Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Jim Murphy wins Scottish Labour leadership election with 56

124»

Comments



  • 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.

    I think (floating) aircraft carriers are not as useful as they used to be with modern precision weapons. Britain is lucky to have several unsinkable aircraft carriers in various strategic places ie

    HMS Cyprus
    HMS Deigo Garcia
    HMS Port Stanley
    HMS Qatar
    HMS Gibraltar

    Peronally I think the way forward would be to have a few more sovereign airbases.

  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806

    Socrates said:

    SeanT said:

    Socrates said:

    15% of Turks believe suicide bombings are "sometimes" or "often" justified:

    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 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.

    Cameron's only saying that to curry favour with the Turks, knowing full well Turkey's accession would be opposed by the French and others. Besides any British PM in post at the time of proposed accession of any new nation would be under enormous pressure to ask for so many changes that accession would not happen.

  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:


    The kamikaze campaign was one reason the Battle for Okinawa was so horribly frightening and costly for all sides.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/pacific-john-chapman/

    "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.
    Now you're just waffling, to little purpose.

    The evidence of Japanese willingness to fight to the death (of which the kamikaze campaign (and, yes, Iwo Jima)) was a crucial element was the one of the main reasons Truman dropped the Bomb. The kamikaze campaign therefore achieved its intent: in making the Americans think twice about a ground invasion of Japan. It was, therefore, "effective".

    Either way, I suggest we end the debate here, even if you disagree, as I feel a divine wind coming over me, obliging me to divebomb into my first G&T of the evening.
    OK, you are correct as ever. The Kamikaze was a wonderful tactic that destroyed so many American ships that an invasion of any home island was impossible.

    Enjoy the gin
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited December 2014
    Floater said:

    Socrates said:

    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
    I thought Prince Charles was more a Three Degrees man rather than Four Tops ?

    I'll get my Tamla mo-gown

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469

    Alistair said:


    300 sunk or damaged is a gloss figure.

    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.

    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.
    "It was the Yamato, not Yamamoto"

    You are, of course, correct. Apologies. I get that wrong every time I mention either the ship or admiral ...

    IMVIO Ten-Go was a sign that the Japanese had given up on deep water naval warfare - it was a desperate, pointless and hideous last roll of the dice, a one-way trip. Yamato was going to be beached to act as a gun platform - hardly a fitting end for the pride of the navy.

    After that, it was all going to be about littoral warfare when the Americans invaded, something which would make the larger ships akin to immobile sitting ducks. From a academic point of view, it would be hideously interesting to see what damage the thousands of Shinyo suicide boats would have done against an American invasion fleet.
  • According to Wiki:

    Effects[edit]

    As the end of the war approached, the Allies did not suffer significantly more serious losses, despite having far more ships and facing a greater intensity of kamikaze attacks. Although causing some of the heaviest casualties on US carriers in 1945, the IJN had sacrificed 2,525 kamikaze pilots and the IJAAF 1,387—far more than they had lost in 1942 when they sank or crippled three carriers (albeit without inflicting significant casualties). In 1942 when US Navy vessels were scarce, the temporary absence of key warships from the combat zone would tie up operational initiatives. However, by 1945, the US Navy was large enough that damaged ships could be detached back home for repair without significantly hampering the fleet's operational capability. The only surface losses were destroyers and smaller ships that lacked the capability to sustain heavy damage. Overall, the kamikazes were unable to turn the tide of the war and stop the Allied invasion. The destructive potential of the kamikaze sustained postwar funding of Operation Bumblebee until the RIM-8 Talos guided missile became operational in 1959.[32]


  • In the immediate aftermath of kamikaze strikes, British carriers with their armoured flight decks appeared to recover more quickly compared to their US counterparts. However, post-war analysis showed that some British carriers such as HMS Formidable did suffer structural damage that led them to be written off and scrapped, as beyond economic repair, but Britain's dire post war finances and the constantly declining size of the Royal Navy undoubtedly played a role in deciding not to repair damaged carriers. By contrast, even the most seriously damaged American carriers such USS Bunker Hill were successfully repaired to operational condition, although they saw no service after World War II as they were considered surplus.

