"An online survey for STV asking voters which of the leaders had performed best put Mr Salmond in front, with 45% opting for the SNP leader. Mr Carmichael came in second with 33%, ahead of Mr Mundell on 18% and Mr Murphy with 5%."
Yeap, dead last with just 5%. So it's not just his personal policies that Murphy will have a real struggle with.
He will be whinging all the time, hard to think of a more annoying politician.
A tour de force of a speech by Murphy. I know some have their reservations about his lack of left wing credentials but it has to be remembered that in Scotland the primary qualification for a successful Westminster campaign is not being Tory. That doesn't mean not being right wing.
I was told by friends in Scotland that Murphy whatever one's reservations was politically streets better than Nicola.
From his opening salvo I'd say the danger is he also sounds streets better than Ed.
Already been much discussed in the Scottish independent/internet fora. Not nearly so much in the mainstream media, who were acting as his cheerleaders. He is potentially very vulnerable on student loans, Iraq (now active again, of course), and so on.
Add Trident fan and wants benefits cut, real old style labour
I really do see too many contradictions - practical and political - for Mr Murphy to be an obvious solution to SLAB's woes. He may solve these woes - but he could make them much worse and kill them off for good. Meanwhile the SLAB-SNP feud is going to get even more intense, which I had not thought possible. And SLAB have already found that anti-SNP negativity does not work.
We need to see whether Mr M can provide a programme that appeals to the Scots without being stabbed in the back, deliberately or accidentally, by his Tory chums in Better Together, or struck down by Mr Miliband. Or whether he can do it without losing his own seat.
There is also another issue which has perhaps been forgotten momentarily here: that Mr Murphy cannot take part in Holyrood except, so to speak, as the remote master . Ms Dugdale is going to have to front that and it will be interesting to see how she copes with debate and with thinking on her feet, especially when she's not even the local branch manager. However, she may still be better than the last one.
The unanswered question I have here is - what happens when Mr M becomes a MSP? She will then surely have to resign as deputy and be replaced by a MP (de facto and, I believe but may be wrong, de jure rule of one kind as the leader and the other kind as the deputy). Not much of a job [corrected: incentive] there.
Oh FFS you see contradictions ? Have you ever looked objectively at the SNP ?
The monarchist socialist neo con republicans ? The Jim Sillars and Brian Souter party.
"An online survey for STV asking voters which of the leaders had performed best put Mr Salmond in front, with 45% opting for the SNP leader. Mr Carmichael came in second with 33%, ahead of Mr Mundell on 18% and Mr Murphy with 5%."
Yeap, dead last with just 5%. So it's not just his personal policies that Murphy will have a real struggle with.
He will be whinging all the time, hard to think of a more annoying politician.
"Suffice it to say the results are interesting" says John Rentoul commenting on a ComRes opinion poll in The Independent on Sunday tomorrow, shared with the Sunday Mirror. No prizes for guessing which party is likely to be shown as leading then, so perhaps not so interesting after all!
The interesting bit refers to this supplementary question not the VI
As well as asking people how they would vote, we asked them where they would place the following on a left-right scale: Your own political views David Cameron Ed Miliband Nick Clegg Nigel Farage Conservative Party Labour Party UKIP, UK Independence Party Liberal Democrat Party Green Party Prince Charles Russell Brand
Suffice it to say that the results are interesting.
Good game!
On a scale of 0 (Far left - trans Marxist) to 10 (Far right- trans Fascist/BNP)
I'd go:
Your own political views: 6 (I reckon UK is 4.something) David Cameron: 6 Ed Miliband: 4 Nick Clegg: 5 Nigel Farage: 8 Conservative Party: 7 Labour Party: 4 UKIP, UK Independence Party: 8 Liberal Democrat Party: 3 Green Party: 2 Prince Charles: WTFK? (5 at a push) Russell Brand: WTFC (3)
I don't think a simple left-right political scale is particularly useful.
I came out as very centrist on both social and economic affairs which doesn't seem right. But, then, I wanted to answer "it depends" to a lot of questions, and that wasn't an option.
Comically miscalibrated site. It rates all the mainstream world leaders as 1 step short of Hitler, has Hugo Chavez far closer to the centre, then makes it nigh on impossible for anyone answering the questions who isn't racist or homophobic to be anything more right wing than the centre.
A tour de force of a speech by Murphy. I know some have their reservations about his lack of left wing credentials but it has to be remembered that in Scotland the primary qualification for a successful Westminster campaign is not being Tory. That doesn't mean not being right wing.
I was told by friends in Scotland that Murphy whatever one's reservations was politically streets better than Nicola.
From his opening salvo I'd say the danger is he also sounds streets better than Ed.
Already been much discussed in the Scottish independent/internet fora. Not nearly so much in the mainstream media, who were acting as his cheerleaders. He is potentially very vulnerable on student loans, Iraq (now active again, of course), and so on.
Add Trident fan and wants benefits cut, real old style labour
The unanswered question I have here is - what happens when Mr M becomes a MSP? She will then surely have to resign as deputy and be replaced by a MP (de facto and, I believe but may be wrong, de jure rule of one kind as the leader and the other kind as the deputy). Not much of a job [corrected: incentive] there.
Oh FFS you see contradictions ? Have you ever looked objectively at the SNP ?
The monarchist socialist neo con republicans ? The Jim Sillars and Brian Souter party.
Are mirrors illegal in Scotland ?
That is though the problem, because there is no other alternative to the SNP for all those groups they vote SNP. Who do you think scottish conservatives will vote for? Not the Tories because they are traitors to scotland. Who do you think scottish socialists will vote for? Not for Labour because they are not socialists. Who do you think scottish liberals will vote for? Not for the LD's because they are Tories.
If there was any other party in Scotland that was patriotic or socialist or liberal the voters would be able to vote for it, however there is none apart from the SNP who has constructed a very contradictory but stable electoral alliance based on the fact that it's the only game in town.
A tour de force of a speech by Murphy. I know some have their reservations about his lack of left wing credentials but it has to be remembered that in Scotland the primary qualification for a successful Westminster campaign is not being Tory. That doesn't mean not being right wing.
I was told by friends in Scotland that Murphy whatever one's reservations was politically streets better than Nicola.
From his opening salvo I'd say the danger is he also sounds streets better than Ed.
Already been much discussed in the Scottish independent/internet fora. Not nearly so much in the mainstream media, who were acting as his cheerleaders. He is potentially very vulnerable on student loans, Iraq (now active again, of course), and so on.
Add Trident fan and wants benefits cut, real old style labour
The unanswered question I have here is - what happens when Mr M becomes a MSP? She will then surely have to resign as deputy and be replaced by a MP (de facto and, I believe but may be wrong, de jure rule of one kind as the leader and the other kind as the deputy). Not much of a job [corrected: incentive] there.
Oh FFS you see contradictions ? Have you ever looked objectively at the SNP ?
The monarchist socialist neo con republicans ? The Jim Sillars and Brian Souter party.
Are mirrors illegal in Scotland ?
That is though the problem, because there is no other alternative to the SNP for all those groups they vote SNP. Who do you think scottish conservatives will vote for? Not the Tories because they are traitors to scotland. Who do you think scottish socialists will vote for? Not for Labour because they are not socialists. Who do you think scottish liberals will vote for? Not for the LD's because they are Tories.
If there was any other party in Scotland that was patriotic or socialist or liberal the voters would be able to vote for it, however there is none apart from the SNP who has constructed a very contradictory but stable electoral alliance based on the fact that it's the only game in town.
I really do see too many contradictions - practical and political - for Mr Murphy to be an obvious solution to SLAB's woes. He may solve these woes - but he could make them much worse and kill them off for good. Meanwhile the SLAB-SNP feud is going to get even more intense, which I had not thought possible. And SLAB have already found that anti-SNP negativity does not work.
We need to see whether Mr M can provide a programme that appeals to the Scots without being stabbed in the back, deliberately or accidentally, by his Tory chums in Better Together, or struck down by Mr Miliband. Or whether he can do it without losing his own seat.
There is also another issue which has perhaps been forgotten momentarily here: that Mr Murphy cannot take part in Holyrood except, so to speak, as the remote master . Ms Dugdale is going to have to front that and it will be interesting to see how she copes with debate and with thinking on her feet, especially when she's not even the local branch manager. However, she may still be better than the last one.
The unanswered question I have here is - what happens when Mr M becomes a MSP? She will then surely have to resign as deputy and be replaced by a MP (de facto and, I believe but may be wrong, de jure rule of one kind as the leader and the other kind as the deputy). Not much of a job [corrected: incentive] there.
Oh FFS you see contradictions ? Have you ever looked objectively at the SNP ?
The monarchist socialist neo con republicans ? The Jim Sillars and Brian Souter party.
Are mirrors illegal in Scotland ?
I think you are forgetting that the SNP is actually campaigning for the Scots to decide those issues for themselves once they are independent. Quite logically coherent. As is also quite clear from the White Paper.
Whereas Labour ... Keir Hardie or neocon, Trident or CND, etc. etc.
Nothing is 'impartial - and it does provide their view of current political leaders to benchmark yourself against..... Given its a 'libertarian advocacy web site and I I score -6.4 (i.e, very Libertarian) on the Libertarian score.......
I score 3.38 left-right and -4.78 libertarian, so I am a moderate libertarian and more so than I am on the right. But there are some odd questions. Why just have one on the legalisation of cannabis for personal use? I would support commercial production and sale. And I found some of the questions too "yes&no" to justify an Agree and a Strongly Agree statement. But it probably shows why I find it difficult to identify strongly with any one particular political party, I am not sure any would fall in the purple right-libertarian box.
Economic Left/Right: -8.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.72
Surprised that Barack Obama is where he is.
Actually they suggest that the LDs just sneaked into the Libertarian box in 2010. Problem is, there are two sorts of LDs, the Orange Bookers and the sandal-wearers. I would consider voting for an Orange Book party, and if I lived in Germany probably vote FDP.
A tour de force of a speech by Murphy. I know some have their reservations about his lack of left wing credentials but it has to be remembered From his opening salvo I'd say the danger is he also sounds streets better than Ed.
Already been much discussed in the Scottish independent/internet fora. Not nearly so much in the mainstream media, who were acting as his cheerleaders. He is potentially very vulnerable on student loans, Iraq (now active again, of course), and so on.
Add Trident fan and wants benefits cut, real old style labour
The unanswered question I have here is - what happens when Mr M becomes a MSP? She will then surely have to resign as deputy and be replaced by a MP (de facto and, I believe but may be wrong, de jure rule of one kind as the leader and the other kind as the deputy). Not much of a job [corrected: incentive] there.
Oh FFS you see contradictions ? Have you ever looked objectively at the SNP ?
The monarchist socialist neo con republicans ? The Jim Sillars and Brian Souter party.
Are mirrors illegal in Scotland ?
That is though the problem, because there is no other alternative to the SNP for all those groups they vote SNP. Who do you think scottish conservatives will vote for? Not the Tories because they are traitors to scotland. Who do you think scottish socialists will vote for? Not for Labour because they are not socialists. Who do you think scottish liberals will vote for? Not for the LD's because they are Tories.
If there was any other party in Scotland that was patriotic or socialist or liberal the voters would be able to vote for it, however there is none apart from the SNP who has constructed a very contradictory but stable electoral alliance based on the fact that it's the only game in town.
You're simply saying Scots are turnips.
Who would you vote if you were a patriot or a socialist or a liberal in scotland? Labour?
