Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dave said to be coming under pressure to abandon the coalit

2

Comments

  • So the Tories 3% down on their 2010 Share and UKIP up 12% on their 2010 share.

    Remember the days when Labour supporters use to revel in UKIP's surge.
  • Scott_P said:

    @Sun_Politics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Tories have a one-point lead, Lib Dems and Greens in joint fourth: CON 34%, LAB 33%, LD 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 6%

    Let them eat Porridge and play Candy Crush edition...
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    rcs1000 said:

    Socrates said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On topic, there's a case to do this in March once all big government business is out of the way, but that's require careful timing and planning. It's high risk.

    It also supposes that Cameron's a credible Conservative. There's a risk it's just be seen as a meaningless PR gimmick.

    There's also a question about whether Cameron could go to the Queen and say "the current government no longer has the support of parliament, and I'd like to have a go with a new one"

    And she might say "Really, Mr Cameron. And what makes you think that you'd pass a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, when you've just gotten rid of 55 Lib Dems? And you've managed to jettison Carswell and Reckless."
    I'm pretty sure the Queen's discretion from all of this was removed in the run up to the 2010 election. If Cameron can't form a majority coalition, Miliband gets his chance. If Miliband doesn't, then the largest party gets to form a minority administration.
    Doesn't the government have to pass a confidence motion?
    I don't know. The Palace formalised all this before 2010 because they didn't want to be seen as being political after the election. That, of course, was before the fixed term parliament act though.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Scott_P said:

    @Sun_Politics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Tories have a one-point lead, Lib Dems and Greens in joint fourth: CON 34%, LAB 33%, LD 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 6%

    When did the Tories last poll 34% with You Gov?
  • Well the Times have the story on the UKIP Sec-Gen

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4XfJ3ECUAMb5Eq.jpg
  • UKIP = sorting their wimmin problem out the Lib Dem way?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @thetimes: Tomorrow's front page: Ukip's star woman quits after sex claims http://t.co/3RuprBoK44
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Scott_P said:

    @Sun_Politics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Tories have a one-point lead, Lib Dems and Greens in joint fourth: CON 34%, LAB 33%, LD 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 6%

    Tory lead is a masterstroke by Farage etc etc.
  • UKIP = sorting their wimmin problem out the Lib Dem way?

    UKIP are the new politics, just doing politics like the LibLabCon?
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited December 2014
    FPT
    malcolmg said:



    Paul, I certainly agree with your points in general , being an older codger there were no such things as ready meals when we were young , everybody had to be able to cook and worst cases just used the chip pan every day.
    However big thing on it is, it takes a lot of time and work to prepare proper meals, so as well as ignorance there is a general laziness part to it, they want "everything on a plate" to use a pun. I do sympathise if both people in household working mind you, makes it harder.

    Malcolm, yes the time is certainly an issue. I think this is another example of why the government drive to have both parents working full time is such an utter disaster for family life and society in general.

    All having both parents at work has done is drive up house prices and rentals because these are ultimately driven by wages. Double the wage by both parents working and the house price/rental price soon doubles, with the result that double the work is done and the family is no better off than their parents were on one wage, but exhausted and miserable, with a smallish asset wealthy class getting ever richer at the expense of the rest. We may be better off materially now but many people were less stressed, exhausted and miserable in the much maligned '50s (with the exception of the un-skilled labouring element of the working class). I think that is one big sentiment that drives UKIP.

    That said, sadly there are plenty of households with no one working eating ready meals because they don't know how to cook and as you say are too lazy.

    When I was single (and working full time as now) I would buy, say, a pie, but peel potatoes and boil them in a pot, then peel carrots and add broccoli and cauli into the same pot 10 mins before dinner was ready, then get pie out of oven and add margarine to veg. Delicious, and other than putting the pie in the oven 20 mins beforehand took 20 mins. Making the pie from scratch was beyond me though!

    There is also of course the commercial pressure on people to buy ready meals with ubiquitous glamorous advertising for additive filled mush!



  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Newsnight: Sue Lloyd-Roberts report from Doho re. construction workers and World Cup 2022.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534
    Socrates said:

    Sean_F said:


    There was a later move that qualifies for the dumbest decision of modern times. Hitler's decision to declare war on the US a week or so after Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't have done that the US would have stated out of the European war.

    I may well be being dumb myself here, but wouldn't that just have thrown the Nazis' most important ally under a bus, destroying the Japanese threat to Britain in India and ultimately to the Russians? Germany would then have faced Russia and Britain without them fighting the Japanese at the same time and with at least de facto support from the US.

    I know that all Nazi strategic decisions in the war are questionable with hindsight because they lost and, by definition, should've made different choices. But this doesn't immediately seem an absurd decision on its face, albeit it was based on an erroneous assessment of US naval strength post-Pearl Harbour.
    Fighting, The Soviet Union, The USA and The UK concurrently was a mistake.

    To quote Londo Mollari, Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on three fronts.

    You could say abrograting the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was Hitler's dumbest mistake.
    In defence of the German High Command, Stalin's purge of the Red Army officer corps, and their subsequent woeful performance against the Finns, did give them grounds to believe an attack could succeed. Had they not carried out systematic atrocities against the Soviet population from day one, the whole Communist apparatus of government might have collapsed.
    Indeed. The Ukrainians initially greeted them as liberators after they'd suffered Russian rule for so long. Hitler's appalling anti-Slavism managed to turn them around pretty quickly. I always found it bizarre that he believed the Germans were the master race, their close cousins the Slavs were utterly sub-human, but the more Asiatic Magyars were alright. It is nonsensical even by the standards of thicko deranged racists.
    Even some Nazis found it hard to figure out Hitler's animus towards the Slavs. Albert Foster, Gauleiter of West Prussia, simply redesignated all the Poles in his province as ethnic Germans, to prevent their expulsion.

    Hitler seems to have developed a loathing for Czech nationalists in Vienna, and projected that onto all Slavs.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098


    There was a later move that qualifies for the dumbest decision of modern times. Hitler's decision to declare war on the US a week or so after Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't have done that the US would have stated out of the European war.