    The number of ships sunk is a matter of debate. According to a wartime Japanese propaganda announcement, the missions sank 81 ships and damaged 195, and according to a Japanese tally, kamikaze attacks accounted for up to 80% of the U.S. losses in the final phase of the war in the Pacific. In a 2004 book, World War II, the historians Wilmott, Cross and Messenger stated that more than 70 U.S. vessels were "sunk or damaged beyond repair" by kamikazes.

    According to a U.S Air Force webpage:
    Approximately 2,800 Kamikaze attackers sunk 34 Navy ships, damaged 368 others, killed 4,900 sailors, and wounded over 4,800. Despite radar detection and cuing, airborne interception, attrition, and massive anti-aircraft barrages, 14 percent of Kamikazes survived to score a hit on a ship; nearly 8.5 percent of all ships hit by Kamikazes sank.[33]

    Australian journalists Denis and Peggy Warner, in a 1982 book with Japanese naval historian Sadao Seno (The Sacred Warriors: Japan’s Suicide Legions), arrived at a total of 57 ships sunk by kamikazes. However, Bill Gordon, an American Japanologist who specialises in kamikazes, lists in a 2007 article 47 ships known to have been sunk by kamikaze aircraft. Gordon says that the Warners and Seno included ten ships that did not sink. He lists:

    three escort carriers: USS St. Lo, USS Ommaney Bay, and USS Bismarck Sea
    14 destroyers, including the last ship to be sunk, USS Callaghan (DD-792) on 29 July 1945, off Okinawa
    three high-speed transport ships
    five Landing Ship, Tank
    four Landing Ship Medium
    three Landing Ship Medium (Rocket)
    one auxiliary tanker
    three Canadian Victory ships
    three Liberty ships
    two high-speed minesweepers
    one Auk class minesweeper
    one submarine chaser
    two PT boats
    two Landing Craft Support
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469

    Socrates said:

    SeanT said:

    Socrates said:

    15% of Turks believe suicide bombings are "sometimes" or "often" justified:

    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 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.

    " ... and women will know their place."

    Bitter experience tells me you have not met many Turkish women. ;-)
  • Floater said:

    Socrates said:

    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
    Really? Even when it comes to issues such as the wasteful consumption of aviation fuel for one's own convenience ...... I hardly think so.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    edited December 2014
    Withdrawn comment please ignore
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    SeanT said:

    Socrates said:

    15% of Turks believe suicide bombings are "sometimes" or "often" justified:

    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 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.

    Everything from a Turkish eatery I've ever had is something I wouldn't be willing to consumer sober.*

    (*An honourable exception goes to Gallipoli on Upper Street.)
  • SeanT said:

    Huzzah

    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.
    tell me how yet another oxford lawyer makes parliament more representative ?
    IIRC his first degree was from a Yorkshire university.

    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.
    So Keir was brought up in a strong Labour household who named him after the first Labour Leader. Keir then apparantly spent the rest of his life without political bias towards leftie Labour, until he retired as DPP, when he miraculously discovered that he needed to be a Labour MP.......
  • Going forward, wouldn't it be preferable if DPPs were apolitical?
  • Bobajob_Bobajob_ Posts: 195
    On topic: Murphy is good news for Labour.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Floater said:

    Socrates said:

    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
    Really? Even when it comes to issues such as the wasteful consumption of aviation fuel for one's own convenience ...... I hardly think so.
    Should we put Prince Charles down as a Kamikaze Monarchist then ?