Nothing is 'impartial - and it does provide their view of current political leaders to benchmark yourself against..... Given its a 'libertarian advocacy web site and I I score -6.4 (i.e, very Libertarian) on the Libertarian score.......
I score 3.38 left-right and -4.78 libertarian, so I am a moderate libertarian and more so than I am on the right. But there are some odd questions. Why just have one on the legalisation of cannabis for personal use? I would support commercial production and sale. And I found some of the questions too "yes&no" to justify an Agree and a Strongly Agree statement. But it probably shows why I find it difficult to identify strongly with any one particular political party, I am not sure any would fall in the purple right-libertarian box.
Economic Left/Right: -8.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.72
Surprised that Barack Obama is where he is.
Actually they suggest that the LDs just sneaked into the Libertarian box in 2010. Problem is, there are two sorts of LDs, the Orange Bookers and the sandal-wearers. I would consider voting for an Orange Book party, and if I lived in Germany probably vote FDP.
Otherweise known as the old SDP and the Old Liberals.
I really do see too many contradictions - practical and political - for Mr Murphy to be an obvious solution to SLAB's woes. He may solve these woes - but he could make them much worse and kill them off for good. Meanwhile the SLAB-SNP feud is going to get even more intense, which I had not thought possible. And SLAB have already found that anti-SNP negativity does not work.
We need to see whether Mr M can provide a programme that appeals to the Scots without being stabbed in the back, deliberately or accidentally, by his Tory chums in Better Together, or struck down by Mr Miliband. Or whether he can do it without losing his own seat.
There is also another issue which has perhaps been forgotten momentarily here: that Mr Murphy cannot take part in Holyrood except, so to speak, as the remote master . Ms Dugdale is going to have to front that and it will be interesting to see how she copes with debate and with thinking on her feet, especially when she's not even the local branch manager. However, she may still be better than the last one.
The unanswered question I have here is - what happens when Mr M becomes a MSP? She will then surely have to resign as deputy and be replaced by a MP (de facto and, I believe but may be wrong, de jure rule of one kind as the leader and the other kind as the deputy). Not much of a job [corrected: incentive] there.
Oh FFS you see contradictions ? Have you ever looked objectively at the SNP ?
The monarchist socialist neo con republicans ? The Jim Sillars and Brian Souter party.
Are mirrors illegal in Scotland ?
I think you are forgetting that the SNP is actually campaigning for the Scots to decide those issues for themselves once they are independent. Quite logically coherent. As is also quite clear from the White Paper.
Whereas Labour ... Keir Hardie or neocon, Trident or CND, etc. etc.
Ah right so you can live with your intellectually distorted position but your opponents can't.
It doesn't occur to you that the other parties might be coalitions of interest too ? That maybe instead of looking through the axis of nationalism they are looking at life on a different axis say earnings or opportunity ?
The difference is the other parties don't have such a wide spectrum of views to accommodate, the SNP is inherently unstable and Sturgeon will crack the edifice.
A tour de force of a speech by Murphy. I know some have their reservations about his lack of left wing credentials but it has to be remembered From his opening salvo I'd say the danger is he also sounds streets better than Ed.
Already been much discussed in the Scottish independent/internet fora. Not nearly so much in the mainstream media, who were acting as his cheerleaders. He is potentially very vulnerable on student loans, Iraq (now active again, of course), and so on.
Add Trident fan and wants benefits cut, real old style labour
The unanswered question I have here is - what happens when Mr M becomes a MSP? She will then surely have to resign as deputy and be replaced by a MP (de facto and, I believe but may be wrong, de jure rule of one kind as the leader and the other kind as the deputy). Not much of a job [corrected: incentive] there.
Oh FFS you see contradictions ? Have you ever looked objectively at the SNP ?
The monarchist socialist neo con republicans ? The Jim Sillars and Brian Souter party.
Are mirrors illegal in Scotland ?
That is though the problem, because there is no other alternative to the SNP for all those groups they vote SNP. Who do you think scottish conservatives will vote for? Not the Tories because they are traitors to scotland. Who do you think scottish socialists will vote for? Not for Labour because they are not socialists. Who do you think scottish liberals will vote for? Not for the LD's because they are Tories.
If there was any other party in Scotland that was patriotic or socialist or liberal the voters would be able to vote for it, however there is none apart from the SNP who has constructed a very contradictory but stable electoral alliance based on the fact that it's the only game in town.
You're simply saying Scots are turnips.
Who would you vote if you were a patriot or a socialist or a liberal in scotland? Labour?
I just read an interesting comment pointing out that if David Cameron gets his way, the Turkish government, known for oppressive crackdowns on protesters and sending journalists critical of Erdogan to jail, will be able to extradict any British citizen from the UK without presenting evidence to the UK.
I just read an interesting comment pointing out that if David Cameron gets his way, the Turkish government, known for oppressive crackdowns on protesters and sending journalists critical of Erdogan to jail, will be able to extradict any British citizen from the UK without presenting evidence to the UK.
How idiotic is this man?
Considering the regime re-elected in Hungary recently, he just doesn't care because, as in so much else, it will never happen to him and his ilk.
I would just love that it would happen to a member of the "club". The cases of Jeremy Thorpe and others suggest it will never happen.
Winchester is in the deep south of England. Given that the most alienation from politics comes from those north of Watford gap, we should have an English parliament in the Midlands or North. Somewhere like Lincoln would work well. Politicians should go to a place less well-off so they can see what the rest of the country is going through.
Speaking as a resident of Lincoln I really don't fancy that one little bit. Well, "somewhere like Lincoln" is fair enough... so long as it isn't actually Lincoln.
WTF is going on at the DT? Is Damian kaput? All the reasons why I visited their site are gone bar Animal Pix Of The Week and Matt. The blogs are dead - and my favourites have either disappeared or decamped elsewhere.
A tour de force of a speech by Murphy. I know some have their reservations about his lack of left wing credentials but it has to be remembered that in Scotland the primary qualification for a successful Westminster campaign is not being Tory. That doesn't mean not being right wing.
I was told by friends in Scotland that Murphy whatever one's reservations was politically streets better than Nicola.
From his opening salvo I'd say the danger is he also sounds streets better than Ed.
An unexpected amount of good sense there, Rogerdamus. I agree that Murphy is a capable and plausible politician, with guts, brains and - praise the Lord - an actual proletarian backstory: he would make a much better leader of the Labour party overall, than Ed Miliband.
What puzzles me about Scotland in particular is where all the rightwing Scots voters are going. We know that Scots (pace the maunderings of lefty Nats on here) differ very little from the English in social and economic attitudes: they might be slightly more social democratic, but it is marginal. Scots are almost equally anti immigration, almost as eurosceptic, almost as angry about welfare fraud, &c.
So who is sucking up these Scottish rightwing voters? It seems to be the SNP, even though, under Sturgeon, they are now to the left of Labour; and I can just about see why rightwing Scots would vote SNP in 2015 to give Scotland an edge in the devomax negotiations.
However I fail to see why rightwing Scots would vote for the leftwing SNP at Holyrood in 2016 - just so Sturgeon can use her new powers to raise Scottish income taxes?
No. Which means -
The SNP will do very well in the UK GE 2015, but much less well in Holyrood in 2016, as rightwing Scots shy away from tartan socialism. Sturgeon will not get an overall majority in Edinburgh.
You don't put a Tory as head of scottish labour, the scots hate the Tories. In my opinion Jim Murphy will drive scottish labour to the ground, however since it has been driven to the ground already there won't be much difference.
Labour has thrown the towel in trying to get ex-labour voters who now vote SNP and Greens, however I can't see them getting any votes from the Tories and LD's in Scotland because there aren't any to begin with.
I really do see too many contradictions - practical and political - for Mr Murphy to be an obvious solution to SLAB's woes. He may solve these woes - but he could make them much worse and kill them off for good. Meanwhile the SLAB-SNP feud is going to get even more intense, which I had not thought possible. And SLAB have already found that anti-SNP negativity does not work.
We need to see whether Mr M can provide a programme that appeals to the Scots without being stabbed in the back, deliberately or accidentally, by his Tory chums in Better Together, or struck down by Mr Miliband. Or whether he can do it without losing his own seat.
There is also another issue which has perhaps been forgotten momentarily here: that Mr Murphy cannot take part in Holyrood except, so to speak, as the remote master . Ms Dugdale is going to have to front that and it will be interesting to see how she copes with debate and with thinking on her feet, especially when she's not even the local branch manager. However, she may still be better than the last one.
The unanswered question I have here is - what happens when Mr M becomes a MSP? She will then surely have to resign as deputy and be replaced by a MP (de facto and, I believe but may be wrong, de jure rule of one kind as the leader and the other kind as the deputy). Not much of a job [corrected: incentive] there.
Oh FFS you see contradictions ? Have you ever looked objectively at the SNP ?
The monarchist socialist neo con republicans ? The Jim Sillars and Brian Souter party.
Are mirrors illegal in Scotland ?
I think you are forgetting that the SNP is actually campaigning for the Scots to decide those issues for themselves once they are independent. Quite logically coherent. As is also quite clear from the White Paper.
Whereas Labour ... Keir Hardie or neocon, Trident or CND, etc. etc.
Ah right so you can live with your intellectually distorted position but your opponents can't.
It doesn't occur to you that the other parties might be coalitions of interest too ? That maybe instead of looking through the axis of nationalism they are looking at life on a different axis say earnings or opportunity ?
The difference is the other parties don't have such a wide spectrum of views to accommodate, the SNP is inherently unstable and Sturgeon will crack the edifice.
The difference is that the Unionists have to live with the contradictions. The SNP can move on or fragment or whatever after independence.
Murphy wasn't my choice and I think it will be an uphill struggle for him to win over Scots who will see self-interest best served by dispatching as many SNP MP's as possible next May to leverage the best deal possible out of the next CofE.
It also won't help that he's well to the right of Sturgeon and was the face of a very devisive 'No' campaign.
WTF is going on at the DT? Is Damian kaput? All the reasons why I visited their site are gone bar Animal Pix Of The Week and Matt. The blogs are dead - and my favourites have either disappeared or decamped elsewhere.
A tour de force of a speech by Murphy. I know some have their reservations about his lack of left wing credentials but it has to be remembered that in Scotland the primary qualification for a successful Westminster campaign is not being Tory. That doesn't mean not being right wing.
I was told by friends in Scotland that Murphy whatever one's reservations was politically streets better than Nicola.
From his opening salvo I'd say the danger is he also sounds streets better than Ed.
An unexpected amount of good sense there, Rogerdamus. I agree that Murphy is a capable and plausible politician, with guts, brains and - praise the Lord - an actual proletarian backstory: he would make a much better leader of the Labour party overall, than Ed Miliband.
What puzzles me about Scotland in particular is where all the rightwing Scots voters are going. We know that Scots (pace the maunderings of lefty Nats on here) differ very little from the English in social and economic attitudes: they might be slightly more social democratic, but it is marginal. Scots are almost equally anti immigration, almost as eurosceptic, almost as angry about welfare fraud, &c.
So who is sucking up these Scottish rightwing voters? It seems to be the SNP, even though, under Sturgeon, they are now to the left of Labour; and I can just about see why rightwing Scots would vote SNP in 2015 to give Scotland an edge in the devomax negotiations.
However I fail to see why rightwing Scots would vote for the leftwing SNP at Holyrood in 2016 - just so Sturgeon can use her new powers to raise Scottish income taxes?
No. Which means -
The SNP will do very well in the UK GE 2015, but much less well in Holyrood in 2016, as rightwing Scots shy away from tartan socialism. Sturgeon will not get an overall majority in Edinburgh.