    I may well be being dumb myself here, but wouldn't that just have thrown the Nazis' most important ally under a bus, destroying the Japanese threat to Britain in India and ultimately to the Russians? Germany would then have faced Russia and Britain without them fighting the Japanese at the same time and with at least de facto support from the US.

    I know that all Nazi strategic decisions in the war are questionable with hindsight because they lost and, by definition, should've made different choices. But this doesn't immediately seem an absurd decision on its face, albeit it was based on an erroneous assessment of US naval strength post-Pearl Harbour.
    Germany was by far the more dangerous enemy. Defeating Germany first was the correct strategy.

    The Japanese had become a strategic irrelevance by late 1942 anyway.
    A 1925 book foretold the Japanese attack and the island hopping campaign to defeat them.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Pacific_War

    Those were the days when the Telegraph had correspondents with brains.
    Japan had no oil and was entirely reliant on its navy to protect its supply lines. Without carriers and anti-submarine capability, they were totally at the mercy of the U.S. Navy.

    Germany on the other hand, managed to develop jet fighters, missiles, very powerful tanks and came fairly close to developing nuclear weapons. Even with all their overstretched ambition and resources they came pretty close to taking Moscow and Cairo, within 18 months of each other, and could have credibly 'won' the Battle of the Atlantic. Of course, they did manage to murder millions of innocent people.

    One shudders to think where they could have got to had they left Russia unmolested and not declared war on the U.S.
    OK, but the nature of the Hitler government was such that they were always going to fight the USSR and the nature of that fight was such that Germany would always eventually lose it. They might have taken Moscow and Leningrad but still they were going to lose in the end. The USSR was just too damn big and had too many men and resources in the East for the equation to work any other way.

    The alternate history creations that see a different outcome are all based on the idea that the Third Reich could have had a rational government. It couldn't. It was the creation of just one man, who happened to be off his head.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Scott_P said:

    @Sun_Politics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Tories have a one-point lead, Lib Dems and Greens in joint fourth: CON 34%, LAB 33%, LD 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 6%

    EICINPM.
  • Neil Hamilton the last minute UKIP canddate for South Basildon?

    Perhaps time to look at laying them there?
  • Encouraging poll for the Tories, no doubt about it.
    Another say 2% for the Blues in short order would be telling at this stage.
  • Sean_F said:


    There was a later move that qualifies for the dumbest decision of modern times. Hitler's decision to declare war on the US a week or so after Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't have done that the US would have stated out of the European war.

    I may well be being dumb myself here, but wouldn't that just have thrown the Nazis' most important ally under a bus, destroying the Japanese threat to Britain in India and ultimately to the Russians? Germany would then have faced Russia and Britain without them fighting the Japanese at the same time and with at least de facto support from the US.

    I know that all Nazi strategic decisions in the war are questionable with hindsight because they lost and, by definition, should've made different choices. But this doesn't immediately seem an absurd decision on its face, albeit it was based on an erroneous assessment of US naval strength post-Pearl Harbour.
    Fighting, The Soviet Union, The USA and The UK concurrently was a mistake.

    To quote Londo Mollari, Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on three fronts.

    You could say abrograting the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was Hitler's dumbest mistake.
    In defence of the German High Command, Stalin's purge of the Red Army officer corps, and their subsequent woeful performance against the Finns, did give them grounds to believe an attack could succeed. Had they not carried out systematic atrocities against the Soviet population from day one, the whole Communist apparatus of government might have collapsed.
    You could argue prior to 1941 Hitler was the greatest military strategist and tactician of his age.

    It was all downhill from then on.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Masterstroke copying Rennard...

    @DJack_Journo: UKIP's star woman candidate Natasha Bolter quits after claiming she was sexually harassed by gen sec Roger Bird http://t.co/Y7i2PoaJZr
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    AndyJS said:

    EICINPM.

    EMWNBPM
  • Socrates said:


    There was a later move that qualifies for the dumbest decision of modern times. Hitler's decision to declare war on the US a week or so after Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't have done that the US would have stated out of the European war.

    I may well be being dumb myself here, but wouldn't that just have thrown the Nazis' most important ally under a bus, destroying the Japanese threat to Britain in India and ultimately to the Russians? Germany would then have faced Russia and Britain without them fighting the Japanese at the same time and with at least de facto support from the US.

    I know that all Nazi strategic decisions in the war are questionable with hindsight because they lost and, by definition, should've made different choices. But this doesn't immediately seem an absurd decision on its face, albeit it was based on an erroneous assessment of US naval strength post-Pearl Harbour.
    Germany was by far the more dangerous enemy. Defeating Germany first was the correct strategy.

    The Japanese had become a strategic irrelevance by late 1942 anyway.
    A 1925 book foretold the Japanese attack and the island hopping campaign to defeat them.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Pacific_War

    Those were the days when the Telegraph had correspondents with brains.
    Japan had no oil and was entirely reliant on its navy to protect its supply lines. Without carriers and anti-submarine capability, they were totally at the mercy of the U.S. Navy.

    Germany on the other hand, managed to develop jet fighters, missiles, very powerful tanks and came fairly close to developing nuclear weapons. Even with all their overstretched ambition and resources they came pretty close to taking Moscow and Cairo, within 18 months of each other, and could have credibly 'won' the Battle of the Atlantic. Of course, they did manage to murder millions of innocent people.

    One shudders to think where they could have got to had they left Russia unmolested and not declared war on the U.S.
    Germany was running out of oil too though. They needed to either take it from the Caucasus or the Middle East.
    I thought throughout much of the war their main source of oil was Romania.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Remember UKip aren't like the other parties .,... Well maybe the LDs....
  • TGOHF said:

    Masterstroke copying Rennard...

    @DJack_Journo: UKIP's star woman candidate Natasha Bolter quits after claiming she was sexually harassed by gen sec Roger Bird http://t.co/Y7i2PoaJZr

    Compare and contrast this decisive action to the corporate Lib Dems...

    This will be a vote winner for UKIP.