  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    I don't know where this WW2 Japanese Kamikaze nuclear bombs came from, but I can tell you that God played an excellent role in WW2.
    Just think if any of the following was changed then WW2 and it's aftermath would have been much worse:
    If Hitler died in WW1.
    If Churchill had been struck by that New York taxi in the early 30's.
    If Hitler had started the war earlier.
    If Hitler had started the war later.
    If Goering wasn't the head of the Luftwaffe.
    If Speer had become armaments minister earlier.
    If Speer had become armaments minister later or at all.
    If Trotsky hadn't refused to become General Secretary of the CPSU.
    If Roosevelt had died earlier.
    If Hitler was assassinated in the July plot.

    All of that demanded divine intervention.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Bobajob_ said:

    On topic: Murphy is good news for Labour.

    Murphy could make Ed PM. 6 points off SNP, that's it !
  • Going forward, wouldn't it be preferable if DPPs were apolitical?

    Yes but difficult with the influx of leftie liberals in the legal profession. Look at the limited gene pool. Even Conservative MPs from the legal profession are mainly wets. Grieve etc.
  • JackW said:

    Floater said:

    Socrates said:

    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
    Really? Even when it comes to issues such as the wasteful consumption of aviation fuel for one's own convenience ...... I hardly think so.
    Should we put Prince Charles down as a Kamikaze Monarchist then ?

    Jack - I wouldn't wish to put Prince Charles down at all ...... it wouldn't seem quite fair.
  • Bobajob_Bobajob_ Posts: 195
    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    Huzzah

    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
    A choice of Emily Thornberry or Thornberry, Emily or - in a blue moon - Ms Emily Anne Thornberry
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    SeanT said:

    Huzzah

    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.
    tell me how yet another oxford lawyer makes parliament more representative ?
    IIRC his first degree was from a Yorkshire university.

    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.
    So Keir was brought up in a strong Labour household who named him after the first Labour Leader. Keir then apparantly spent the rest of his life without political bias towards leftie Labour, until he retired as DPP, when he miraculously discovered that he needed to be a Labour MP.......
    Otherwise, he would be an Establishment Tory, which would be alright, of course !
  • Bobajob_Bobajob_ Posts: 195
    surbiton said:

    Bobajob_ said:

    On topic: Murphy is good news for Labour.

    Murphy could make Ed PM. 6 points off SNP, that's it !
    Would be job done. Let's see what happens
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    surbiton said:

    Bobajob_ said:

    On topic: Murphy is good news for Labour.

    Murphy could make Ed PM. 6 points off SNP, that's it !
    I severely doubt that Murphy could move the polls in Labour's favour in scotland.
    He's very popular with his enemies.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    PS. I was particularly shocked by the 58% being completely against their daughter marrying a Christian (or, presumably, an atheist, a Jew or a Hindu). So a majority of Turks wouldn't want intermarriage - the best route to integration - happening in their family.

    EDIT: A few more: 82% believe homosexuality is morally wrong, 88% believe sex before marriage is morally wrong, 74% believe abortion is morally wrong, 66% believe drinking alcohol is morally wrong. It's so crazy that people that call themselves liberal support policies that would make our population so much more illiberal. And these are Turks, supposedly a moderate Muslim nation! The numbers for Pakistanis are horrendous.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    Floater said:

    Socrates said:

    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
    Really? Even when it comes to issues such as the wasteful consumption of aviation fuel for one's own convenience ...... I hardly think so.
    Should we put Prince Charles down as a Kamikaze Monarchist then ?

    Jack - I wouldn't wish to put Prince Charles down at all ...... it wouldn't seem quite fair.
    He'll have to go to the vet some day !

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549



    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.
    I think (floating) aircraft carriers are not as useful as they used to be with modern precision weapons. Britain is lucky to have several unsinkable aircraft carriers in various strategic places ie

    HMS Cyprus
    HMS Deigo Garcia
    HMS Port Stanley
    HMS Qatar
    HMS Gibraltar

    Peronally I think the way forward would be to have a few more sovereign airbases.



