In Scotland no British paper attacks the SNP because they’re not important enough to give the same levels of scrutiny as the British parties, and no Scottish papers would dare to criticise them even if they had a mind to because the SNP would use bully tactics to ensure that they regretted it (for examples see every press Q&A Sturgeon and Salmond have done, and Salmond excluding journalists critical of Independence from press briefings etc).
Yes, that why every daily national paper and all but one Sunday paper strongly and unequivocally backed Independence because of the total dominance of the media by the SNP.
Oh... wait.
'SNP accused' >Google> 393,000 results (0.27 seconds). First 5 results from the Daily Record, Scotsman, Tele, Times, Guardian.
Presumably the SNP must have been handsomely and repeatedly acquitted in the court of the supine MSM.
I'm not entirely sure why you think your opinion is of any note.
An entire persona based on Mills & Boon, Angela Brazil and James Hadley Chase.
One of the reasons Labour won in 1997 was the prawn cocktail offensive.
Labour ministers launched a three year schmoozathon with the City and business leaders.
It worked. When the Tories brought out their New Labour, New Danger fear campaign it had no bite.
Business leaders had listened to New Labour and would give them a chance.
The Tories couldn’t build a coalition of business leaders to make dire warnings about Labour as they had done in past elections.
Ed Miliband’s Labour party has undergone no sustained prawn cocktail offensive.
Instead it is at open war with business promising a waterfall of new taxes and regulations with no upside. It’s all stick and no carrot.
Labour's bigger problem is that it has almost no one who has any significant experience of working in the private sector at a senior level. Rachel Reeves is the obvious exception. Not only has Labour poor links with the private sector, it has so far demonstrated no conception of the challenges of the private sector.
I consider a specialist skill like IED or sniping in a category of their own. Like Signals. That you may also need to know infantry tactics for self-preservation reasons is another kettle of fish.
Like journalists who undergo hostile training. They aren't there to do the job of another.
My best mate used to run the RN bomb disposal team on the South Coast. And defused a massive one in Turkey - he's been through 5 wives and only 45.
He's just super. Forced to retire and now does oil rig diving maintenance instead.
As an aside, a girl in my year at school became a bomb disposal officer, and we lost one such (Lisa Head) in Afghanistan a few years ago.
If women can do bomb disposal, they can be infantry.
Why?
It proves that: *) female front-line soldiers can work with men on the ground in combat situations. *) We (as a society) are willing for them to work in the most hazardous of situations. *) They can shoot and carry loads (again, requirements for a BDO) *) They can have a cool head to do an immensely difficult task.
"Before you can become a Bomb Disposal specialist, you must first complete soldier or officer training, Combat Engineer training and then trade training (soldiers only). You should then ask to specialise in Bomb Disposal."
''If we're going to be sending our troops into battle unarmed, I have greater concerns than whether our troops should be unisex.''
It was you that introduced the sporting metaphor, not me.
The fact is that troops are trained without weapons. What happens when few, if any, women hack the marines training, or the paratroops training, or the guards training.
@ScottyNational: News in: Salmond to hold balance of power in Eurovision,Strictly & Galactic Senate. Death Star to be moved over Surrey as price of coalition
A bizarre combination of cultural Marxism and nerdy fantasies of butt kicking babes.
Er, no. If a woman passes the physical and mental requirements to serve as a soldier - even if on average women are less likely to do both than the average man, accepting that for the sake of argument, that doesn't mean some women are not capable of meeting those requirements just as some men aren't - why shouldn't they serve? The only part left is undermining unit cohesion, and the Army just said there would not be an adverse affect, and I would hope the Army would know enough about unit cohesion.
Edit: I'm not going to be demanding women in combat roles purely on the strength of some equality mantra, and modern, actual combat is not good fodder for nerd sexy fantasies either, sadly, but if the Army thinks, pending some further reviews, there would be no adverse effect, I think they can be trusted to be defending their own institution and its makeup.
Women in the RUC and RIR were effectively on the front line in the fight against the IRA. Indeed, women are on the front line in any counter-insurgency action.
The issue that counts is, I think, unit cohesion. The vast majority of soldiers are always going to be men. Would their morale be adversely affected by female casualties?
Apparently the Army feel any affect on unit cohesion would not be adverse, so I suppose the answer is no.
Overall, their response seems to be a bit ambiguous. Some armies (like the Soviets who did field women in large numbers) have concluded that casualties inflicted on women have an adverse impact on morale, over and above what one would expect.
If the army really does conclude there is no problem (and isn't just bowing to political pressure) that's fine.
If they bow to political pressure against their own opinions of the issue I am sure they will find ways to minimize any adverse effects or stall actual implementation, so it'll probably all work out.