    (c) UKIP-PB-TV
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited December 2014
    Someone has apparently made some allegations, the person allegations have been made against has apparently been suspended, not exactly unknown in large organisations of 40,000 people. What are we all supposed to do, clutch at our skirts and say "ooooooooooohhhh, someones been naughty so we must vote Labour Lib or Tory now, they are beyond reproach in such matters"?
  • Frank Lampard wants to stand as a Tory MP....I suggest Thanet South.

    Jonathan Isaby‏@isaby·5 mins5 minutes ago
    Re tomorrow's @dailystaruk story on Lampard and his Tory politics, NB my Telegraph scoop in 2007 cited by @IainDale http://iaindale.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/first-premiership-footballer-comes-out.html
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Ms Bolter, 35, contrasted Ukip’s approach to her time with Labour, where she said she “campaigned alongside misogynists” and “found that female tokenism prevailed.”

    To thunderous applause, she exhorted Ukip activists to recognise that their party “rises above gender politics in our fight to move Britain forward”.

    Yesterday, barely two months later, Ms Bolter quit Ukip in disgust at what she claimed was a party riddled with racism, misogyny and sexual harassment. “I’ve seen racism in every single branch of Ukip that I visited,” she said. “I’ve complained about sexism on several occasions.”
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4291832.ece
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    AndyJS said:

    Scott_P said:

    @Sun_Politics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Tories have a one-point lead, Lib Dems and Greens in joint fourth: CON 34%, LAB 33%, LD 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 6%

    EICINPM.
    Tonights YG LAB 318 CON 289 LD 15 EICIPM
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited December 2014

    AndyJS said:

    Scott_P said:

    @Sun_Politics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Tories have a one-point lead, Lib Dems and Greens in joint fourth: CON 34%, LAB 33%, LD 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 6%

    EICINPM.
    Tonights YG LAB 318 CON 289 LD 15 EICIPM
    Go on believing the uniform swing calculators if that cheers you up. The problem is Scotland for Ed. Just 10 losses to the SNP might cost him the keys to number 10.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Todays Populus LAB 339 CON 260 LD 25 EICIPM
  • This gets even better.

    The UKIP General Secretary read PPE at Oxford.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Someone has apparently made some allegations, the person allegations have been made against has apparently been suspended, not exactly unknown in large organisations of 40,000 people. What are we all supposed to do, clutch at our skirts and say "ooooooooooohhhh, someones been naughty so we must vote Labour Lib or Tory now, they are beyond reproach in such matters"?

    Clutch skirts ?


    Proof she is mistaken about being " riddled with sexism, misogyny".....
  • Someone has apparently made some allegations, the person allegations have been made against has apparently been suspended, not exactly unknown in large organisations of 40,000 people. What are we all supposed to do, clutch at our skirts and say "ooooooooooohhhh, someones been naughty so we must vote Labour Lib or Tory now, they are beyond reproach in such matters"?

    Nothing to see....

    Move along....

    New politics.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Todays Lord A LAB 322 CON 277 LD 26 EICIPM
  • TGOHF said:

    Masterstroke copying Rennard...

    @DJack_Journo: UKIP's star woman candidate Natasha Bolter quits after claiming she was sexually harassed by gen sec Roger Bird http://t.co/Y7i2PoaJZr

    Well UKIP said they wanted to copy the LDs strategy that took them on the road to power.....
  • Scott_P said:

    Ms Bolter, 35, contrasted Ukip’s approach to her time with Labour, where she said she “campaigned alongside misogynists” and “found that female tokenism prevailed.”

    To thunderous applause, she exhorted Ukip activists to recognise that their party “rises above gender politics in our fight to move Britain forward”.

    Yesterday, barely two months later, Ms Bolter quit Ukip in disgust at what she claimed was a party riddled with racism, misogyny and sexual harassment. “I’ve seen racism in every single branch of Ukip that I visited,” she said. “I’ve complained about sexism on several occasions.”
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4291832.ece

    Not a story.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    AndyJS said:

    Scott_P said:

    @Sun_Politics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Tories have a one-point lead, Lib Dems and Greens in joint fourth: CON 34%, LAB 33%, LD 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 6%

    EICINPM.
    Ed is Crap Is New PM Agreed
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Not a story.

    Sorry, NewsSense™ malfunction...
  • Neil Hamilton, the disgraced former Conservative MP, could be on the verge of a parliamentary comeback at the age of 65 - for Ukip.

    The Independent has learnt that the Thatcherite former minister, who lost his Tatton seat after allegations that he took “cash for questions”, has been shortlisted for one of Ukip’s best prospects at next May’s general election. He will go up against four other candidates in South Basildon and East Thurrock on Wednesday night.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/disgraced-extory-mp-neil-hamilton-in-line-to-make-stunning-commons-comeback-for-ukip-9911421.html
  • kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,456

    AndyJS said:

    Scott_P said:

    @Sun_Politics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Tories have a one-point lead, Lib Dems and Greens in joint fourth: CON 34%, LAB 33%, LD 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 6%

    EICINPM.
    Ed is Crap Is New PM Agreed
    are you Gabble
  • They really must have low standards in Essex.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    Scott_P said:

    @Sun_Politics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Tories have a one-point lead, Lib Dems and Greens in joint fourth: CON 34%, LAB 33%, LD 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 6%

    EICINPM.
    Tonights YG LAB 318 CON 289 LD 15 EICIPM
    Go on believing the uniform swing calculators if that cheers you up. The problem is Scotland for Ed. Just 10 losses to the SNP might cost him the keys to number 10.
    SNP/LAB coalition with Ed as PM?

    SNP will not prop up Dave so many SNP MPs is OK by me
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Scott_P said:

    Ms Bolter, 35, contrasted Ukip’s approach to her time with Labour, where she said she “campaigned alongside misogynists” and “found that female tokenism prevailed.”

    To thunderous applause, she exhorted Ukip activists to recognise that their party “rises above gender politics in our fight to move Britain forward”.

    Yesterday, barely two months later, Ms Bolter quit Ukip in disgust at what she claimed was a party riddled with racism, misogyny and sexual harassment. “I’ve seen racism in every single branch of Ukip that I visited,” she said. “I’ve complained about sexism on several occasions.”
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4291832.ece
    Bolter by name, Bolter by nature.