    HMS Qatar is deportable though ! Qatar the home of World Cup 2022 and Al Jazeera !
  • Raj Chada finished second in Holborn selection over Sarah Hayward
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    SeanT said:


    They tried mass civil disobedience. It was called the first Intifada. It got them nowhere, not least because the Israelis responded with brutal force, and it all spiralled into outright violence.

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

    As for your other remarks, I entirely agree. Turkey is evolving into a much more conservative Muslim country than the secular republic envisaged by Ataturk. As such it is entirely unsuitable as an EU member, and it will never be accepted as one, for the foreseeable future (as almost everyone now tacitly accepts).

    Turkey ain't joining the EU. Endex.

    Except for David Cameron.
  • [As] observed by a USN liaison officer on HMS Indefatigable who commented: "When a kamikaze hits a U.S. carrier it means 6 months of repair at Pearl [Harbor]. When a kamikaze hits a Limey carrier it’s just a case of "Sweepers, man your brooms."”
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    Bobajob_ said:

    On topic: Murphy is good news for Labour.

    I think Jim Murphy becoming the SLAB leader is probably already baked into SLAB’s support level of around 25%. I do not foresee Murphy being able to attract back any of the SLAB supporters currently backing the SNP. However, he may prevent further leakage of support to UKIP, but his right wing credentials will most likely drive more of SLAB’s remaining supporters into the arms of the Greens, LibDems, SNP and even the SSP.

    I remain sceptical whether Jim will ever actually seek a seat in Holyrood. Particularly if SLAB’s May 2015 showing is poor. However bad things get for SLAB in May 2015, they will likely do even worse in May 2016, due to the vagaries of the D’Hontt model the Greens could end up snapping at SLAB for second place.


  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,121
    edited December 2014
    Socrates said:

    PS. I was particularly shocked by the 58% being completely against their daughter marrying a Christian (or, presumably, an atheist, a Jew or a Hindu). So a majority of Turks wouldn't want intermarriage - the best route to integration - happening in their family.

    EDIT: A few more: 82% believe homosexuality is morally wrong, 88% believe sex before marriage is morally wrong, 74% believe abortion is morally wrong, 66% believe drinking alcohol is morally wrong. It's so crazy that people that call themselves liberal support policies that would make our population so much more illiberal. And these are Turks, supposedly a moderate Muslim nation! The numbers for Pakistanis are horrendous.

    I'm guessing you'd find similar numbers in non-Muslim majority India. They recently re-outlawed homosexuality.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    edited December 2014
    surbiton said:



    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.
    I think (floating) aircraft carriers are not as useful as they used to be with modern precision weapons. Britain is lucky to have several unsinkable aircraft carriers in various strategic places ie

    HMS Cyprus
    HMS Deigo Garcia
    HMS Port Stanley
    HMS Qatar
    HMS Gibraltar

    Peronally I think the way forward would be to have a few more sovereign airbases.



    Fixed airbases may not be unsinkable but they are easily put out of action by those same precision weapons and they cannot move about or dodge surveillance.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Bobajob_ said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    Huzzah

    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
    A choice of Emily Thornberry or Thornberry, Emily or - in a blue moon - Ms Emily Anne Thornberry
    I doubt she is enough of an idiot to use more than a couple of variations of her name
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    edited December 2014
    Socrates said:

    PS. I was particularly shocked by the 58% being completely against their daughter marrying a Christian (or, presumably, an atheist, a Jew or a Hindu). So a majority of Turks wouldn't want intermarriage - the best route to integration - happening in their family.

    EDIT: A few more: 82% believe homosexuality is morally wrong, 88% believe sex before marriage is morally wrong, 74% believe abortion is morally wrong, 66% believe drinking alcohol is morally wrong. It's so crazy that people that call themselves liberal support policies that would make our population so much more illiberal. And these are Turks, supposedly a moderate Muslim nation! The numbers for Pakistanis are horrendous.