All presumably to do with Mr Seiken's ongoing revolution at the DT. These give some hint:
I really do see too many contradictions - practical and political - for Mr Murphy to be an
The unanswered question I have here is - what happens when Mr M becomes a MSP? She will then surely have to resign as deputy and be replaced by a MP (de facto and, I believe but may be wrong, de jure rule of one kind as the leader and the other kind as the deputy). Not much of a job [corrected: incentive] there.
Oh FFS you see contradictions ? Have you ever looked objectively at the SNP ?
The monarchist socialist neo con republicans ? The Jim Sillars and Brian Souter party.
Are mirrors illegal in Scotland ?
I think you are forgetting that the SNP is actually campaigning for the Scots to decide those issues for themselves once they are independent. Quite logically coherent. As is also quite clear from the White Paper.
Whereas Labour ... Keir Hardie or neocon, Trident or CND, etc. etc.
Ah right so you can live with your intellectually distorted position but your opponents can't.
It doesn't occur to you that the other parties might be coalitions of interest too ? That maybe a wide spectrum of views to accommodate, the SNP is inherently unstable and Sturgeon will crack the edifice.
The difference is that the Unionists have to live with the contradictions. The SNP can move on or fragment or whatever after independence.
You'll fragment pre. You're managing an unstable coalition.
Eventually the SNP will have to make decisions and that will force parts of the coalition to peel off. We;ve already seen fault lines on trident and on the monarchy.
"I decided Southampton itself would put anyone sane off a move. That was wrong: Southampton is quite a pleasant place as well, if scruffy in parts thanks to the Germans."
The same could be said for Plymouth and Portsmouth. Fortunately the horrors of the post-war rebuilding are themselves now being removed and all three cities will be much better as a result.
Southampton does also have a very fine curry house, probably one of the best in the South of England.
Oh? Which one is that, please? I have to go there on business ...
I'm a regular visitor to Southampton as I live not far away and my daughter in at the University of Southampton. I think HL is referring to the Namaste Kerala restaurant on New st or mabe New road?
What’s disabled access like? I have a relative who has to visit the hospital in Southampton every few months and currently needs a wheelchair.
Mr. Cole, looking at Street view, Moses has identified the fine restaurant I was talking about. As for disabled access, well there must be some for the place still to be allowed to open. However, it is on the first floor and I have no memory of an easily accessible lift.
That said they are shockingly nice people and I am sure a phone call (023 8022 4422) will produce an answer. The food is certainly worth making the effort. Great place to go for lunch.
A tour de force of a speech by Murphy. I know some have their reservations about his lack of left wing credentials but it has to be remembered that in Scotland the primary qualification for a successful Westminster campaign is not being Tory. That doesn't mean not being right wing.
I was told by friends in Scotland that Murphy whatever one's reservations was politically streets better than Nicola.
From his opening salvo I'd say the danger is he also sounds streets better than Ed.
An unexpected amount of good sense there, Rogerdamus. I agree that Murphy is a capable and plausible politician, with guts, brains and - praise the Lord - an actual proletarian backstory: he would make a much better leader of the Labour party overall, than Ed Miliband.
What puzzles me about Scotland in particular is where all the rightwing Scots voters are going. We know that Scots (pace the maunderings of lefty Nats on here) differ very little from the English in social and economic attitudes: they might be slightly more social democratic, but it is marginal. Scots are almost equally anti immigration, almost as eurosceptic, almost as angry about welfare fraud, &c.
So who is sucking up these Scottish rightwing voters? It seems to be the SNP, even though, under Sturgeon, they are now to the left of Labour; and I can just about see why rightwing Scots would vote SNP in 2015 to give Scotland an edge in the devomax negotiations.
However I fail to see why rightwing Scots would vote for the leftwing SNP at Holyrood in 2016 - just so Sturgeon can use her new powers to raise Scottish income taxes?
No. Which means -
The SNP will do very well in the UK GE 2015, but much less well in Holyrood in 2016, as rightwing Scots shy away from tartan socialism. Sturgeon will not get an overall majority in Edinburgh.
Scots are much more pro-EU.
There's one overwhelming reason why rightwing Scots should vote SNP in Holyrood and that is the alternative. Especially as Mr Swinney is (a) efficient and (b) on the right wing of the SNP.
I would've thought Mr Murphy's toughness and personal integrity/bravery would win him substantial brownie points/votes with the marginal Tartan Tories who went SNP before.
He's a Blairite [despite looking like Skeletor] and I really like him. If I were a Scot rather than a Geordie-By-Sea in Sussex - I'd vote for him. And I'm a card carrying Tory these days.
If the Tories have too much branding baggage nowadays - well I think he's a very sensible chap whose values I admire.
Murphy wasn't my choice and I think it will be an uphill struggle for him to win over Scots who will see self-interest best served by dispatching as many SNP MP's as possible next May to leverage the best deal possible out of the next CofE.
It also won't help that he's well to the right of Sturgeon and was the face of a very devisive 'No' campaign.
A tour de force of a speech by Murphy. I know some have their reservations about his lack of left wing credentials but it has to be remembered that in Scotland the primary qualification for a successful Westminster campaign is not being Tory. That doesn't mean not being right wing.
I was told by friends in Scotland that Murphy whatever one's reservations was politically streets better than Nicola.
From his opening salvo I'd say the danger is he also sounds streets better than Ed.
An unexpected amount of good sense there, Rogerdamus. I agree that Murphy is a capable and plausible politician, with guts, brains and - praise the Lord - an actual proletarian backstory: he would make a much better leader of the Labour party overall, than Ed Miliband.
What puzzles me about Scotland in particular is where all the rightwing Scots voters are going. We know that Scots (pace the maunderings of lefty Nats on here) differ very little from the English in social and economic attitudes: they might be slightly more social democratic, but it is marginal. Scots are almost equally anti immigration, almost as eurosceptic, almost as angry about welfare fraud, &c.
So who is sucking up these Scottish rightwing voters? It seems to be the SNP, even though, under Sturgeon, they are now to the left of Labour; and I can just about see why rightwing Scots would vote SNP in 2015 to give Scotland an edge in the devomax negotiations.
However I fail to see why rightwing Scots would vote for the leftwing SNP at Holyrood in 2016 - just so Sturgeon can use her new powers to raise Scottish income taxes?
No. Which means -
The SNP will do very well in the UK GE 2015, but much less well in Holyrood in 2016, as rightwing Scots shy away from tartan socialism. Sturgeon will not get an overall majority in Edinburgh.
Scots are much more pro-EU.
There's one overwhelming reason why rightwing Scots should vote SNP in Holyrood and that is the alternative. Especially as Mr Swinney is (a) efficient and (b) on the right wing of the SNP.
I really do see too many contradictions - practical and political - for Mr Murphy to be an
The unanswered question I have here is - what happens when Mr M becomes a MSP? She will then surely have to resign as deputy and be replaced by a MP (de facto and, I believe but may be wrong, de jure rule of one kind as the leader and the other kind as the deputy). Not much of a job [corrected: incentive] there.
Oh FFS you see contradictions ? Have you ever looked objectively at the SNP ?
The monarchist socialist neo con republicans ? The Jim Sillars and Brian Souter party.
Are mirrors illegal in Scotland ?
I think you are forgetting that the SNP is actually campaigning for the Scots to decide those issues for themselves once they are independent. Quite logically coherent. As is also quite clear from the White Paper.
Whereas Labour ... Keir Hardie or neocon, Trident or CND, etc. etc.
Ah right so you can live with your intellectually distorted position but your opponents can't.
It doesn't occur to you that the other parties might be coalitions of interest too ? That maybe a wide spectrum of views to accommodate, the SNP is inherently unstable and Sturgeon will crack the edifice.
The difference is that the Unionists have to live with the contradictions. The SNP can move on or fragment or whatever after independence.
You'll fragment pre. You're managing an unstable coalition.
Eventually the SNP will have to make decisions and that will force parts of the coalition to peel off. We;ve already seen fault lines on trident and on the monarchy.
According to the media - which is overwhelmingly unionist. You're in danger of believing your own propaganda. The differences of opinion do exist but even the monarchy is actually much less of an issue than it was. And it will evolve when Charles III takes over. Its main importance is, after all, as a constitutional issue post indy.
And fault lines on Trident!!?! You're thinking of Labour there, surely. (If you are thinking of NATO, that is a quite different matter, though related, and resolved by debate and voting and one or two MSPs going indy.)
The Times does great opinion pieces - I'd like to read you there given you're on the Travel section.
Jenni Russell is such a lightweight compared to the rest. She really needs to be parked by Tim Monty. I can't understand why she's got a column at all. There are loads of better leftish writers about. I'd offer one to someone like Luke Akehurst or Rob Merchant. Or Atul from LabourList - much more convincing and in-tune.
WTF is going on at the DT? Is Damian kaput? All the reasons why I visited their site are gone bar Animal Pix Of The Week and Matt. The blogs are dead - and my favourites have either disappeared or decamped elsewhere.
A tour de force of a speech by Murphy. I know some have their reservations about his lack of left wing credentials but it has to be remembered that in Scotland the primary qualification for a successful Westminster campaign is not being Tory. That doesn't mean not being right wing.
I was told by friends in Scotland that Murphy whatever one's reservations was politically streets better than Nicola.
From his opening salvo I'd say the danger is he also sounds streets better than Ed.
htwing Scots would vote SNP in 2015 to give Scotland an edge in the devomax negotiations.
However I fail to see why rightwing Scots would vote for the leftwing SNP at Holyrood in 2016 - just so Sturgeon can use her new powers to raise Scottish income taxes?
No. Which means -
The SNP will do very well in the UK GE 2015, but much less well in Holyrood in 2016, as rightwing Scots shy away from tartan socialism. Sturgeon will not get an overall majority in Edinburgh.
Damian has decamped to the Spectator, Dan Hannan has gone to CapX, Delingpole is with Breitbart, Tom Chivers has signed for Buzzfeed, I have retired (temporarily but necessarily) to spend more time writing thrillers and travel, etc etc etc. The blogs themselves have been killed off (to the mystification of many as they got lots of clicks, didn't cost much, and - unlike many papers - the Telegraph makes fat profits; also the blogs were unique in their range of rightwing opinion)
Basically the paper is in a state of great flux as - allegedly - some of the insiders are trying to shift it to the Left, and others are resisting. I shall say no more, other than that, if they do succeed in taking it to the Left there will be lots of room for a new quality paper/website reflecting Tory/conservative opinion.
A tour de force of a speech by Murphy. I know some have their reservations about his lack of left wing credentials but it has to be remembered that in Scotland the primary qualification for a successful Westminster campaign is not being Tory. That doesn't mean not being right wing.
I was told by friends in Scotland that Murphy whatever one's reservations was politically streets better than Nicola.
From his opening salvo I'd say the danger is he also sounds streets better than Ed.
An unexpected amount of good sense there, Rogerdamus. I agree that Murphy is a capable and plausible politician, with guts, brains and - praise the Lord - an actual proletarian backstory: he would make a much better leader of the Labour party overall, than Ed Miliband.
What puzzles me about Scotland in particular is where all the rightwing Scots voters are going. We know that Scots (pace the maunderings of lefty Nats on here) differ very little from the English in social and economic attitudes: they might be slightly more social democratic, but it is marginal. Scots are almost equally anti immigration, almost as eurosceptic, almost as angry about welfare fraud, &c.
So who is sucking up these Scottish rightwing voters? It seems to be the SNP, even though, under Sturgeon, they are now to the left of Labour; and I can just about see why rightwing Scots would vote SNP in 2015 to give Scotland an edge in the devomax negotiations.