Hey, this isn’t exactly the best place to say this, but I couldn’t find a contact email for you. I love your blog, read it every week, I always find it insightful and measured. I wasn’t such a fan of your Scottish Indy coverage, just because I don’t think it was sufficiently critical of the SNP assertions, but I always admired the points you made. I think it’s always important to reflect back on your vote to see if you would do the same now, particularly with something as important and game changing as the Scottish referendum.
I had a very sobering conversation with a mate about the falling price of oil and what would have happened if Scotland had become Independent this year. We were promised by Salmond and the SNP that the price of oil would remain at $113 per barrel, and that this would float us through to a massive budget surplus, and we’d have low taxes, better living, and more money. Those of us who pointed out that $113 per barrel wasn’t a stable or accurate reflection on the market were accused of scaremongering and being anti-Scottish.
Now that oil has crashed to around $60 per barrel just a few months later, we’d have lost billions of pounds overnight, have a huge budget shortfall, and be forced to rack up a massive deficit, with a much smaller population to pay it off. We’d be locked into an unrecognised sharing of the pound, so Scotland would be unable to devalue its currency or undertake quantative easing to minimise the damage. Prices would soar, wages would crash, and thousands more jobs in the oil sector (1,000 already, 35,000 over the next 5 years), and elsewhere would be lost, and swinging cuts would be made into the public sector, schools and the NHS, that would make the Conservatives and LibDems austerity policy look like a fond memory. We’d have crippled ourselves coming out the gate as a new country, scaring off investors, and creating a massive recession in Scotland, all because of the assertions of one incredibly ill-informed party, the SNP.
I for one am glad that we remained part of the UK; as oil prices continue to fall, Scotland has lost a lot of money, and yet we won’t feel it, because the safety net of the UK will shore up our economy, and cover the shortfall this creates. This means that instead of dire news and our country going into meltdown, we can smile and talk about how cheap our petrol and heating bills are, and settle in for a Merry Christmas.
The SNP were not ill-informed. They knew what they were doing. They lied. They lied about oil, they lied about the currency, they lied about EU membership. And they knew that it did not matter. All that mattered was to secure a Yes victory. Whatever truths emerged after a vote for independence the result could not be undone. It was the most cynical electoral campaign ever fought in the UK. And because of the weakness of the Westminster parties, it was very nearly successful.
Mr. Taffys, some time (probably 10-15 years) ago I saw a docu-drama about training new soldiers, some men, some women. The women had a quantitatively easier time of it (pressups on their knees, for example). Hopefully that kind of bullshit has been knocked on the head.
A bizarre combination of cultural Marxism and nerdy fantasies of butt kicking babes.
Er, no. If a woman passes the physical and mental requirements to serve as a soldier - even if on average women are less likely to do both than the average man, accepting that for the sake of argument, that doesn't mean some women are not capable of meeting those requirements just as some men aren't - why shouldn't they serve? The only part left is undermining unit cohesion, and the Army just said there would not be an adverse affect, and I would hope the Army would know enough about unit cohesion.
Edit: I'm not going to be demanding women in combat roles purely on the strength of some equality mantra, and modern, actual combat is not good fodder for nerd sexy fantasies either, sadly, but if the Army thinks, pending some further reviews, there would be no adverse effect, I think they can be trusted to be defending their own institution and its makeup.
Women in the RUC and RIR were effectively on the front line in the fight against the IRA. Indeed, women are on the front line in any counter-insurgency action.
The issue that counts is, I think, unit cohesion. The vast majority of soldiers are always going to be men. Would their morale be adversely affected by female casualties?
They were indeed on the front line in NI, are indispensable in general in COIN ops, and perform magnificently and bravely.
However, that is different from war fighting.
I am not 100% convinced a war fighting unit would want to have women out on patrol where they knew they were going to be contacted (as has been the case in Afghan and Iraq) with all that that entails.
Not for lack of guts or determination but simple physical strength.
(Edit: but I am waay out of date - perhaps someone can comment with recent experience as to whether this view is different to current thinking/experience)
Mr. Topping, lady soldiers were going out on patrol in Afghanistan carrying the same 80lb (plus) loads that their male colleagues did. They just wore a different cap badge, and so were not deemed to be serving in a combat role. Several lady soldiers were decorated for their gallantry in action. If a lady soldier is good enough to work (i.e. fight) wearing a RAMC badge I can see no reason why she could not do the same wearing a RRF badge, or an other line infantry or armoured regiment (the Guards are different obviously).
As the most insightful conversation about the price of a barrel of Brent-Crude was over fifteen months ago, One has to wonder; do people only read, but not comprehend? Maybe a question for Unckie Clown to answer...?