    I hate to think of the state of the floor behind her fridge.

  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited December 2014
    I just want to repeat this quote from her ..... the UKIP brand is being damaged whatever their loyal supporters might say or think.

    “I’ve seen racism in every single branch of Ukip that I visited,” she said.
  • They really must have low standards in Essex.

    Mr. Reckless.
  • kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,456

    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    Scott_P said:

    @Sun_Politics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Tories have a one-point lead, Lib Dems and Greens in joint fourth: CON 34%, LAB 33%, LD 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 6%

    EICINPM.
    Tonights YG LAB 318 CON 289 LD 15 EICIPM
    Go on believing the uniform swing calculators if that cheers you up. The problem is Scotland for Ed. Just 10 losses to the SNP might cost him the keys to number 10.
    SNP/LAB coalition with Ed as PM?

    SNP will not prop up Dave so many SNP MPs is OK by me
    if the result of SNP taking scottish seats off labour makes CON most seats, the Lib Dems will carry on with CON/Lib coalition II
  • I just want to repeat this quote from her ..... the UKIP brand is being damaged whatever their loyal supporters might say or think.

    “I’ve seen racism in every single branch of Ukip that I visited,” she said.

    You're wrong.

    This story damages LibLabCon
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Frank Lampard wants to stand as a Tory MP....I suggest Thanet South.

    Jonathan Isaby‏@isaby·5 mins5 minutes ago
    Re tomorrow's @dailystaruk story on Lampard and his Tory politics, NB my Telegraph scoop in 2007 cited by @IainDale http://iaindale.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/first-premiership-footballer-comes-out.html

    After the comments he made about West Ham? Yeah, that'll go down a treat in that part of the world.
  • ChokinVaseChokinVase Posts: 67
    edited December 2014
    The most interesting thing about that YouGov on the voting age was the clear majority against the idea in the youngest age group polled. They can remember how shallow their thinking was just a few years earlier! :)

    The voting age issue does highlight a wider problem with any form of state hierarchy though: you inevitably have to entrust large number of single-issue obsessives & outright morons with power in the hope that the even larger relatively sane mass can outweigh their influence.

    Sadly, this applies not just to democracy, but also to aristocracy and even to monarchy. It's just the system of balancing the idiots vs the sane works on a different timeframe: democracy uses cross-sections, monarchy is longitudinal, and aristocracy is something of hybrid. The process is different again; genetic lottery vs mass votes. But really, I'm not convinced either is particularly better or even fairer than the other looked at through the prism of outcomes...

    ... reminds me why I try to escape from it as much as possible, and hope for a general reduction in state sprawl... ;)
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited December 2014
    Peter Kellner says that after next election it's probable that Con+LD < 326 and Lab+LD < 326. Two party coalition not possible.
  • I just want to repeat this quote from her ..... the UKIP brand is being damaged whatever their loyal supporters might say or think.

    “I’ve seen racism in every single branch of Ukip that I visited,” she said.

    And its that very quote that undermines her claims. Anyone who has had any dealings with UKIP at a local level knows that this is simply not true. By over-egging the pudding in this way she undermines her credibility entirely.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    The political lobby got excited about splits every time the Coalition sneezed in the early days. :) Having seen the coalition make it this far, suspect that Cameron will want to see it through to the bitter end. What ever the outcome of the GE, in some ways Cameron will have left more of a legacy by maintaining a two party Government coalition than Blair managed in his first term with that huge majority.

    Can't say the rewards outweigh the risks for either party, but especially the Conservatives.

    It'd be great fun to go back in the threads and see the various predictions of when the coalition would end ...

  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Allegra Stratton on Newsnight hitting the nail on the head about why the the DUP might not be willing to prop up the Tories: no matter how socially conservative they are, Northern Ireland depends on the public sector and they would be slaughtered with their own voters if they pushed through a gratuitous austerity programme.
  • Socrates said:

    Frank Lampard wants to stand as a Tory MP....I suggest Thanet South.

    Jonathan Isaby‏@isaby·5 mins5 minutes ago
    Re tomorrow's @dailystaruk story on Lampard and his Tory politics, NB my Telegraph scoop in 2007 cited by @IainDale http://iaindale.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/first-premiership-footballer-comes-out.html

    After the comments he made about West Ham? Yeah, that'll go down a treat in that part of the world.
    I wasn't serious. God knows where he'd be best to stand - not my bag.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Sean_F said:


    There was a later move that qualifies for the dumbest decision of modern times. Hitler's decision to declare war on the US a week or so after Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't have done that the US would have stated out of the European war.

    I may well be being dumb myself here, but wouldn't that just have thrown the Nazis' most important ally under a bus, destroying the Japanese threat to Britain in India and ultimately to the Russians? Germany would then have faced Russia and Britain without them fighting the Japanese at the same time and with at least de facto support from the US.

    I know that all Nazi strategic decisions in the war are questionable with hindsight because they lost and, by definition, should've made different choices. But this doesn't immediately seem an absurd decision on its face, albeit it was based on an erroneous assessment of US naval strength post-Pearl Harbour.
    Fighting, The Soviet Union, The USA and The UK concurrently was a mistake.

    To quote Londo Mollari, Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on three fronts.

    You could say abrograting the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was Hitler's dumbest mistake.
    In defence of the German High Command, Stalin's purge of the Red Army officer corps, and their subsequent woeful performance against the Finns, did give them grounds to believe an attack could succeed. Had they not carried out systematic atrocities against the Soviet population from day one, the whole Communist apparatus of government might have collapsed.
    You could argue prior to 1941 Hitler was the greatest military strategist and tactician of his age.

    It was all downhill from then on.
    Anti-Slavism and anti-Communism were intrinsic to Nazism, to expect anything else than brutality from them in the Ukraine is very naive. The same motivation for the attack was the flaw that detroyed them.

    And the Wehrmacht was not innocent; It fully bought into Plan Hunger:

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/21/secondworldwar-russia

    The three million Soviet POWS who died were under Wehrmacht control, with a death rate comparable in the autumn of 1941 to Auschwitz at peak capacity.