    The last time you went down this route, around 30 years ago, 50% of the natives in this country wouldn't want their kids marrying a non white person. More recently is down to 15%

    Recently 54% of US Republicans see Homosexuality as morally unacceptable.

    People across the world have views we find incomprehensible, but over a relatively short space of time, views change.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    @TSE:

    I wouldn't want my son or daughter marrying a Blackburn supporter. However, I would *probably* accept it.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    [As] observed by a USN liaison officer on HMS Indefatigable who commented: "When a kamikaze hits a U.S. carrier it means 6 months of repair at Pearl [Harbor]. When a kamikaze hits a Limey carrier it’s just a case of "Sweepers, man your brooms."”

    The difference between armoured and wooden flight decks. On the other hand the weight saved meant that the US fleet carriers could be so much larger and carry more aeroplanes. Horses for courses and different design ideas based on the different theatres of operations carriers were expected to fight and survive in.

    P.S. The fire suppression systems built into the US Essex class were superb and unmatched until recent years.
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Evening all and I see Malcolm has been personally insulting everyone as usual and his alter ego Speedy has been amusing everyone with his bonkers comments.

    SLAB have elected in Jim Murphy the strongest of the candidates available. Whether he will enable SLAB to recover from their current woes in the polls, I have my doubts. For SLAB on the plus side he is an erudite, working class, Roman Catholic of Irish stock which has worked well in West Central Scotland for the last 50 years. On the minus side, he is seen by a great many on the left in Scottish politics as almost being a Tory, not helped by the fact he sits for what was the safest Tory seat in Scotland until 1997.

    I wonder how the good voters of East Renfrewshire will feel about him seeking re-election in May knowing he plans to cause a by-election a year later?

    Of course if SLAB takes a hiding next May he may choose to step down as leader and not bother to fight for a Holyrood seat in 2016.

    According to my notes ComRes hasn't shown a Tory lead this year and their "best" score has been on 27th October when both major parties were on 30%. Wonder what the Labour lead will be this evening?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,893
    Murphy was the best candidate for the role, and who may unite unionist voters behind him as, for example, Liberal PMs Robert Bourassa and Jean Charest did in Quebec. Findlay would have attempted to be a poor man's SNP without the nationalism and corporation tax cuts, voters would have stuck with real thing!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,893
    Matthew Parris quotes Philip Cowley '“Last YouGov poll: two main parties combined: 66 per cent. Last general election: two main parties combined: 67 per cent. What’s really changed is the rest.” The LDs have now been replaced by UKIP and the SNP as the main parties of protest (and the Greens could be added too)
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/profile/Matthew-Parris
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,827
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    SeanT said:

    Socrates said:

    15% of Turks believe suicide bombings are "sometimes" or "often" justified:

    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 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.

    Everything from a Turkish eatery I've ever had is something I wouldn't be willing to consumer sober.*

    (*An honourable exception goes to Gallipoli on Upper Street.)
    That's the whole point, you don't consume it sober.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    PS. I was particularly shocked by the 58% being completely against their daughter marrying a Christian (or, presumably, an atheist, a Jew or a Hindu). So a majority of Turks wouldn't want intermarriage - the best route to integration - happening in their family.

    EDIT: A few more: 82% believe homosexuality is morally wrong, 88% believe sex before marriage is morally wrong, 74% believe abortion is morally wrong, 66% believe drinking alcohol is morally wrong. It's so crazy that people that call themselves liberal support policies that would make our population so much more illiberal. And these are Turks, supposedly a moderate Muslim nation! The numbers for Pakistanis are horrendous.

    The last time you went down this route, around 30 years ago, 50% of the natives in this country wouldn't want their kids marrying a non white person. More recently is down to 15%

    Recently 54% of US Republicans see Homosexuality as morally unacceptable.

    People across the world have views we find incomprehensible, but over a relatively short space of time, views change.
    Do you have any evidence that second or third generation Muslim immigrants are more moderate than first generation ones? Because the evidence I've seen suggests it's the opposite.