However I fail to see why rightwing Scots would vote for the leftwing SNP at Holyrood in 2016 - just so Sturgeon can use her new powers to raise Scottish income taxes?
No. Which means -
The SNP will do very well in the UK GE 2015, but much less well in Holyrood in 2016, as rightwing Scots shy away from tartan socialism. Sturgeon will not get an overall majority in Edinburgh.
Scots are much more pro-EU.
There's one overwhelming reason why rightwing Scots should vote SNP in Holyrood and that is the alternative. Especially as Mr Swinney is (a) efficient and (b) on the right wing of the SNP.
Swinney ? Now you're having a laugh.
Not when it comes to public finances. Anyone who avoids falling into the PFI/PPP trap gets a huge gold star in my view, especially when he replaces it with something much more under public control.
"I decided Southampton itself would put anyone sane off a move. That was wrong: Southampton is quite a pleasant place as well, if scruffy in parts thanks to the Germans."
The same could be said for Plymouth and Portsmouth. Fortunately the horrors of the post-war rebuilding are themselves now being removed and all three cities will be much better as a result.
Southampton does also have a very fine curry house, probably one of the best in the South of England.
Oh? Which one is that, please? I have to go there on business ...
If there is one thing nearly all of us can agree on - it is we like a good curry!
"I decided Southampton itself would put anyone sane off a move. That was wrong: Southampton is quite a pleasant place as well, if scruffy in parts thanks to the Germans."
The same could be said for Plymouth and Portsmouth. Fortunately the horrors of the post-war rebuilding are themselves now being removed and all three cities will be much better as a result.
Southampton does also have a very fine curry house, probably one of the best in the South of England.
Oh? Which one is that, please? I have to go there on business ...
I'm a regular visitor to Southampton as I live not far away and my daughter in at the University of Southampton. I think HL is referring to the Namaste Kerala restaurant on New st or mabe New road?
What’s disabled access like? I have a relative who has to visit the hospital in Southampton every few months and currently needs a wheelchair.
Mr. Cole, looking at Street view, Moses has identified the fine restaurant I was talking about. As for disabled access, well there must be some for the place still to be allowed to open. However, it is on the first floor and I have no memory of an easily accessible lift.
That said they are shockingly nice people and I am sure a phone call (023 8022 4422) will produce an answer. The food is certainly worth making the effort. Great place to go for lunch.
Many thanks to you and Messrs Moses and Cole for this - I had a look at the menu on the website. I will be having get-togethers with old colleagues and this looks just right.
Let's give them free movement to London via the EU! The views of David Cameron, political mastermind.
I can see plenty of cases where suicide bombings are "justified": one obvious example is Gaza. The Palestinians are faced with an overwhelmingly mightier enemy, intent on repressing them, by lobbing napalm into schoos, etc. The only way to wage asymmetric wars against vastly superior foes is with risky and extreme tactics like suicide bombings, terrorist attacks, and so on - as the Israelis themselves well know, having used these same tactics against the Brits in the late 1940s.
Indeed I am sure British generals have themselves sent soldiers to a certain death, knowing that a greater military cause was being served. How many men died in Bomber Command in WW2? - 44% of the total who flew. They were OUR suicide bombers.
I don't necessarily agree with your first paragraph, but on the second: I read somewhere (probably Max Hasting's Nemesis) that the Japanese high command were confused about the western media's attitude to Kamikaze pilots. After all, they had seen the Allies knowingly throw lots of young men into stupid, pointless skirmishes to gain tactical or strategic advantages, and young men often chose to do selfless acts in battle.
I went into that section of the book thinking there was a difference between the use of Kamikazes (an evil waste of line) and what we did. I came out far from sure. Which is, all told, the sign of a good writer.
I mean really ? You're recycling that paranoid nonsense ? Should all unioinists get paranoid because the scottish government is "overwhelmingly" SNP ? Are the cybernats just so much piss and wind ? You've lost the plot mate.
As for the bulk of your post you're simply re-iterating my earlier point that all parties are coalitions of interest, and the SNP has a wider spectrum to accommodate than most parties.
A tour de force of a speech by Murphy. I know some have their reservations about his lack of left wing credentials but it has to be remembered that in Scotland the primary qualification for a successful Westminster campaign is not being Tory. That doesn't mean not being right wing.
I was told by friends in Scotland that Murphy whatever one's reservations was politically streets better than Nicola.
From his opening salvo I'd say the danger is he also sounds streets better than Ed.
An unexpected amount of good sense there, Rogerdamus. I agree that Murphy is a capable and plausible politician, with guts, brains and - praise the Lord - an actual proletarian backstory: he would make a much better leader of the Labour party overall, than Ed Miliband.
What puzzles me about Scotland in particular is where all the rightwing Scots voters are going. We know that Scots (pace the maunderings of lefty Nats on here) differ very little from the English in social and economic attitudes: they might be slightly more social democratic, but it is marginal. Scots are almost equally anti immigration, almost as eurosceptic, almost as angry about welfare fraud, &c.
So who is sucking up these Scottish rightwing voters? It seems to be the SNP, even though, under Sturgeon, they are now to the left of Labour; and I can just about see why rightwing Scots would vote SNP in 2015 to give Scotland an edge in the devomax negotiations.
However I fail to see why rightwing Scots would vote for the leftwing SNP at Holyrood in 2016 - just so Sturgeon can use her new powers to raise Scottish income taxes?
No. Which means -
The SNP will do very well in the UK GE 2015, but much less well in Holyrood in 2016, as rightwing Scots shy away from tartan socialism. Sturgeon will not get an overall majority in Edinburgh.
Scots are much more pro-EU.
There's one overwhelming reason why rightwing Scots should vote SNP in Holyrood and that is the alternative. Especially as Mr Swinney is (a) efficient and (b) on the right wing of the SNP.
Swinney ? Now you're having a laugh.
Not when it comes to public finances. Anyone who avoids falling into the PFI/PPP trap gets a huge gold star in my view, especially when he replaces it with something much more under public control.
but bases running a country on a non-currency, a broken financial sector and an unstable oil price.
Let's give them free movement to London via the EU! The views of David Cameron, political mastermind.
So the key question here is whether the UK should be letting through the 85%, which is presumably a combination of extreme pacifists and people who don't think questions through before they answer them.
WTF is going on at the DT? Is Damian kaput? All the reasons why I visited their site are gone bar Animal Pix Of The Week and Matt. The blogs are dead - and my favourites have either disappeared or decamped elsewhere.
A tour de force of a speech by Murphy. I know some have their reservations about his lack of left wing credentials but it has to be remembered that in Scotland the primary qualification for a successful Westminster campaign is not being Tory. That doesn't mean not being right wing.
I was told by friends in Scotland that Murphy whatever one's reservations was politically streets better than Nicola.
From his opening salvo I'd say the danger is he also sounds streets better than Ed.
htwing Scots would vote SNP in 2015 to give Scotland an edge in the devomax negotiations.
However I fail to see why rightwing Scots would vote for the leftwing SNP at Holyrood in 2016 - just so Sturgeon can use her new powers to raise Scottish income taxes?
No. Which means -
The SNP will do very well in the UK GE 2015, but much less well in Holyrood in 2016, as rightwing Scots shy away from tartan socialism. Sturgeon will not get an overall majority in Edinburgh.
Damian has decamped to the Spectator, Dan Hannan has gone to CapX, Delingpole is with Breitbart, Tom Chivers has signed for Buzzfeed, I have retired (temporarily but necessarily) to spend more time writing thrillers and travel, etc etc etc. The blogs themselves have been killed off (to the mystification of many as they got lots of clicks, didn't cost much, and - unlike many papers - the Telegraph makes fat profits; also the blogs were unique in their range of rightwing opinion)
Basically the paper is in a state of great flux as - allegedly - some of the insiders are trying to shift it to the Left, and others are resisting. I shall say no more, other than that, if they do succeed in taking it to the Left there will be lots of room for a new quality paper/website reflecting Tory/conservative opinion.
DT's move to the left can be seen by the latest spate of UKIP bashing of the last month.
I mean really ? You're recycling that paranoid nonsense ? Should all unioinists get paranoid because the scottish government is "overwhelmingly" SNP ? Are the cybernats just so much piss and wind ? You've lost the plot mate.
As for the bulk of your post you're simply re-iterating my earlier point that all parties are coalitions of interest, and the SNP has a wider spectrum to accommodate than most parties.
I am not being paranoid when I say that the Scottish media, and especially the newspapers, is overwhelmingly pro-union, certainly in the news pages. Just have a look at them with an open mind.
Two other independent pieces of evidence.
The academic who did a study of the BBC - he got the BBC trying to get at him through his bosses - who promoted him.
And the enormously rising sales figures for the two pro-indy newspapers, one of which had to be specially founded. They show very clearly that the dailies available did not previously reflect the far more mixed opinion in Scotland as a whole.
How would you like it if you were only able to read the Guardian and its clones [or DT, or DM: whicheaver one you do not like].
And you are missing my point that the SNP has an overarching aim which makes the coalitions of interests much less of an issue than it is for other parties.
Let's give them free movement to London via the EU! The views of David Cameron, political mastermind.
I can see plenty of cases where suicide bombings are "justified": one obvious example is Gaza. The Palestinians are faced with an overwhelmingly mightier enemy, intent on repressing them, by lobbing napalm into schoos, etc. The only way to wage asymmetric wars against vastly superior foes is with risky and extreme tactics like suicide bombings, terrorist attacks, and so on - as the Israelis themselves well know, having used these same tactics against the Brits in the late 1940s.
Indeed I am sure British generals have themselves sent soldiers to a certain death, knowing that a greater military cause was being served. How many men died in Bomber Command in WW2? - 44% of the total who flew. They were OUR suicide bombers.
I don't necessarily agree with your first paragraph, but on the second: I read somewhere (probably Max Hasting's Nemesis) that the Japanese high command were confused about the western media's attitude to Kamikaze pilots. After all, they had seen the Allies knowingly throw lots of young men into stupid, pointless skirmishes to gain tactical or strategic advantages, and young men often chose to do selfless acts in battle.
I went into that section of the book thinking there was a difference between the use of Kamikazes (an evil waste of line) and what we did. I came out far from sure. Which is, all told, the sign of a good writer.
As I understand it, the kamikaze campaign was actually quite effective, and some American military experts feared it might cripple the US navy and vastly prolong the Pacific war (even if Yankee victory was ultimately assured).
So it made good strategic sense, even if it was a tad depressing for the pilots.
That fear lasted for about 17 seconds at which point the US worked out the tactics and strategy needed to deal with Kamikaze pilots. Overall they did a piffling amount of damage.
I mean really ? You're recycling that paranoid nonsense ? Should all unioinists get paranoid because the scottish government is "overwhelmingly" SNP ? Are the cybernats just so much piss and wind ? You've lost the plot mate.
As for the bulk of your post you're simply re-iterating my earlier point that all parties are coalitions of interest, and the SNP has a wider spectrum to accommodate than most parties.
I am not being paranoid when I say that the Scottish media, and especially the newspapers, is overwhelmingly pro-union, certainly in the news pages. Just have a look at them with an open mind.
Two other independent pieces of evidence.
The academic who did a study of the BBC - he got the BBC trying to get at him through his bosses - who promoted him.
And the enormously rising sales figures for the two pro-indy newspapers, one of which had to be specially founded. They show very clearly that the dailies available did not previously reflect the far more mixed opinion in Scotland as a whole.
