health etc, but they won't have a majority of English votes or seats. West Lothian Max if you like.

TheScreamingEagles

Tim_B said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tim_B said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tim_B said:

Just heard on the news that Israel offered to extend its 12 hour ceasefire by 4 hours, Hamas rejects it and fires more rockets into Israel.

I'm curious how Israel will get blamed for this but I'm sure they'll find a way.

It's about the proportionately.

How many Israeli civilians have been killed by Hamas' rockets and how many Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel's offensive?

Israel is entitled to do what it has to do to protect its borders and people.

They need to stop the rockets and demolish all the tunnels etc used by Hamas.

Given the military capability they have at their disposal, their response thus far has been very restrained.

Given Hamas' tactics of basing rockets in homes and schools, including 2 UN run schools, collateral damage is inevitable, and Hamas actions suggest that this is a choice they are prepared to make.

http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/07/hamas-rockets-found-in-second-united-nations-school/374874/

The irony is, Hamas isn't allowed to do whatever to get their own state.

I mean, the Israelis never partook in terrorism prior to the formation of Israel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

edit or afterwards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

I don't want to get into a moral superiority argument - there's plenty of unfortunate history on both sides.

Israel is entitled to protect itself.

Regarding a Palestinian state, now we're into the quagmire that is the post world war 1 middle east, Sykes Picot and all.

For the avoidance of doubt, you're saying the Palestinians should not use the methods that some Israelis used to obtain their state?

MrJones

FPT

FalseFlag said:

(snip)

Israel has a free hand to do as they please in Palestine with only Iran remaining as a serious rival in the region.

(snip)

and Turkey.

Tim_B

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tim_B said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tim_B said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tim_B said:

Just heard on the news that Israel offered to extend its 12 hour ceasefire by 4 hours, Hamas rejects it and fires more rockets into Israel.

I'm curious how Israel will get blamed for this but I'm sure they'll find a way.

It's about the proportionately.

How many Israeli civilians have been killed by Hamas' rockets and how many Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel's offensive?

Israel is entitled to do what it has to do to protect its borders and people.

They need to stop the rockets and demolish all the tunnels etc used by Hamas.

Given the military capability they have at their disposal, their response thus far has been very restrained.

Given Hamas' tactics of basing rockets in homes and schools, including 2 UN run schools, collateral damage is inevitable, and Hamas actions suggest that this is a choice they are prepared to make.

http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/07/hamas-rockets-found-in-second-united-nations-school/374874/

The irony is, Hamas isn't allowed to do whatever to get their own state.

I mean, the Israelis never partook in terrorism prior to the formation of Israel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

edit or afterwards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

I don't want to get into a moral superiority argument - there's plenty of unfortunate history on both sides.

Israel is entitled to protect itself.

Regarding a Palestinian state, now we're into the quagmire that is the post world war 1 middle east, Sykes Picot and all.

For the avoidance of doubt, you're saying the Palestinians should not use the methods that some Israelis used to obtain their state?

Other arab states are not supporting the Palestinians any more, and Egypt even blamed Hamas for some civilian deaths.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/world/middleeast/palestinians-find-show-of-support-lacking-from-arab-nations-amid-offensive.html?_r=0

For the record, deliberately sacrificing your own people for some nebulous cause that none of your brother arabs will support is not something I could advocate or defend.

TheScreamingEagles

*Poll alert*

In today’s ICM/Sunday Telegraph Wisdom Index poll, the Liberal Democrats are predicted to receive 14 per cent of the vote with Ukip on 15 per cent, the Tories on 30 per cent and Labour on 33 per cent.

Martin Boon, the director of ICM research, said the result was “something of a shock”, after the narrow Conservative lead of 0.7 points in May.

ICM questioned 2,043 adults aged 18 and over from across Britain, online, on July 23 and 24.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10993481/Ken-Clarke-David-Cameron-is-losing-focus.html

MarkHopkins

TheScreamingEagles said:

*Poll alert*

In today’s ICM/Sunday Telegraph Wisdom Index poll, the Liberal Democrats are predicted to receive 14 per cent of the vote with Ukip on 15 per cent, the Tories on 30 per cent and Labour on 33 per cent.

Martin Boon, the director of ICM research, said the result was “something of a shock”, after the narrow Conservative lead of 0.7 points in May.

ICM questioned 2,043 adults aged 18 and over from across Britain, online, on July 23 and 24.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10993481/Ken-Clarke-David-Cameron-is-losing-focus.html

Wisdom Index poll

Never really understood the point of these.

dodrade

MikeK said:

dodrade said:

Grandiose said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tim_B said:

Just heard on the news that Israel offered to extend its 12 hour ceasefire by 4 hours, Hamas rejects it and fires more rockets into Israel.

I'm curious how Israel will get blamed for this but I'm sure they'll find a way.

It's about the proportionately.

How many Israeli civilians have been killed by Hamas' rockets and how many Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel's offensive?

What is a proportionate response to Israeli civilian deaths?

While it a common way of describing the line, I can't help but think one's view of what is or is not proportionate already reflects one's attitude to the conflict, rather than informing it.

When Thatcher came within a hair's breadth of being assassinated by the IRA and Downing Street came under attack the British Government did not send in tanks and helicopter gunships to West Belfast and massacre civilians in a futile attempt to wipe out the IRA, it pursued the political and diplomatic path with eventual results. Israeli overkill hasn't worked in the previous conflicts with Hamas, why should it now?

The IRA never had as an aim to wipe out the very existence of the English people.
Hamas has that very aim of wiping Israel and all it's inhabitants off the face of the earth.
A slight difference I would think

Regardless of rhetoric or intent in reality Hamas poses as much existential threat to Israel as Switzerland does. Given how ineffectual their rocket strikes have actually been it is all the more idiotic that Israel has alienated international opinion through its response which will in the medium term only strengthen Hamas further.

TheScreamingEagles

Changes since the last wisdom poll

Con -1.4%

Lab +2.3%

LD -1.1%

UKIP +1.6%