    And even if you do believe in your evidence-less theory that such immigrants will moderate over the time, surely there's still a massive cost here for the next 70 odd years. And it's not like it's a one-off hit. Left-wingers support open immigration to intolerant illiberal people not for a ten year period, but on a constant basis. They support policies which would cause illiberal people to come here faster than can liberalise.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    SeanT said:

    Socrates said:

    PS. I was particularly shocked by the 58% being completely against their daughter marrying a Christian (or, presumably, an atheist, a Jew or a Hindu). So a majority of Turks wouldn't want intermarriage - the best route to integration - happening in their family.

    EDIT: A few more: 82% believe homosexuality is morally wrong, 88% believe sex before marriage is morally wrong, 74% believe abortion is morally wrong, 66% believe drinking alcohol is morally wrong. It's so crazy that people that call themselves liberal support policies that would make our population so much more illiberal. And these are Turks, supposedly a moderate Muslim nation! The numbers for Pakistanis are horrendous.

    The last time you went down this route, around 30 years ago, 50% of the natives in this country wouldn't want their kids marrying a non white person. More recently is down to 15%

    Recently 54% of US Republicans see Homosexuality as morally unacceptable.

    People across the world have views we find incomprehensible, but over a relatively short space of time, views change.
    But it is clear that the views of large parts of the Muslim world are becoming MORE conservative, not less. Just look at, say, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran now, and compare them to where they were forty or fifty years ago. This trend has been discernible for two decades, and doesn't seem to be going away. Denying it is futile, as even lefties are, at last, reluctantly admitting.

    Until and unless this trend changes, we need to distance ourselves, politely, from the Muslim world. They can do their thing, and we can do ours. Good fences make good neighbours.
    Other countries do not necessarily go with your trend. Bangladesh, for one where over 90% of women go to work, where wearing the veil is not at all common, certainly not in urban areas !
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited December 2014
    The study found disturbing evidence of young Muslims adopting more fundamentalist beliefs on key social and political issues than their parents or grandparents.

    Forty per cent of Muslims between the ages of 16 and 24 said they would prefer to live under sharia law in Britain, a legal system based on the teachings of the Koran. The figure among over-55s, in contrast, was only 17 per cent.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540895/Young-British-Muslims-getting-more-radical.html

    The idea that the children and grandchildren of Muslims coming here will be more moderate is completely at odds with the evidence.
  • Good evening, comrades and English pigdogs (you shall be relegated to a toothless scrutinising committee!).
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469

    Socrates said:

    PS. I was particularly shocked by the 58% being completely against their daughter marrying a Christian (or, presumably, an atheist, a Jew or a Hindu). So a majority of Turks wouldn't want intermarriage - the best route to integration - happening in their family.

    EDIT: A few more: 82% believe homosexuality is morally wrong, 88% believe sex before marriage is morally wrong, 74% believe abortion is morally wrong, 66% believe drinking alcohol is morally wrong. It's so crazy that people that call themselves liberal support policies that would make our population so much more illiberal. And these are Turks, supposedly a moderate Muslim nation! The numbers for Pakistanis are horrendous.

    The last time you went down this route, around 30 years ago, 50% of the natives in this country wouldn't want their kids marrying a non white person. More recently is down to 15%

    Recently 54% of US Republicans see Homosexuality as morally unacceptable.

    People across the world have views we find incomprehensible, but over a relatively short space of time, views change.
    Indeed. And holding hands of friendship out to such countries is as good a way as any to try to alter their views. Certainly Socrates' approach - shouting "YOU SMELL!" at them, is unlikely to change their minds.

    Few people, if any, seriously expect Turkey to become part of the EU in the next few years - the hurdles are too great (1), especially whilst Erdogan turns the country away from secularism, even given Turkey's long-standing friendship with the EU. But the option of membership may prevent that turn from occurring. As such, Cameron is playing a political game that is to the benefit of everyone, including Turkey and ourselves.