How would you like it if you were only able to read the Guardian and its clones [or DT, or DM: whicheaver one you do not like].
And you are missing my point that the SNP has an overarching aim which makes the coalitions of interests much less of an issue than it is for other parties.
yes you are, if you can't see that a few journos versus the levers of state isn't an imbalance then you need to reappraise things.
As for your point, I understand it but I don't agree with it. The SNP is at it's hubrtistic high point imo, from here on it's a harder task and I don't think Sturgeon's up to it.
Jenni Russell is such a lightweight compared to the rest. She really needs to be parked by Tim Monty. I can't understand why she's got a column at all. There are loads of better leftish writers about.
I understand her column was supposed to be explicitly pro Ed; there aren't many of those about.
Of course having seen him in action, she is also struggling to find anything good to write about him.
I mean really ? You're recycling that paranoid nonsense ? Should all unioinists get paranoid because the scottish government is "overwhelmingly" SNP ? Are the cybernats just so much piss and wind ? You've lost the plot mate.
As for the bulk of your post you're simply re-iterating my earlier point that all parties are coalitions of interest, and the SNP has a wider spectrum to accommodate than most parties.
I am not being paranoid when I say that the Scottish media, and especially the newspapers, is overwhelmingly pro-union, certainly in the news pages. Just have a look at them with an open mind.
Two other independent pieces of evidence.
The academic who did a study of the BBC - he got the BBC trying to get at him through his bosses - who promoted him.
And the enormously rising sales figures for the two pro-indy newspapers, one of which had to be specially founded. They show very clearly that the dailies available did not previously reflect the far more mixed opinion in Scotland as a whole.
How would you like it if you were only able to read the Guardian and its clones [or DT, or DM: whicheaver one you do not like].
And you are missing my point that the SNP has an overarching aim which makes the coalitions of interests much less of an issue than it is for other parties.
yes you are, if you can't see that a few journos versus the levers of state isn't an imbalance then you need to reappraise things.
As for your point, I understand it but I don't agree with it. The SNP is at it's hubrtistic high point imo, from here on it's a harder task and I don't think Sturgeon's up to it.
That's the interesting issue. The question is, which state? There are two. The mental set of the Unionists in Scotland is that they are the rightful rulers (whether Labour in Scotland or Tory in Westminster) and that the SNP are upstarts. Likewise it's Westminster that counts and Holyrood is an upstart. I don't think Labour have quite cottoned on to moving on from that view, and neither has much of the establishment, including most newspapers. The levers of the Scottish state are - deliberately - pretty restricted. For instance, the BBC answers solely to Westminster.
Anyway, goodnight: will go off and deal with some chores.
O/T, I thought 2 years of Nats claiming victory before the event was annoying, but it is nothing compared to the now continuous bleating that "I always said we were going to lose..."
I mean really ? You're recycling that paranoid nonsense ? Should all unioinists get paranoid because the scottish government is "overwhelmingly" SNP ? Are the cybernats just so much piss and wind ? You've lost the plot mate.
As for the bulk of your post you're simply re-iterating my earlier point that all parties are coalitions of interest, and the SNP has a wider spectrum to accommodate than most parties.
I am not being paranoid when I say that the Scottish media, and especially the newspapers, is overwhelmingly pro-union, certainly in the news pages. Just have a look at them with an open mind.
Two other independent pieces of evidence.
The academic who did a study of the BBC - he got the BBC trying to get at him through his bosses - who promoted him.
And the enormously rising sales figures for the two pro-indy newspapers, one of which had to be specially founded. They show very clearly that the dailies available did not previously reflect the far more mixed opinion in Scotland as a whole.
How would you like it if you were only able to read the Guardian and its clones [or DT, or DM: whicheaver one you do not like].
And you are missing my point that the SNP has an overarching aim which makes the coalitions of interests much less of an issue than it is for other parties.
yes you are, if you can't see that a few journos versus the levers of state isn't an imbalance then you need to reappraise things.
As for your point, I understand it but I don't agree with it. The SNP is at it's hubrtistic high point imo, from here on it's a harder task and I don't think Sturgeon's up to it.
That's the interesting issue. The question is, which state? There are two. The mental set of the Unionists in Scotland is that they are the rightful rulers (whether Labour in Scotland or Tory in Westminster) and that the SNP are upstarts. Likewise it's Westminster that counts and Holyrood is an upstart. I don't think Labour have quite cottoned on to moving on from that view, and neither has much of the establishment, including most newspapers. The levers of the Scottish state are - deliberately - pretty restricted. For instance, the BBC answers solely to Westminster.
Anyway, goodnight: will go off and deal with some chores.
chortle
it's always amusing when the party with the upper hand tries to present itself as the outsiders. Very New Labour.
"...the kamikaze campaign was actually quite effective... "
Did it stop or even slow down the US actions? Nope. Did it stop of even defer Japan's defeat? Nope. Did it stop US allies from joining in the campaign to defeat Japan? Nope. In what way was the Kamikaze campaign effective?
Me? I could see you being right. Any newspaper has a limited life these days, But I reckon it might last perhaps as little as one year, actually. Because it is to some extent in competition with the [daily] Herald, from the same publisher. Some like me take both but others will take only the one. However I know people - and I am not talking about political nerds like us - who have stopped buying newspapers in Scotland because they were so angry with the incessant bias. Some of those people are buying the National and so are new (or rather otherwise lost) customers.
At some point the two are going to have to merge for economic reasons - the more competition the sooner and v.v. The question is the position the new newspaper will take - with any luck middle of the road politically like the Scotsman was before it was destroyed by being turned into a DT clone.
At the moment, and despite some excellent independent columnists, the Herald is to a considerable degree the house magazine of SLAB and especially its Glasgow area. If SLAB continues to decline in 2015 and 2016, however, that will have to change at some point, and the publishers are already showing a belated appreciation of the market in the way that they have let the Sunday Herald secede, to use a phrase beloved of the Unionists, from the Union.
yes you are, if you can't see that a few journos versus the levers of state isn't an imbalance then you need to reappraise things.
As for your point, I understand it but I don't agree with it. The SNP is at it's hubrtistic high point imo, from here on it's a harder task and I don't think Sturgeon's up to it.
That's the interesting issue. The question is, which state? There are two. The mental set of the Unionists in Scotland is that they are the rightful rulers (whether Labour in Scotland or Tory in Westminster) and that the SNP are upstarts. Likewise it's Westminster that counts and Holyrood is an upstart. I don't think Labour have quite cottoned on to moving on from that view, and neither has much of the establishment, including most newspapers. The levers of the Scottish state are - deliberately - pretty restricted. For instance, the BBC answers solely to Westminster.
Anyway, goodnight: will go off and deal with some chores.
chortle
it's always amusing when the party with the upper hand tries to present itself as the outsiders. Very New Labour.
Upper hand? You surprise me. As does Mr P with his argument that there is no state - ergo no levers thereof - which would at least be a response to your argument. The Scottish Government does of course run part of the UK state, albeit on loan under the devolution settlement, which the SNP controls ... but I must wish you all goodnight, and agree that the developments from now on will be interesting.
yes you are, if you can't see that a few journos versus the levers of state isn't an imbalance then you need to reappraise things.
As for your point, I understand it but I don't agree with it. The SNP is at it's hubrtistic high point imo, from here on it's a harder task and I don't think Sturgeon's up to it.
That's the interesting issue. The question is, which state? There are two. The mental set of the Unionists in Scotland is that they are the rightful rulers (whether Labour in Scotland or Tory in Westminster) and that the SNP are upstarts. Likewise it's Westminster that counts and Holyrood is an upstart. I don't think Labour have quite cottoned on to moving on from that view, and neither has much of the establishment, including most newspapers. The levers of the Scottish state are - deliberately - pretty restricted. For instance, the BBC answers solely to Westminster.
Anyway, goodnight: will go off and deal with some chores.
chortle
it's always amusing when the party with the upper hand tries to present itself as the outsiders. Very New Labour.
Upper hand? You surprise me. As does Mr P with his argument that there is no state - ergo no levers thereof - which would at least be a response to your argument. The Scottish Government does of course run part of the UK state, albeit on loan under the devolution settlement, which the SNP controls ... but I must wish you all goodnight, and agree that the developments from now on will be interesting.
you control a paliament, it's finances and an army of spinners and yet the Scotsman allegedly has grearer power. Deluded.
"By war's end, kamikazes had sunk or damaged more than 300 U.S. ships, with 15,000 casualties. Several thousand kamikaze planes had been set aside for the invasion of the Japanese mainland that never came. Ironically, the kamikaze — and the sacrificial philosophy behind them — were one of the reasons President Truman decided to drop the atomic bombs."
The actual number sunk is around 30 to 40 tops (it's a har dnumber to estimate as kamikaze attacks happened in tandem with conventional torpedo and bombing attacks) and they were all destroyers, merchant vessels and other light ships. No capital ships were sunk by kamikazes. 15,000 casualties is also way higher than any other estimate I've seen for US personnel losses by kamikaze.
And that has to be factored against the loss of 4000 pilots by the Japanese - that is an incredibly shitty ratio.
EDIT: Flipin' heck we're even counting landing craft in this figure, what not dinghies or sailing yachts?
"By war's end, kamikazes had sunk or damaged more than 300 U.S. ships, with 15,000 casualties. Several thousand kamikaze planes had been set aside for the invasion of the Japanese mainland that never came. Ironically, the kamikaze — and the sacrificial philosophy behind them — were one of the reasons President Truman decided to drop the atomic bombs."
The invasion of Japan was not going to be easy, and certainly not as easy as many today think. There were materials and men left on the home islands than the Americans expected, being held back to fight the invasion.
As an example: during WWII the US minted half a million purple hearts (given to any soldier injured or killed) ready for the invasion of the home islands.
Medals from this stock have been handed out to soldiers injured in every American war since - Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 1, Afghanistan, Iraq 2, etc. And they still have 120,000 left. (1)
Think about that for a minute: the Americans expected the invasion of Japan to injure far more soldiers than have been injured in every American conflict since.
Given the firebombings of Tokyo, Osaka and elsewhere, and the human cost of any invasion, I have no doubt that the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, terrible though they were, saved hundreds of thousands of lives, both Japanese and American.
1. Are we expecting any polls (other than YouGov) tonight?
2. More importantly, obviously, did SeanT attend yesterday's Porn Protest?
The ComRes online poll is out at 7.30pm
I did my own personal porn protest, by enacting at least three of The Forbidden Kinks in my bedroom, with my GF, last night.
I leave it to you to guess what they were. I hesitate to overprovide information, as I understand children and sensitive Lefties may be reading at this early hour.
1. Are we expecting any polls (other than YouGov) tonight?
2. More importantly, obviously, did SeanT attend yesterday's Porn Protest?
The ComRes online poll is out at 7.30pm
I did my own personal porn protest, by enacting at least three of The Forbidden Kinks* in my bedroom, with my GF, last night.
I leave it to you to guess what they were. I hesitate to overprovide information, as I understand children and sensitive Lefties may be reading at this early hour.
The actual number sunk is around 30 to 40 tops (it's a har dnumber to estimate as kamikaze attacks happened in tandem with conventional torpedo and bombing attacks) and they were all destroyers, merchant vessels and other light ships. No capital ships were sunk by kamikazes. 15,000 casualties is also way higher than any other estimate I've seen for US personnel losses by kamikaze.
And that has to be factored against the loss of 4000 pilots by the Japanese - that is an incredibly shitty ratio.