    The Moloto-Ribbentrop pact was as much desired by the Soviets, who realised that the repair of purges of the Officer corps and re-armament were vital for their own defence. Stalin needed to buy some time. If Hitler had not attacked the USSR in 1941 he would have faced a much tougher battle the following year.

  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Labour's 10 day average lead with yougov is down to 0.2 points.

  • too subtle for me...

    Michael Deacon‏@MichaelPDeacon·9m9 minutes ago
    Well of COURSE he's called Roger Bird pic.twitter.com/zHlyshRvps
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    Danny565 said:

    Allegra Stratton on Newsnight hitting the nail on the head about why the the DUP might not be willing to prop up the Tories: no matter how socially conservative they are, Northern Ireland depends on the public sector and they would be slaughtered with their own voters if they pushed through a gratuitous austerity programme.

    That would be the deal though. 8 votes in Parliament and go easy on Ulster. Simples.
  • Socrates said:

    Frank Lampard wants to stand as a Tory MP....I suggest Thanet South.

    Jonathan Isaby‏@isaby·5 mins5 minutes ago
    Re tomorrow's @dailystaruk story on Lampard and his Tory politics, NB my Telegraph scoop in 2007 cited by @IainDale http://iaindale.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/first-premiership-footballer-comes-out.html

    After the comments he made about West Ham? Yeah, that'll go down a treat in that part of the world.
    I wasn't serious. God knows where he'd be best to stand - not my bag.
    Frank Lampard could replace Sir Malcolm Rifkind in Kensington
  • AndyJS said:

    Peter Kellner says that after next election it's probable that Con+LD < 326 and Lab+LD < 326. Two party coalition not possible.

    Two party coalition: Con + Lab
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    I just want to repeat this quote from her ..... the UKIP brand is being damaged whatever their loyal supporters might say or think.

    “I’ve seen racism in every single branch of Ukip that I visited,” she said.

    Balls, this is her second flounce in 2 months. First flounces rarely work and subsequent ones, never. The very strong suspicion is that she has got wind she won't make the cut next Wednesday and is getting her retaliation in first.

  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    SNP would demand an end to austerity as price for deal with Labour.
  • I just want to repeat this quote from her ..... the UKIP brand is being damaged whatever their loyal supporters might say or think.

    “I’ve seen racism in every single branch of Ukip that I visited,” she said.

    And its that very quote that undermines her claims. Anyone who has had any dealings with UKIP at a local level knows that this is simply not true. By over-egging the pudding in this way she undermines her credibility entirely.
    Fair comment but is it not possible that you haven't seen any evidence of it at all but she might do so and she's perhaps a bit different to you?
  • too subtle for me...

    Michael Deacon‏@MichaelPDeacon·9m9 minutes ago
    Well of COURSE he's called Roger Bird pic.twitter.com/zHlyshRvps

    Roger is a well known euphemism for sex.

    Bird is a well known euphemism for a female.

    Such as I want to Roger the arse off that Bird
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534

    I just want to repeat this quote from her ..... the UKIP brand is being damaged whatever their loyal supporters might say or think.

    “I’ve seen racism in every single branch of Ukip that I visited,” she said.

    And its that very quote that undermines her claims. Anyone who has had any dealings with UKIP at a local level knows that this is simply not true. By over-egging the pudding in this way she undermines her credibility entirely.
    In Luton South, we've just selected an Asian businessman as our PPC.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited December 2014
    Ishmael_X said:

    I just want to repeat this quote from her ..... the UKIP brand is being damaged whatever their loyal supporters might say or think.

    “I’ve seen racism in every single branch of Ukip that I visited,” she said.

    Balls, this is her second flounce in 2 months. First flounces rarely work and subsequent ones, never. The very strong suspicion is that she has got wind she won't make the cut next Wednesday and is getting her retaliation in first.

    You mean you are getting your smear in first. Its no surprise that UKIP are shown to be racist. They pander to peoples worst prejudices.
  • I just want to repeat this quote from her ..... the UKIP brand is being damaged whatever their loyal supporters might say or think.

    “I’ve seen racism in every single branch of Ukip that I visited,” she said.

    And its that very quote that undermines her claims. Anyone who has had any dealings with UKIP at a local level knows that this is simply not true. By over-egging the pudding in this way she undermines her credibility entirely.
    She defected from Labour to UKIP in September.

    *cough* Labour plant *cough*
  • too subtle for me...

    Michael Deacon‏@MichaelPDeacon·9m9 minutes ago
    Well of COURSE he's called Roger Bird pic.twitter.com/zHlyshRvps

    Roger is a well known euphemism for sex.

    Bird is a well known euphemism for a female.

    Such as I want to Roger the arse off that Bird
    We really do need the sarcasm flag.... it's great though isn't it.... what a perfect name for the story.... have i got news for you material surely?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Danny565 said:

    SNP would demand an end to austerity as price for deal with Labour.

    Does that mean borrowing 150Bn per year ?
  • rcs1000 said:

    Socrates said:

    UK public oppose lowering the voting age to 16 by three to one:

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/08/22/public-against-lowering-voting-age/

    Even a large majority of Lib Dem and Labour voters oppose it.

    That'll be because it's a stupid idea.

    It's a great idea. Hardly any of them will actually vote, but the few who do will tend to be politically engaged and better informed than the median adult voter.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited December 2014
    Ishmael_X said:

    I just want to repeat this quote from her ..... the UKIP brand is being damaged whatever their loyal supporters might say or think.

    “I’ve seen racism in every single branch of Ukip that I visited,” she said.

    Balls, this is her second flounce in 2 months. First flounces rarely work and subsequent ones, never. The very strong suspicion is that she has got wind she won't make the cut next Wednesday and is getting her retaliation in first.

    New politics - play the whistle blower (but not a canine one)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    edited December 2014
    From September (the lady who made the allegations about Roger Bird)

    UKIP's Natasha Bolter on leaving the Labour party (being introduced by Roger Bird)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFwNRgwLEEU
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    Ishmael_X said:

    I just want to repeat this quote from her ..... the UKIP brand is being damaged whatever their loyal supporters might say or think.