    But I don;t expect dear Socrates to agree with that for one moment.

    (1): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#Negotiation_progress
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469
    Off-topic:

    As someone who spent a fair amount of time around cranes in my youth, the following made me laugh:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30464816

    Ooops.
  • Speedy said:

    I don't know where this WW2 Japanese Kamikaze nuclear bombs came from, but I can tell you that God played an excellent role in WW2.
    Just think if any of the following was changed then WW2 and it's aftermath would have been much worse:
    If Hitler died in WW1.
    If Churchill had been struck by that New York taxi in the early 30's.
    If Hitler had started the war earlier.
    If Hitler had started the war later.
    If Goering wasn't the head of the Luftwaffe.
    If Speer had become armaments minister earlier.
    If Speer had become armaments minister later or at all.
    If Trotsky hadn't refused to become General Secretary of the CPSU.
    If Roosevelt had died earlier.
    If Hitler was assassinated in the July plot.

    All of that demanded divine intervention.

    I am just this evening rereading David Downing's The Moscow Option which is probably one of the best strategic based alternative WW2 books ever written.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited December 2014

    Indeed. And holding hands of friendship out to such countries is as good a way as any to try to alter their views. Certainly Socrates' approach - shouting "YOU SMELL!" at them, is unlikely to change their minds.

    Few people, if any, seriously expect Turkey to become part of the EU in the next few years - the hurdles are too great (1), especially whilst Erdogan turns the country away from secularism, even given Turkey's long-standing friendship with the EU. But the option of membership may prevent that turn from occurring. As such, Cameron is playing a political game that is to the benefit of everyone, including Turkey and ourselves.

    But I don;t expect dear Socrates to agree with that for one moment.

    We've been saying nice things to Turkey for 20 years. And yet in that time the Turkish government has got more Islamist and more autocratic. You can caricature my position all you like: all I'm doing is pointing out the facts. Sensible people come to conclusions based on facts, not on a wing and a prayer.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578

    Socrates said:

    PS. I was particularly shocked by the 58% being completely against their daughter marrying a Christian (or, presumably, an atheist, a Jew or a Hindu). So a majority of Turks wouldn't want intermarriage - the best route to integration - happening in their family.

    EDIT: A few more: 82% believe homosexuality is morally wrong, 88% believe sex before marriage is morally wrong, 74% believe abortion is morally wrong, 66% believe drinking alcohol is morally wrong. It's so crazy that people that call themselves liberal support policies that would make our population so much more illiberal. And these are Turks, supposedly a moderate Muslim nation! The numbers for Pakistanis are horrendous.

    The last time you went down this route, around 30 years ago, 50% of the natives in this country wouldn't want their kids marrying a non white person. More recently is down to 15%

    Recently 54% of US Republicans see Homosexuality as morally unacceptable.

    People across the world have views we find incomprehensible, but over a relatively short space of time, views change.
    Indeed. And holding hands of friendship out to such countries is as good a way as any to try to alter their views. Certainly Socrates' approach - shouting "YOU SMELL!" at them, is unlikely to change their minds.

    Few people, if any, seriously expect Turkey to become part of the EU in the next few years - the hurdles are too great (1), especially whilst Erdogan turns the country away from secularism, even given Turkey's long-standing friendship with the EU. But the option of membership may prevent that turn from occurring. As such, Cameron is playing a political game that is to the benefit of everyone, including Turkey and ourselves.

    But I don;t expect dear Socrates to agree with that for one moment.

    (1): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#Negotiation_progress
    I take your points, but surely it is not that Erdogan is turning the country away from secularism, but that the country wants to turn away from secularism which is why they keep electing him, and presumably the next person in will be similar unless we start to see the recent trends reverse.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    edited December 2014
    Mein Fuhrer - Starmer.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30466832

    has been parachuted into Holborn and St Pancras
  • New Thread
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,536
    WRT the Turks, only a minority of them seem to adhere to outrageous viewpoints. The rest are pretty widely held among small c conservative voters in the UK.