By saying 'capital ship', you are reducing the targets too much. If you are talking carriers - of vital importance in the war against Japan - then the USS Bismarck Sea, Ommaney Bay and Saint Lo (all escort carriers) were sunk by kamikaze, and every plane the Americans kept close in to protect their battle fleets was one plane that could not aid American operations directly against Japan.
As for the loss of 4,000 pilots: one battleship (the Yamamoto) had over 2,500 crew, most of whom died when she was sunk. The kamikaze did far more damage to the allies than the Yamamoto ever did, and the planes probably cost less as well. A submarine could have over 100 men on, and lots of those were lost after doing little to prolong the war effort.
Kamikazes were awful and hideous, but effective, at least at first. Other approaches, such as the kamikaze submarines (Kaiten) could also have yielded results if used earlier and in a coordinated manner.
"...the kamikaze campaign was actually quite effective... "
Did it stop or even slow down the US actions? Nope. Did it stop of even defer Japan's defeat? Nope. Did it stop US allies from joining in the campaign to defeat Japan? Nope. In what way was the Kamikaze campaign effective?
The Japanese were facing swift and imminent defeat by late 1943: they had lost all control of the Pacific war in the air.
In that light the kamikaze campaign was "quite effective" (my original words) in slowing down the US advance, as the US navy worked out how to respond. The Japanese did the best they could in the circs: with the kamikazes.
Moreover, and more importantly, the kamikaze campaign was specifically designed to show to the Americans than any invasion of Japan itself would be horrendously bloody and brutal, as the Japanese would literally fight to the death in defense of nation and Emperor.
The kamikaze campaign in that sense was VERY effective: lots of American generals were very unhappy about invading Japan itself, having seen the insane commitment of the suicide pilots, especially in the Battle for Okinawa.
Luckily for everyone, apart from the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, America developed the Bomb just in time.
The Kamikaze tactic was not deployed before the end of 1944 and did nothing to slow down the US island hopping strategy, let alone stop it. Yes it cased some Septic generals and admirals some sleepless nights but it didn't change anything.
Sir Keir Starmer is selected to stand for Holborn and St Pancras for Labour
OFFS. I've gone from the useless Frank Dobbo Dobson as my MP, to the Prospective Member for Stupid Political Correctness, South.
eeesh.
He was a top DPP.
You're worrying over nothing.
He'll impress you so much, you'll be voting for him in 2020.
He was a wretchedly biassed, wet, liberal-left DPP: a mixture of well meaning incompetence with downright Guardianisita mendacity. As such he should make an ideal Labour MP.
Interesting that they went for the Establishment neo-Blairite, and didn't go for the quite popular council leader Sarah Hayward.
Move to groovy Islington South for a real choice in the capital next year
Yesterday I went to a Manufaturers Association meeting held at the Houses of Parliament. They had conducted a survey on staying in /out of the EU. 80% responded IN.
Sir Keir Starmer is selected to stand for Holborn and St Pancras for Labour
OFFS. I've gone from the useless Frank Dobbo Dobson as my MP, to the Prospective Member for Stupid Political Correctness, South.
eeesh.
He was a top DPP.
You're worrying over nothing.
He'll impress you so much, you'll be voting for him in 2020.
He was a wretchedly biassed, wet, liberal-left DPP: a mixture of well meaning incompetence with downright Guardianisita mendacity. As such he should make an ideal Labour MP.
Interesting that they went for the Establishment neo-Blairite, and didn't go for the quite popular council leader Sarah Hayward.
Or Patrick French. My mate and Camden born and bred. He is a doctor and would have been the only one sitting on the Labour benches.
The actual number sunk is around 30 to 40 tops (it's a har dnumber to estimate as kamikaze attacks happened in tandem with conventional torpedo and bombing attacks) and they were all destroyers, merchant vessels and other light ships. No capital ships were sunk by kamikazes. 15,000 casualties is also way higher than any other estimate I've seen for US personnel losses by kamikaze.
And that has to be factored against the loss of 4000 pilots by the Japanese - that is an incredibly shitty ratio.
By saying 'capital ship', you are reducing the targets too much. If you are talking carriers - of vital importance in the war against Japan - then the USS Bismarck Sea, Ommaney Bay and Saint Lo (all escort carriers) were sunk by kamikaze, and every plane the Americans kept close in to protect their battle fleets was one plane that could not aid American operations directly against Japan.
As for the loss of 4,000 pilots: one battleship (the Yamamoto) had over 2,500 crew, most of whom died when she was sunk. The kamikaze did far more damage to the allies than the Yamamoto ever did, and the planes probably cost less as well. A submarine could have over 100 men on, and lots of those were lost after doing little to prolong the war effort.
Kamikazes were awful and hideous, but effective, at least at first. Other approaches, such as the kamikaze submarines (Kaiten) could also have yielded results if used earlier and in a coordinated manner.
It was the Yamato, not Yamamoto! Yamamoto was the Admiral, whose plane was shot down by the USAAF in 1943.
Japan lost the Yamato, cruiser Yahagi and four destroyers as well as around 4,000 dead. The Americans suffered the crippling loss of only 10 planes with 12 aircrew.
1. Are we expecting any polls (other than YouGov) tonight?
2. More importantly, obviously, did SeanT attend yesterday's Porn Protest?
The ComRes online poll is out at 7.30pm
I don't think I've ever been so under-excited about the imminent release of a poll (and that's saying something!) I'll go for a Labour lead of at least 4% (yawn) ...... anything less will really set the juices flowing.
Sir Keir Starmer is selected to stand for Holborn and St Pancras for Labour
OFFS. I've gone from the useless Frank Dobbo Dobson as my MP, to the Prospective Member for Stupid Political Correctness, South.
eeesh.
He was a top DPP.
You're worrying over nothing.
He'll impress you so much, you'll be voting for him in 2020.
He was a wretchedly biassed, wet, liberal-left DPP: a mixture of well meaning incompetence with downright Guardianisita mendacity. As such he should make an ideal Labour MP.
Interesting that they went for the Establishment neo-Blairite, and didn't go for the quite popular council leader Sarah Hayward.
I heard the same nonsense when people said
1) He would prosecute Damian Green
2) He wouldn't prosecute Labour MPs over their expenses
1. Are we expecting any polls (other than YouGov) tonight?
2. More importantly, obviously, did SeanT attend yesterday's Porn Protest?
The ComRes online poll is out at 7.30pm
I don't think I've ever been so under-excited about the imminent release of a poll (and that's saying something!) I'll go for a Labour lead of at least 4% (yawn) ...... anything less will really set the juices flowing.
I've not received the embargoed copy yet (I'll be doing the thread on it as well)
Sir Keir Starmer is selected to stand for Holborn and St Pancras for Labour
OFFS. I've gone from the useless Frank Dobbo Dobson as my MP, to the Prospective Member for Stupid Political Correctness, South.
eeesh.
He was a top DPP.
You're worrying over nothing.
He'll impress you so much, you'll be voting for him in 2020.
Out of interest, is the DPP a political appointment, or a civil service 'impartial' one?
Political, it seems. I'm assuming the Tories were daft enough to not put one of their own in, though.
The Attorney-General selects/appoints the DPP, generally their politics don't involved.
Lab appointed a Lib Dem as DPP in the 2000s
But it's appointed by a politician, and Labour picked someone who now wants to be an MP for them, whilst I'm assuming the Tories replaced him with a vague centrist who owes them nothing - because they're jolly good sports who would rather not win than play that way, a stance which does wonders for the diversity of opinion in political appointees.
The actual number sunk is around 30 to 40 tops (it's a har dnumber to estimate as kamikaze attacks happened in tandem with conventional torpedo and bombing attacks) and they were all destroyers, merchant vessels and other light ships. No capital ships were sunk by kamikazes. 15,000 casualties is also way higher than any other estimate I've seen for US personnel losses by kamikaze.
And that has to be factored against the loss of 4000 pilots by the Japanese - that is an incredibly shitty ratio.
By saying 'capital ship', you are reducing the targets too much. If you are talking carriers - of vital importance in the war against Japan - then the USS Bismarck Sea, Ommaney Bay and Saint Lo (all escort carriers) were sunk by kamikaze, and every plane the Americans kept close in to protect their battle fleets was one plane that could not aid American operations directly against Japan.
Escort carriers are not remotely capital ships or as important as a capital class carrier. They are, comparatively, dinky things with a small number of planes that did not perform the same roles as an capital class carrier. Three escort carrier adds up to less planes, less tonnage and barely as many men as one Essex class carrier at the time.
Sir Keir Starmer is selected to stand for Holborn and St Pancras for Labour
OFFS. I've gone from the useless Frank Dobbo Dobson as my MP, to the Prospective Member for Stupid Political Correctness, South.
eeesh.
He was a top DPP.
You're worrying over nothing.
He'll impress you so much, you'll be voting for him in 2020.
Out of interest, is the DPP a political appointment, or a civil service 'impartial' one?
Political, it seems. I'm assuming the Tories were daft enough to not put one of their own in, though.
The Attorney-General selects/appoints the DPP, generally their politics don't involved.
Lab appointed a Lib Dem as DPP in the 2000s
But it's appointed by a politician, and Labour picked someone who now wants to be an MP for them, whilst I'm assuming the Tories replaced him with a vague centrist who owes them nothing - because they're jolly good sports who would rather not win than play that way, a stance which does wonders for the diversity of opinion in political appointees.
Labour picked someone who post being DPP went onto become a Lib Dem peer
Keir's replacement was Alison Saunders who was in house at the CPS
The reason Sir Keir won was the widespread belief in Camden Labour that the constituency deserved an MP who would become either a shadow cabinet or government minister after the next election. They don't come better connected than Sir Keir, so they'll probably get what they want. But for me it's a wasted opportunity - though I guess I'm biased.
"By war's end, kamikazes had sunk or damaged more than 300 U.S. ships, with 15,000 casualties. Several thousand kamikaze planes had been set aside for the invasion of the Japanese mainland that never came. Ironically, the kamikaze — and the sacrificial philosophy behind them — were one of the reasons President Truman decided to drop the atomic bombs."
The actual number sunk is around 30 to 40 tops (it's a har dnumber to estimate as kamikaze attacks happened in tandem with conventional torpedo and bombing attacks) and they were all destroyers, merchant vessels and other light ships. No capital ships were sunk by kamikazes. 15,000 casualties is also way higher than any other estimate I've seen for US personnel losses by kamikaze.
And that has to be factored against the loss of 4000 pilots by the Japanese - that is an incredibly shitty ratio.
EDIT: Flipin' heck we're even counting landing craft in this figure, what not dinghies or sailing yachts?
The comment on capital ships is just daft and shows a lack of understanding of the Pacific war. Capital ships were few and far between. At the start of the Pacific War the US had 11 and the Japanese had 10 in total. They were not effective for much of the war as their main role was in support of island landings and bombardments.
The important vessel in the Pacific war was the Aircraft Carrier and a number of these were either sunk or put out of action permanently specifically by Kamikaze attacks.
The US carrier St Lo was sunk by Kamikaze planes.
The US Carrier Bunker Hill was knocked out of the war permanently (with 400 crew dead) after being hit by two kamikaze aircraft. The carrier Sangamon was likewise knocked out of the war. The US genuiinely feared the kamikaze attacks and they were by far the most effective form of attack on US carriers for the last couple of years of the Pacific war.
Let's give them free movement to London via the EU! The views of David Cameron, political mastermind.