    “I’ve seen racism in every single branch of Ukip that I visited,” she said.

    Balls, this is her second flounce in 2 months. First flounces rarely work and subsequent ones, never. The very strong suspicion is that she has got wind she won't make the cut next Wednesday and is getting her retaliation in first.

    You mean you are getting your smear in first. Its no surprise that UKIP are shown to bne racist. They pander to peoples worst prejudices.
    Not Ukip, sorry. Just very, very suspicious of flouncers of all shades. And, call me misogynist if you will, looking at her photograph I find her claims of sexual harassment strangely uncompelling.

  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Danny565 said:

    Allegra Stratton on Newsnight hitting the nail on the head about why the the DUP might not be willing to prop up the Tories: no matter how socially conservative they are, Northern Ireland depends on the public sector and they would be slaughtered with their own voters if they pushed through a gratuitous austerity programme.

    I don't know the context of the discussion but the tories are not going to push through a gratuitous austerity programme.
    There has already been discussion on here about how overstated comparing figures to 80 years ago is. And when you look into the facts total then government spending of 35% of GDP and current spending of 32% of GDP is perfectly possible. Public spending has come down from its peak of 40% of GDP in 2009-10 to an estimated 36.9% this year and a projected 36% in 2015-16.

    What we have is endless speculation and entrenched prejudice kept in place by ignorance.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    More of the sordid details

    @BuzzFeedUKPol: UKIP candidate quits, claiming she was sexually assaulted by top party official http://t.co/DGBUio0hwd (in @thetimes) http://t.co/iSG91fKtUC
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Mrs Balls on The Agenda discussing gender inequality!!
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    TGOHF said:

    Danny565 said:

    SNP would demand an end to austerity as price for deal with Labour.

    Does that mean borrowing 150Bn per year ?
    Yup. But if it means prioritising ordinary British people and their wellbeing and their public services, ahead of just trying to keep random bond-market investors in Shanghai happy, then I'm all for it.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624

    Socrates said:


    There was a later move that qualifies for the dumbest decision of modern times. Hitler's decision to declare war on the US a week or so after Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't have done that the US would have stated out of the European war.

    I may well be being dumb myself here, but wouldn't that just have thrown the Nazis' most important ally under a bus, destroying the Japanese threat to Britain in India and ultimately to the Russians? Germany would then have faced Russia and Britain without them fighting the Japanese at the same time and with at least de facto support from the US.

    I know that all Nazi strategic decisions in the war are questionable with hindsight because they lost and, by definition, should've made different choices. But this doesn't immediately seem an absurd decision on its face, albeit it was based on an erroneous assessment of US naval strength post-Pearl Harbour.
    Germany was by far the more dangerous enemy. Defeating Germany first was the correct strategy.

    The Japanese had become a strategic irrelevance by late 1942 anyway.
    A 1925 book foretold the Japanese attack and the island hopping campaign to defeat them.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Pacific_War

    Those were the days when the Telegraph had correspondents with brains.
    Japan had no oil and was entirely reliant on its navy to protect its supply lines. Without carriers and anti-submarine capability, they were totally at the mercy of the U.S. Navy.

    Germany on the other hand, managed to develop jet fighters, missiles, very powerful tanks and came fairly close to developing nuclear weapons. Even with all their overstretched ambition and resources they came pretty close to taking Moscow and Cairo, within 18 months of each other, and could have credibly 'won' the Battle of the Atlantic. Of course, they did manage to murder millions of innocent people.

    One shudders to think where they could have got to had they left Russia unmolested and not declared war on the U.S.
    Germany was running out of oil too though. They needed to either take it from the Caucasus or the Middle East.
    I thought throughout much of the war their main source of oil was Romania.
    IIRC from reading Daniel Yergin, the Romanian oil fields and refinerires were repeatedly bombed and often sabotaged.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    I just want to repeat this quote from her ..... the UKIP brand is being damaged whatever their loyal supporters might say or think.

    “I’ve seen racism in every single branch of Ukip that I visited,” she said.

    And its that very quote that undermines her claims. Anyone who has had any dealings with UKIP at a local level knows that this is simply not true. By over-egging the pudding in this way she undermines her credibility entirely.
    She defected from Labour to UKIP in September.

    *cough* Labour plant *cough*
    An interesting thought. Who will be the next kipper to defect?

    Though there were some warning signs:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/13/british-asian-ukip-supporter-quits-party-racist-populism-sanya-jeet-thandi

    http://www.channel4.com/news/ukip-youth-leader-olly-neville-dropped-in-gay-marriage-row

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8550698.stm

    The new politics? colour me a bit sceptical!



  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    rcs1000 said:

    Socrates said:

    UK public oppose lowering the voting age to 16 by three to one:

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/08/22/public-against-lowering-voting-age/

    Even a large majority of Lib Dem and Labour voters oppose it.

    That'll be because it's a stupid idea.

    It's a great idea. Hardly any of them will actually vote, but the few who do will tend to be politically engaged and better informed than the median adult voter.
    Any evidence for that?

    I struggle how any of them will be very well informed of the real world, seeing that by 2015 it'll be compulsory for them to stay in school for another two years.
  • too subtle for me...

    Michael Deacon‏@MichaelPDeacon·9m9 minutes ago
    Well of COURSE he's called Roger Bird pic.twitter.com/zHlyshRvps

    Roger is a well known euphemism for sex.

    Bird is a well known euphemism for a female.

    Such as I want to Roger the arse off that Bird
    We really do need the sarcasm flag.... it's great though isn't it.... what a perfect name for the story.... have i got news for you material surely?
    I'm full of the lurgy, my sarcasm detector is broken.

    This name has always tickled me

    http://perfectpours.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/whet.jpg

    And this one

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BiJi6xHIAAI9_ni.jpg
  • I just want to repeat this quote from her ..... the UKIP brand is being damaged whatever their loyal supporters might say or think.

    “I’ve seen racism in every single branch of Ukip that I visited,” she said.