    I just wouldn't want to inflict the EU on their country.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    @kle4 Erdogan's approval rating is 59%:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/174542/six-turks-approve-erdogan-election.aspx

    The idea that it's him pulling Turkey away from secularism is not true. He's fulfilling the desires of the Turkish public.

    I'm all for doing what we can to encourage them to moderate, but we need to be honest that we won't really make much difference. So we certainly shouldn't try massive long shots at the expense of bringing large number of highly intolerant people that dislike our culture into our society.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469
    kle4 said:


    I take your points, but surely it is not that Erdogan is turning the country away from secularism, but that the country wants to turn away from secularism which is why they keep electing him, and presumably the next person in will be similar unless we start to see the recent trends reverse.

    There is some truth in that, but you also need to look at the court cases over the last ten years that have eviscerated secular bodies from the military and civil elite. Naturally enough, Erdogan did not like the same judges when they hilariously started arresting his own supporters during the Erdogan-Gulen spat. Add in political control of many media organisations, and the playing field is slanted against secularism.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_corruption_scandal_in_Turkey
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Turkey#The_claim_of_Pro-AKP_media

    But I have to be careful what I say about this. Which in itself is sadly a poor and telling reflection on the regime.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Sean_F said:

    WRT the Turks, only a minority of them seem to adhere to outrageous viewpoints. The rest are pretty widely held among small c conservative voters in the UK.

    I just wouldn't want to inflict the EU on their country.

    It's a large minority (around a quarter) with really outrageous viewpoints. And large majorities think drinking alcohol is wrong, sex before marriage are immoral, their daughter shouldn't marry outside Islam and women should always obey their husbands. That's not consistent with moderate conservative voters here.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,536
    Socrates said:

    Sean_F said:

    WRT the Turks, only a minority of them seem to adhere to outrageous viewpoints. The rest are pretty widely held among small c conservative voters in the UK.

    I just wouldn't want to inflict the EU on their country.

    It's a large minority (around a quarter) with really outrageous viewpoints. And large majorities think drinking alcohol is wrong, sex before marriage are immoral, their daughter shouldn't marry outside Islam and women should always obey their husbands. That's not consistent with moderate conservative voters here.
    I think a lot of British Christians (and agnostics) would be worried if their daughter wanted to marry a Muslim, if only because they'd worry she'd be ill-treated.

    Most British women think husbands should obey their wives.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469
    Socrates said:

    Indeed. And holding hands of friendship out to such countries is as good a way as any to try to alter their views. Certainly Socrates' approach - shouting "YOU SMELL!" at them, is unlikely to change their minds.

    Few people, if any, seriously expect Turkey to become part of the EU in the next few years - the hurdles are too great (1), especially whilst Erdogan turns the country away from secularism, even given Turkey's long-standing friendship with the EU. But the option of membership may prevent that turn from occurring. As such, Cameron is playing a political game that is to the benefit of everyone, including Turkey and ourselves.

    But I don;t expect dear Socrates to agree with that for one moment.

    We've been saying nice things to Turkey for 20 years. And yet in that time the Turkish government has got more Islamist and more autocratic. You can caricature my position all you like: all I'm doing is pointing out the facts. Sensible people come to conclusions based on facts, not on a wing and a prayer.

    Your position is easy to caricature because you clearly know very little about the subject. It seems to be Turkey=Muslim=smelly. There is no nuance in your position, no hope, and precious little understanding.

    Do you think you could write a few positive, up-beat posts about the world sometime instead of a constant screed of negativity?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    SeanT said:

    Huzzah

    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.
    Despite spending 5 years as DPP, he failed to secure any convictions for FGM.
This discussion has been closed.