I can see plenty of cases where suicide bombings are "justified": one obvious example is Gaza. The Palestinians are faced with an overwhelmingly mightier enemy, intent on repressing them, by lobbing napalm into schoos, etc. The only way to wage asymmetric wars against vastly superior foes is with risky and extreme tactics like suicide bombings, terrorist attacks, and so on - as the Israelis themselves well know, having used these same tactics against the Brits in the late 1940s.
Indeed I am sure British generals have themselves sent soldiers to a certain death, knowing that a greater military cause was being served. How many men died in Bomber Command in WW2? - 44% of the total who flew. They were OUR suicide bombers.
This is bloody nonsense. If the Palestinians started down the Gandhian route of mass civil disobedience/marches on Israeli troops they would have independence within five years.
Anyway, even if you think they're right about that, there's plenty of evidence of why huge numbers of Turks coming here would be a bad idea. 12% support Sharia law. 27% prefer a strong leader to democracy. 40% believe Western media hurts morality in Turkey. 49% believe in creationism. 58% would be not at all comfortable if their daughter married a Christian. 27% believe honour killings against women who commit adultery can be justified at least some of the time, with 7% thinking this is often the case. 65% think a woman should obey her husband.
And David Cameron thinks we should give these people access to the EU, so they can all be free to come to the UK. Madness.
The actual number sunk is around 30 to 40 tops (it's a har dnumber to estimate as kamikaze attacks happened in tandem with conventional torpedo and bombing attacks) and they were all destroyers, merchant vessels and other light ships. No capital ships were sunk by kamikazes. 15,000 casualties is also way higher than any other estimate I've seen for US personnel losses by kamikaze.
And that has to be factored against the loss of 4000 pilots by the Japanese - that is an incredibly shitty ratio.
By saying 'capital ship', you are reducing the targets too much. If you are talking carriers - of vital importance in the war against Japan - then the USS Bismarck Sea, Ommaney Bay and Saint Lo (all escort carriers) were sunk by kamikaze, and every plane the Americans kept close in to protect their battle fleets was one plane that could not aid American operations directly against Japan.
Escort carriers can in no way be deemed Capital Ships in the same way as Fleet Carriers, such as the wartime Essex (USN) and Illustrious (RN) classes.
They were smaller, slower, and carried few fewer planes and defensive armament.
1. Are we expecting any polls (other than YouGov) tonight?
2. More importantly, obviously, did SeanT attend yesterday's Porn Protest?
The ComRes online poll is out at 7.30pm
I don't think I've ever been so under-excited about the imminent release of a poll (and that's saying something!) I'll go for a Labour lead of at least 4% (yawn) ...... anything less will really set the juices flowing.
I've not received the embargoed copy yet (I'll be doing the thread on it as well)
The last ComRes online poll had a Lab lead of 4%
Seven polls so far this week give a Labour lead in ELBOW of 1.0%.
"By war's end, kamikazes had sunk or damaged more than 300 U.S. ships, with 15,000 casualties. Several thousand kamikaze planes had been set aside for the invasion of the Japanese mainland that never came. Ironically, the kamikaze — and the sacrificial philosophy behind them — were one of the reasons President Truman decided to drop the atomic bombs."
The actual number sunk is around 30 to 40 tops (it's a har dnumber to estimate as kamikaze attacks happened in tandem with conventional torpedo and bombing attacks) and they were all destroyers, merchant vessels and other light ships. No capital ships were sunk by kamikazes. 15,000 casualties is also way higher than any other estimate I've seen for US personnel losses by kamikaze.
And that has to be factored against the loss of 4000 pilots by the Japanese - that is an incredibly shitty ratio.
EDIT: Flipin' heck we're even counting landing craft in this figure, what not dinghies or sailing yachts?
The comment on capital ships is just daft and shows a lack of understanding of the Pacific war. Capital ships were few and far between. At the start of the Pacific War the US had 11 and the Japanese had 10 in total. They were not effective for much of the war as their main role was in support of island landings and bombardments.
The important vessel in the Pacific war was the Aircraft Carrier and a number of these were either sunk or put out of action permanently specifically by Kamikaze attacks.
The US carrier St Lo was sunk by Kamikaze planes.
The US Carrier Bunker Hill was knocked out of the war permanently (with 400 crew dead) after being hit by two kamikaze aircraft. The carrier Sangamon was likewise knocked out of the war. The US genuiinely feared the kamikaze attacks and they were by far the most effective form of attack on US carriers for the last couple of years of the Pacific war.
I'm classing non-escort carriers as Capital Ships. Unlike pre-world war 2 admirals I am not backwards in my appreciation of the Carrier.
Bearing in mind that a 10 is Adolf Hitler and a 0 is Josef Stalin:
David Cameron: 5 Ed Miliband: 3 Nick Clegg: 5 Nigel Farage: 6.5 Conservative Party: 6 Labour Party: 3 UKIP, UK Independence Party: 7 Liberal Democrat Party: 4 Green Party: 2 Prince Charles: 6 Russell Brand: 3 Socrates: 6.5
My thoughts very similar to yours.... but, I would put Charles down as a 4 tops
1. Are we expecting any polls (other than YouGov) tonight?
2. More importantly, obviously, did SeanT attend yesterday's Porn Protest?
The ComRes online poll is out at 7.30pm
I did my own personal porn protest, by enacting at least three of The Forbidden Kinks* in my bedroom, with my GF, last night.
I leave it to you to guess what they were. I hesitate to overprovide information, as I understand children and sensitive Lefties may be reading at this early hour.
"By war's end, kamikazes had sunk or damaged more than 300 U.S. ships, with 15,000 casualties. Several thousand kamikaze planes had been set aside for the invasion of the Japanese mainland that never came. Ironically, the kamikaze — and the sacrificial philosophy behind them — were one of the reasons President Truman decided to drop the atomic bombs."
The actual number sunk is around 30 to 40 tops (it's a har dnumber to estimate as kamikaze attacks happened in tandem with conventional torpedo and bombing attacks) and they were all destroyers, merchant vessels and other light ships. No capital ships were sunk by kamikazes. 15,000 casualties is also way higher than any other estimate I've seen for US personnel losses by kamikaze.
And that has to be factored against the loss of 4000 pilots by the Japanese - that is an incredibly shitty ratio.
EDIT: Flipin' heck we're even counting landing craft in this figure, what not dinghies or sailing yachts?
The comment on capital ships is just daft and shows a lack of understanding of the Pacific war. Capital ships were few and far between. At the start of the Pacific War the US had 11 and the Japanese had 10 in total. They were not effective for much of the war as their main role was in support of island landings and bombardments.
The important vessel in the Pacific war was the Aircraft Carrier and a number of these were either sunk or put out of action permanently specifically by Kamikaze attacks.
The US carrier St Lo was sunk by Kamikaze planes.
The US Carrier Bunker Hill was knocked out of the war permanently (with 400 crew dead) after being hit by two kamikaze aircraft. The carrier Sangamon was likewise knocked out of the war. The US genuiinely feared the kamikaze attacks and they were by far the most effective form of attack on US carriers for the last couple of years of the Pacific war.
I'm classing non-escort carriers as Capital Ships. Unlike pre-world war 2 admirals I am not backwards in my appreciation of the Carrier.
Well a total of 3 carriers were sunk by Kamikaze attacks and another 3 knocked out of the war permanently. Or do they not count for some reason?
One kamikaze attack on a US carrier caused more casualties than all of the attacks by all means on all 6 British carriers in the whole war.
"The attack on the Fifth Fleet off Okinawa would mark the worst losses of World War II for the U.S. Navy."
The Battle for Okinawa, with all its carnage, was, in turn, one of the principle reasons Truman decided to drop the Bomb, and bring the war to a swift and astonishing end, instead of invading Japan and fighting the Japanese to the death in their homeland
The kamikaze campaign probably saved 100,000s of Japanese and American lives. Paradoxically.
Was the battle for Okinawa halted by the kamikaze threat? Was it even delayed? No, it was just more expensive in ships and people than had been planned. Even then the losses were a spit in the ocean compared to the USN's numbers and potential.
If there was an example of Japanese resistance that caused Truman to drop the bombs then I would suggest it was what happened on land and especially at Iwo Jima - the Kamikaze were neither here nor there by comparison. Though frankly I do not see how a US president could have not dropped the bombs Kamikaze or not.
Kamikaze was a defeatist tactic used by a nation that was beaten but whose leaders refused to recognise the fact. It killed a lot of brave men for no purpose.
The actual number sunk is around 30 to 40 tops (it's a har dnumber to estimate as kamikaze attacks happened in tandem with conventional torpedo and bombing attacks) and they were all destroyers, merchant vessels and other light ships. No capital ships were sunk by kamikazes. 15,000 casualties is also way higher than any other estimate I've seen for US personnel losses by kamikaze.
And that has to be factored against the loss of 4000 pilots by the Japanese - that is an incredibly shitty ratio.
By saying 'capital ship', you are reducing the targets too much. If you are talking carriers - of vital importance in the war against Japan - then the USS Bismarck Sea, Ommaney Bay and Saint Lo (all escort carriers) were sunk by kamikaze, and every plane the Americans kept close in to protect their battle fleets was one plane that could not aid American operations directly against Japan.
Escort carriers are not remotely capital ships or as important as a capital class carrier. They are, comparatively, dinky things with a small number of planes that did not perform the same roles as an capital class carrier. Three escort carrier adds up to less planes, less tonnage and barely as many men as one Essex class carrier at the time.
"Escort carriers are not remotely capital ships or as important as a capital class carrier."
Yes, I know. The point is by concentrating on 'capital ships' you are restricting the Kamikazes impact to a silly degree. It would be like saying the Royal Navy did not manage to sink a single German aircraft carrier. Well, yes, but there was only one German aircraft carrier, and it was never operational during the war.
Unless you are saying that the loss of escort carriers (and all the other ships) was of no consequence to the US effort? In which case, I disagree.
Let's give them free movement to London via the EU! The views of David Cameron, political mastermind.
I can see plenty of cases where suicide bombings are "justified": one obvious example is Gaza. The Palestinians are faced with an overwhelmingly mightier enemy, intent on repressing them, by lobbing napalm into schoos, etc. The only way to wage asymmetric wars against vastly superior foes is with risky and extreme tactics like suicide bombings, terrorist attacks, and so on - as the Israelis themselves well know, having used these same tactics against the Brits in the late 1940s.
Indeed I am sure British generals have themselves sent soldiers to a certain death, knowing that a greater military cause was being served. How many men died in Bomber Command in WW2? - 44% of the total who flew. They were OUR suicide bombers.
This is bloody nonsense. If the Palestinians started down the Gandhian route of mass civil disobedience/marches on Israeli troops they would have independence within five years.
Anyway, even if you think they're right about that, there's plenty of evidence of why huge numbers of Turks coming here would be a bad idea. 12% support Sharia law. 27% prefer a strong leader to democracy. 40% believe Western media hurts morality in Turkey. 49% believe in creationism. 58% would be not at all comfortable if their daughter married a Christian. 27% believe honour killings against women who commit adultery can be justified at least some of the time, with 7% thinking this is often the case. 65% think a woman should obey her husband.
And David Cameron thinks we should give these people access to the EU, so they can all be free to come to the UK. Madness.
Top class kebabs though, and very good dips and breads. I say let them all in. We will eat better and women will know their place.
1. Are we expecting any polls (other than YouGov) tonight?
2. More importantly, obviously, did SeanT attend yesterday's Porn Protest?
The ComRes online poll is out at 7.30pm
I did my own personal porn protest, by enacting at least three of The Forbidden Kinks* in my bedroom, with my GF, last night.