    And its that very quote that undermines her claims. Anyone who has had any dealings with UKIP at a local level knows that this is simply not true. By over-egging the pudding in this way she undermines her credibility entirely.
    Fair comment but is it not possible that you haven't seen any evidence of it at all but she might do so and she's perhaps a bit different to you?
    Having been involved in anti-racist groups all my life (and having spent time in hospital for my pains) I am acutely aware of racism in all its forms. Now of course there is a chance that she visited none of the UKIP branches I have been involved with and that there is some small enclave of UKIP in the East Midlands that is uniquely different to the rest of the party but given the two scenarios I am afraid I am more inclined to the idea that she is just making it up for impact.

    If she had said that individuals had behaved in an unacceptable manner then I would have been quite willing to believe her. Smearing the whole party in the way she does just makes her look ridiculous.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited December 2014

    I just want to repeat this quote from her ..... the UKIP brand is being damaged whatever their loyal supporters might say or think.

    “I’ve seen racism in every single branch of Ukip that I visited,” she said.

    And its that very quote that undermines her claims. Anyone who has had any dealings with UKIP at a local level knows that this is simply not true. By over-egging the pudding in this way she undermines her credibility entirely.
    She defected from Labour to UKIP in September.

    *cough* Labour plant *cough*
    Just imagine if UKIP has a load of of double-agents ... first one is this Labour mole, who might be next?

    Reckless, Carswell, both?

    Re-defection watch on BBC2 with Bill Oddie needed asap.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    TGOHF said:

    More of the sordid details

    @BuzzFeedUKPol: UKIP candidate quits, claiming she was sexually assaulted by top party official http://t.co/DGBUio0hwd (in @thetimes) http://t.co/iSG91fKtUC

    She wasn't a candidate. She was hoping to be selected for South Basildon, which is one of the places where the original UKIP candidate was unceremoniously removed.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    edited December 2014

    Neil Hamilton, the disgraced former Conservative MP, could be on the verge of a parliamentary comeback at the age of 65 - for Ukip.

    The Independent has learnt that the Thatcherite former minister, who lost his Tatton seat after allegations that he took “cash for questions”, has been shortlisted for one of Ukip’s best prospects at next May’s general election. He will go up against four other candidates in South Basildon and East Thurrock on Wednesday night.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/disgraced-extory-mp-neil-hamilton-in-line-to-make-stunning-commons-comeback-for-ukip-9911421.html

    I forecast a below average swing to ukip in whatever seat Neil Hamilton stands in.


  • I just want to repeat this quote from her ..... the UKIP brand is being damaged whatever their loyal supporters might say or think.

    “I’ve seen racism in every single branch of Ukip that I visited,” she said.

    And its that very quote that undermines her claims. Anyone who has had any dealings with UKIP at a local level knows that this is simply not true. By over-egging the pudding in this way she undermines her credibility entirely.
    She defected from Labour to UKIP in September.

    *cough* Labour plant *cough*
    Just imagine if UKIP has a load of of double-agents ... first one is this Labour mole, who might be next?

    Reckless, Carswell, both?

    Re-defection watch on BBC2 with Bill Oddie needed asap.
    I said, you can never trust a pigdog defector.
  • Danny565 said:

    Allegra Stratton on Newsnight hitting the nail on the head about why the the DUP might not be willing to prop up the Tories: no matter how socially conservative they are, Northern Ireland depends on the public sector and they would be slaughtered with their own voters if they pushed through a gratuitous austerity programme.

    If NI were really the only stumbling block to a Tory minority government with confidence & supply from the DUP, you can be sure that pork barrel politics will ensure they vote with the Conservatives. NI is a small enough area that it can be dealt with leniently even under an otherwise austere regime, and all sorts of "special" (in every sense of the word) reasons will be trotted out to justify that difference.

    Similarly, if say, SNP votes were what Labour needed, you'd see all sorts of similarly daft Scottish exceptionalism in government spending to provide cover for Sturgeon.

    This is the inherent problem with coalitions: they deliver something not a single voter voted for and not a single party actually wanted to do. But the electorate in its infinite wisdom seems desperate to inflict another one on us. From my personal perspective, we've been quite lucky with the outcome of the first one; I doubt we'll be quite so fortunate with the second. But it may very well be that the electorate throws up a weird enough result to require 3 parties or second GE, just to really mess with us.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    Danny565 said:

    TGOHF said:

    Danny565 said:

    SNP would demand an end to austerity as price for deal with Labour.

    Does that mean borrowing 150Bn per year ?
    Yup. But if it means prioritising ordinary British people and their wellbeing and their public services, ahead of just trying to keep random bond-market investors in Shanghai happy, then I'm all for it.
    What about ordinary British pensioners whose savings are full of gilts?

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    On topic, I don't see that much benefit to ending the Coalition now for the Tories. OK, the actual amount of disruption to business may not be that great given I doubt there's much to do 6 months out, but is any amount of actual disruption worth the trouble when you can get basically the same effect by stories like this one about how much they are desperate to not be in Coalition any longer, without actually doing anything about it.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Neil Hamilton, the disgraced former Conservative MP, could be on the verge of a parliamentary comeback at the age of 65 - for Ukip.

    The Independent has learnt that the Thatcherite former minister, who lost his Tatton seat after allegations that he took “cash for questions”, has been shortlisted for one of Ukip’s best prospects at next May’s general election. He will go up against four other candidates in South Basildon and East Thurrock on Wednesday night.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/disgraced-extory-mp-neil-hamilton-in-line-to-make-stunning-commons-comeback-for-ukip-9911421.html

    I forecast a below average swing to ukip in whatever seat Neil Hamilton stands in.


    I forecast a swing away from UKIP.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    I just want to repeat this quote from her ..... the UKIP brand is being damaged whatever their loyal supporters might say or think.

    “I’ve seen racism in every single branch of Ukip that I visited,” she said.

    And its that very quote that undermines her claims. Anyone who has had any dealings with UKIP at a local level knows that this is simply not true. By over-egging the pudding in this way she undermines her credibility entirely.
    She defected from Labour to UKIP in September.

    *cough* Labour plant *cough*
    Just imagine if UKIP has a load of of double-agents ... first one is this Labour mole, who might be next?

    Reckless, Carswell, both?