I leave it to you to guess what they were. I hesitate to overprovide information, as I understand children and sensitive Lefties may be reading at this early hour.
*Edit: just remembered: we did Four.
Like (BOTH)
I've received the embargoed copy now.
So the thread on it will be published at 7.30pm on the dot (unless Caroline Flack is dancing on Strictly at that time, then you call wait until she's finished)
I don't think I've ever been so under-excited about the imminent release of a poll (and that's saying something!) I'll go for a Labour lead of at least 4% (yawn) ...... anything less will really set the juices flowing.
Why not 0-2% like everyone else? The leak that it's "interesting" sounds abouy as dull as it's possible to be. It'd be fun if one week they said it was "rather boring, actually".
Comments
The monarchist socialist neo con republicans ? The Jim Sillars and Brian Souter party.
Are mirrors illegal in Scotland ?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/the-ukip-plan-for-seats-in-scotland-introducing-sectarianism-to-the-political-mai.114450320
Who do you think scottish conservatives will vote for? Not the Tories because they are traitors to scotland.
Who do you think scottish socialists will vote for? Not for Labour because they are not socialists.
Who do you think scottish liberals will vote for? Not for the LD's because they are Tories.
If there was any other party in Scotland that was patriotic or socialist or liberal the voters would be able to vote for it, however there is none apart from the SNP who has constructed a very contradictory but stable electoral alliance based on the fact that it's the only game in town.
Many years ago I knew some Nonconformists who were concerned about the EU (or EEC as it was then) since it had resulted from the Treaty of Rome!
Whereas Labour ... Keir Hardie or neocon, Trident or CND, etc. etc.
It doesn't occur to you that the other parties might be coalitions of interest too ? That maybe instead of looking through the axis of nationalism they are looking at life on a different axis say earnings or opportunity ?
The difference is the other parties don't have such a wide spectrum of views to accommodate, the SNP is inherently unstable and Sturgeon will crack the edifice.
Though I won't vote conservative here in England.
How idiotic is this man?
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf
Let's give them free movement to London via the EU! The views of David Cameron, political mastermind.
I would just love that it would happen to a member of the "club". The cases of Jeremy Thorpe and others suggest it will never happen.
WTF is going on at the DT? Is Damian kaput? All the reasons why I visited their site are gone bar Animal Pix Of The Week and Matt. The blogs are dead - and my favourites have either disappeared or decamped elsewhere.
What's The Story, Morning Glory?
"He was a student at Strathclyde for 9 years, but did not graduate from the university".
FYI for about 4 years he was on sabatticals in the NUS.
It also won't help that he's well to the right of Sturgeon and was the face of a very devisive 'No' campaign.
http://order-order.com/tag/telegraph/
Eventually the SNP will have to make decisions and that will force parts of the coalition to peel off. We;ve already seen fault lines on trident and on the monarchy.
That said they are shockingly nice people and I am sure a phone call (023 8022 4422) will produce an answer. The food is certainly worth making the effort. Great place to go for lunch.
There's one overwhelming reason why rightwing Scots should vote SNP in Holyrood and that is the alternative. Especially as Mr Swinney is (a) efficient and (b) on the right wing of the SNP.
He's a Blairite [despite looking like Skeletor] and I really like him. If I were a Scot rather than a Geordie-By-Sea in Sussex - I'd vote for him. And I'm a card carrying Tory these days.
If the Tories have too much branding baggage nowadays - well I think he's a very sensible chap whose values I admire.
And fault lines on Trident!!?! You're thinking of Labour there, surely. (If you are thinking of NATO, that is a quite different matter, though related, and resolved by debate and voting and one or two MSPs going indy.)
Anyway, we will see.
Jenni Russell is such a lightweight compared to the rest. She really needs to be parked by Tim Monty. I can't understand why she's got a column at all. There are loads of better leftish writers about. I'd offer one to someone like Luke Akehurst or Rob Merchant. Or Atul from LabourList - much more convincing and in-tune.
Not when it comes to public finances. Anyone who avoids falling into the PFI/PPP trap gets a huge gold star in my view, especially when he replaces it with something much more under public control.
I went into that section of the book thinking there was a difference between the use of Kamikazes (an evil waste of line) and what we did. I came out far from sure. Which is, all told, the sign of a good writer.
"NATO, that is a quite different matter, though related, and resolved by debate and voting and one or two MSPs going indy"
NATO is a nuclear armed alliance. No amount of debate and voting by the SNP is going to change that.
"According to the media"
I mean really ? You're recycling that paranoid nonsense ? Should all unioinists get paranoid because the scottish government is "overwhelmingly" SNP ? Are the cybernats just so much piss and wind ? You've lost the plot mate.
As for the bulk of your post you're simply re-iterating my earlier point that all parties are coalitions of interest, and the SNP has a wider spectrum to accommodate than most parties.
Two other independent pieces of evidence.
The academic who did a study of the BBC - he got the BBC trying to get at him through his bosses - who promoted him.
And the enormously rising sales figures for the two pro-indy newspapers, one of which had to be specially founded. They show very clearly that the dailies available did not previously reflect the far more mixed opinion in Scotland as a whole.
How would you like it if you were only able to read the Guardian and its clones [or DT, or DM: whicheaver one you do not like].
And you are missing my point that the SNP has an overarching aim which makes the coalitions of interests much less of an issue than it is for other parties.
As for your point, I understand it but I don't agree with it. The SNP is at it's hubrtistic high point imo, from here on it's a harder task and I don't think Sturgeon's up to it.
Of course having seen him in action, she is also struggling to find anything good to write about him.
Anyway, goodnight: will go off and deal with some chores.
Not sure I can take another 20 years of that
it's always amusing when the party with the upper hand tries to present itself as the outsiders. Very New Labour.
Scotland is not a state.
There was a referendum. You may remember it. Scots voted No.
"...the kamikaze campaign was actually quite effective... "
Did it stop or even slow down the US actions? Nope. Did it stop of even defer Japan's defeat? Nope. Did it stop US allies from joining in the campaign to defeat Japan? Nope. In what way was the Kamikaze campaign effective?
At some point the two are going to have to merge for economic reasons - the more competition the sooner and v.v. The question is the position the new newspaper will take - with any luck middle of the road politically like the Scotsman was before it was destroyed by being turned into a DT clone.
At the moment, and despite some excellent independent columnists, the Herald is to a considerable degree the house magazine of SLAB and especially its Glasgow area. If SLAB continues to decline in 2015 and 2016, however, that will have to change at some point, and the publishers are already showing a belated appreciation of the market in the way that they have let the Sunday Herald secede, to use a phrase beloved of the Unionists, from the Union.
Two questions:
1. Are we expecting any polls (other than YouGov) tonight?
2. More importantly, obviously, did SeanT attend yesterday's Porn Protest?
The actual number sunk is around 30 to 40 tops (it's a har dnumber to estimate as kamikaze attacks happened in tandem with conventional torpedo and bombing attacks) and they were all destroyers, merchant vessels and other light ships. No capital ships were sunk by kamikazes. 15,000 casualties is also way higher than any other estimate I've seen for US personnel losses by kamikaze.
And that has to be factored against the loss of 4000 pilots by the Japanese - that is an incredibly shitty ratio.
EDIT: Flipin' heck we're even counting landing craft in this figure, what not dinghies or sailing yachts?
As an example: during WWII the US minted half a million purple hearts (given to any soldier injured or killed) ready for the invasion of the home islands.
Medals from this stock have been handed out to soldiers injured in every American war since - Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 1, Afghanistan, Iraq 2, etc. And they still have 120,000 left. (1)
Think about that for a minute: the Americans expected the invasion of Japan to injure far more soldiers than have been injured in every American conflict since.
Given the firebombings of Tokyo, Osaka and elsewhere, and the human cost of any invasion, I have no doubt that the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, terrible though they were, saved hundreds of thousands of lives, both Japanese and American.
(1): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Heart
Ahem.
Sir Keir Starmer is selected to stand for Holborn and St Pancras for Labour
**sorry for any offence**
Also congrats to OGH and Burnley
You're worrying over nothing.
He'll impress you so much, you'll be voting for him in 2020.
Political, it seems. I'm assuming the Tories were daft enough to not put one of their own in, though.
As for the loss of 4,000 pilots: one battleship (the Yamamoto) had over 2,500 crew, most of whom died when she was sunk. The kamikaze did far more damage to the allies than the Yamamoto ever did, and the planes probably cost less as well. A submarine could have over 100 men on, and lots of those were lost after doing little to prolong the war effort.
Kamikazes were awful and hideous, but effective, at least at first. Other approaches, such as the kamikaze submarines (Kaiten) could also have yielded results if used earlier and in a coordinated manner.
The predictable, tedious, safe choice, who will never set the Commons alight or do anything remotely remarkable. It should have been Patrick French.
He's someone who hasn't been a SPAD, someone who has had a life/career before politics.
As a friend of mine who is also named Keir told me, you don't know the hardships a child has to endure if his name rhymes with Queer.
Ten-Go was the ultimate Kamikaze mission.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ten-Go
Japan lost the Yamato, cruiser Yahagi and four destroyers as well as around 4,000 dead. The Americans suffered the crippling loss of only 10 planes with 12 aircrew.
Lab appointed a Lib Dem as DPP in the 2000s
1) He would prosecute Damian Green
2) He wouldn't prosecute Labour MPs over their expenses
The last ComRes online poll had a Lab lead of 4%
Keir's replacement was Alison Saunders who was in house at the CPS
Well, there's a surprise!
The important vessel in the Pacific war was the Aircraft Carrier and a number of these were either sunk or put out of action permanently specifically by Kamikaze attacks.
The US carrier St Lo was sunk by Kamikaze planes.
The US Carrier Bunker Hill was knocked out of the war permanently (with 400 crew dead) after being hit by two kamikaze aircraft. The carrier Sangamon was likewise knocked out of the war. The US genuiinely feared the kamikaze attacks and they were by far the most effective form of attack on US carriers for the last couple of years of the Pacific war.
Anyway, even if you think they're right about that, there's plenty of evidence of why huge numbers of Turks coming here would be a bad idea. 12% support Sharia law. 27% prefer a strong leader to democracy. 40% believe Western media hurts morality in Turkey. 49% believe in creationism. 58% would be not at all comfortable if their daughter married a Christian. 27% believe honour killings against women who commit adultery can be justified at least some of the time, with 7% thinking this is often the case. 65% think a woman should obey her husband.
And David Cameron thinks we should give these people access to the EU, so they can all be free to come to the UK. Madness.
They were smaller, slower, and carried few fewer planes and defensive armament.
One kamikaze attack on a US carrier caused more casualties than all of the attacks by all means on all 6 British carriers in the whole war.
If there was an example of Japanese resistance that caused Truman to drop the bombs then I would suggest it was what happened on land and especially at Iwo Jima - the Kamikaze were neither here nor there by comparison. Though frankly I do not see how a US president could have not dropped the bombs Kamikaze or not.
Kamikaze was a defeatist tactic used by a nation that was beaten but whose leaders refused to recognise the fact. It killed a lot of brave men for no purpose.
Yes, I know. The point is by concentrating on 'capital ships' you are restricting the Kamikazes impact to a silly degree. It would be like saying the Royal Navy did not manage to sink a single German aircraft carrier. Well, yes, but there was only one German aircraft carrier, and it was never operational during the war.
Unless you are saying that the loss of escort carriers (and all the other ships) was of no consequence to the US effort? In which case, I disagree.
So the thread on it will be published at 7.30pm on the dot (unless Caroline Flack is dancing on Strictly at that time, then you call wait until she's finished)