    Re-defection watch on BBC2 with Bill Oddie needed asap.
    I said, you can never trust a pigdog defector.
    I think that Carswell could defect back (if Cameron was replaced) but I think that Reckless has burnt too many boat. He is likely to get his P45 in May though, so it may not be an issue!
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Scott_P

    'Ms Bolter, 35, contrasted Ukip’s approach to her time with Labour, where she said she “campaigned alongside misogynists” and “found that female tokenism prevailed.”

    She's running out of parties,only the Tories left.
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,893
    Considering the other Northern Irish MPs are all likely to support Labour, doing a deal with the DUP would be a much 'cheaper' way for Labour to get 14 extra seats, rather than funding an austerity free Scotland for SNP's 20 or so.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    What "sexual assault" is this woman claiming? From the sounds of things, she reported the guy last night, and UKIP promptly suspended him pending an investigation. What a contrast to the Lib Dems.
  • Socrates said:

    What "sexual assault" is this woman claiming? From the sounds of things, she reported the guy last night, and UKIP promptly suspended him pending an investigation. What a contrast to the Lib Dems.

    Cough..... no one could have seen that coming....
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Since when has asking someone out for a date been regarded as a terrible thing to do?
  • I just want to repeat this quote from her ..... the UKIP brand is being damaged whatever their loyal supporters might say or think.

    “I’ve seen racism in every single branch of Ukip that I visited,” she said.

    And its that very quote that undermines her claims. Anyone who has had any dealings with UKIP at a local level knows that this is simply not true. By over-egging the pudding in this way she undermines her credibility entirely.
    She defected from Labour to UKIP in September.

    *cough* Labour plant *cough*
    Just imagine if UKIP has a load of of double-agents ... first one is this Labour mole, who might be next?

    Reckless, Carswell, both?

    Re-defection watch on BBC2 with Bill Oddie needed asap.
    I said, you can never trust a pigdog defector.
    I think that Carswell could defect back (if Cameron was replaced) but I think that Reckless has burnt too many boat. He is likely to get his P45 in May though, so it may not be an issue!
    One of my friend's asked me recently what would I prefer next year

    1) A Con Majority and Reckless holding his seat

    or

    2) A Lab Majority and Reckless losing his seat.

    I still haven't worked out which option I would prefer.

    My faculties maybe impaired when discussing Mark Reckless.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578

    I just want to repeat this quote from her ..... the UKIP brand is being damaged whatever their loyal supporters might say or think.

    “I’ve seen racism in every single branch of Ukip that I visited,” she said.

    And its that very quote that undermines her claims. Anyone who has had any dealings with UKIP at a local level knows that this is simply not true. By over-egging the pudding in this way she undermines her credibility entirely.
    She defected from Labour to UKIP in September.

    *cough* Labour plant *cough*
    Just imagine if UKIP has a load of of double-agents ... first one is this Labour mole, who might be next?

    Reckless, Carswell, both?

    Re-defection watch on BBC2 with Bill Oddie needed asap.
    I said, you can never trust a pigdog defector.
    I think that Carswell could defect back (if Cameron was replaced) but I think that Reckless has burnt too many boat. He is likely to get his P45 in May though, so it may not be an issue!
    Given Carswell's over the top comments about how bad things were among the Tories since his defection, which stretches credibility as if they were as bad as he says, his failure to leave until this year makes him gutless or a hypocrite and I don't think he is either, I don't see how even in a non-Cameron led party he could come back. It'd look preposterous.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Israel's parliament votes to dissolve itself and set March 17 election"

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/08/us-israel-politics-idUSKBN0JM2AP20141208
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    From September (the lady who made the allegations about Roger Bird)

    UKIP's Natasha Bolter on leaving the Labour party (being introduced by Roger Bird)

    {snip YouTube}

    Not too shabby but a bit of a whiny voice.

  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012

    Socrates said:


    There was a later move that qualifies for the dumbest decision of modern times. Hitler's decision to declare war on the US a week or so after Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't have done that the US would have stated out of the European war.

    I may well be being dumb myself here, but wouldn't that just have thrown the Nazis' most important ally under a bus, destroying the Japanese threat to Britain in India and ultimately to the Russians? Germany would then have faced Russia and Britain without them fighting the Japanese at the same time and with at least de facto support from the US.

    I know that all Nazi strategic decisions in the war are questionable with hindsight because they lost and, by definition, should've made different choices. But this doesn't immediately seem an absurd decision on its face, albeit it was based on an erroneous assessment of US naval strength post-Pearl Harbour.
    Germany was by far the more dangerous enemy. Defeating Germany first was the correct strategy.

    The Japanese had become a strategic irrelevance by late 1942 anyway.
    A 1925 book foretold the Japanese attack and the island hopping campaign to defeat them.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Pacific_War

    Those were the days when the Telegraph had correspondents with brains.
    Japan had no oil and was entirely reliant on its navy to protect its supply lines. Without carriers and anti-submarine capability, they were totally at the mercy of the U.S. Navy.

    Germany on the other hand, managed to develop jet fighters, missiles, very powerful tanks and came fairly close to developing nuclear weapons. Even with all their overstretched ambition and resources they came pretty close to taking Moscow and Cairo, within 18 months of each other, and could have credibly 'won' the Battle of the Atlantic. Of course, they did manage to murder millions of innocent people.

    One shudders to think where they could have got to had they left Russia unmolested and not declared war on the U.S.
    Germany was running out of oil too though. They needed to either take it from the Caucasus or the Middle East.
    I thought throughout much of the war their main source of oil was Romania.
    I thought there was the concept of buying oil or indeed anything, rather than prise gold out of dead people's teeth.
    Germany never came close to building the bomb. In fact it never came close to developing a coherent weapons policy.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    MikeK said:

    Good evening.

    hermann kelly ‏@hermannkelly 25m25 minutes ago
    Ask Nigel Farage anything, and you can guarantee there will be outrage http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ask-nigel-farage-anything-and-you-can-guarantee-there-will-be-outrage-9911234.html

    Haha couldn't have put it better myself

    She must read this site, described the faux outrage and desperation to be offended perfectly
This discussion has been closed.