Hey, this isn’t exactly the best place to say this, but I couldn’t find a contact email for you. I love your blog, read it every week, I always find it insightful and measured. I wasn’t such a fan of your Scottish Indy coverage, just because I don’t think it was sufficiently critical of the SNP assertions, but I always admired the points you made. I think it’s always important to reflect back on your vote to see if you would do the same now, particularly with something as important and game changing as the Scottish referendum.
snip
Now that oil has crashed to around $60 per barrel just a few months later, we’d have lost billions of pounds overnight, have a huge budget shortfall, and be forced to rack up a massive deficit, with a much smaller population to pay it off. We’d be locked into an unrecognised sharing of the pound, so Scotland would be unable to devalue its currency or undertake quantative easing to minimise the damage. Prices would soar, wages would crash, and thousands more jobs in the oil sector (1,000 already, 35,000 over the next 5 years), and elsewhere would be lost, and swinging cuts would be made into the public sector, schools and the NHS, that would make the Conservatives and LibDems austerity policy look like a fond memory. We’d have crippled ourselves coming out the gate as a new country, scaring off investors, and creating a massive recession in Scotland, all because of the assertions of one incredibly ill-informed party, the SNP.
I for one am glad that we remained part of the UK; as oil prices continue to fall, Scotland has lost a lot of money, and yet we won’t feel it, because the safety net of the UK will shore up our economy, and cover the shortfall this creates. This means that instead of dire news and our country going into meltdown, we can smile and talk about how cheap our petrol and heating bills are, and settle in for a Merry Christmas.
The SNP were not ill-informed. They knew what they were doing. They lied. They lied about oil, they lied about the currency, they lied about EU membership. And they knew that it did not matter. All that mattered was to secure a Yes victory. Whatever truths emerged after a vote for independence the result could not be undone. It was the most cynical electoral campaign ever fought in the UK. And because of the weakness of the Westminster parties, it was very nearly successful.
A bizarre combination of cultural Marxism and nerdy fantasies of butt kicking babes.
Er, no. If a woman passes the physical and mental requirements to serve as a soldier - even if on average women are less likely to do both than the average man, accepting th
Edit: I'm not going to be demanding women in combat roles purely on the strength of some equality mantra, and modern, actual combat is not good fodder for nerd sexy fantasies either, sadly, but if the Army thinks, pending some further reviews, there would be no adverse effect, I think they can be trusted to be defending their own institution and its makeup.
Women in the RUC and RIR were effectively on the front line in the fight against the IRA. Indeed, women are on the front line in any counter-insurgency action.
The issue that counts is, I think, unit cohesion. The vast majority of soldiers are always going to be men. Would their morale be adversely affected by female casualties?
They were indeed on the front line in NI, are indispensable in general in COIN ops, and perform magnificently and bravely.
However, that is different from war fighting.
I am not 100% convinced a war fighting unit would want to have women out on patrol where they knew they were going to be contacted (as has been the case in Afghan and Iraq) with all that that entails.
Not for lack of guts or determination but simple physical strength.
(Edit: but I am waay out of date - perhaps someone can comment with recent experience as to whether this view is different to current thinking/experience)
Mr. Topping, lady soldiers were going out on patrol in Afghanistan carrying the same 80lb (plus) loads that their male colleagues did. They just wore a different cap badge, and so were not deemed to be serving in a combat role. Several lady soldiers were decorated for their gallantry in action. If a lady soldier is good enough to work (i.e. fight) wearing a RAMC badge I can see no reason why she could not do the same wearing a RRF badge, or an other line infantry or armoured regiment (the Guards are different obviously).
Thanks yes that was what I was unsure of these days.
I agree then if it has been proven that they are up to the job then why not - although I can't help myself note that as an attached, it would be different to, say, 50% of the patrol being female, but that could easily be my dinosauric thinking.
@georgeeaton: New TNS poll: Lab 35% (+4), Con 28% (-2), Ukip 19% (N/C), Greens 7% (+1), Lib Dems 5% (-1).
TNS tend to give very big votes for UKIP, which reduces the Conservative score.
An attempt to reconcile IPSOS MORI & ICM.
Why is IPSOS so good for the Conservatives but no other pollsters are - they are 10/10 to vote (Which helps CONs over LAB - but that wasn't relevant in their latest poll)
Anyway ICM asks the VI question 2nd which is why I assume their raw numbers are slightly lower than IPSOS...
ICM goes 222 Labour -> 202 weighted; 195 -> 158 CON weighted IPSOS goes 269 Labour -> 238 weighted; 251 -> 269 CON weighted
So just considering Lab/Con (I know, I know) ICM is 53.2% unweighted -> 56.1% weighted
IPSOS Mori is 51.7% Labour unweighted -> 46.9% weighted
So Lab goes taking a straight mean of the two: 52.45 unweighted -> 51.5 weighted
Which fits in with my perception that they are a couple of points ahead.
I think a small number of Tories just have it in for him - they're closet Kippers.
IIRC @MikeL upthread summed up Mr Cameron's popularity - he looks, walks and talks like a leader.
You can't fake that. Which is why EdM is doomed because he encapsulates none of these qualities. Cruel, but true. Labour needed to face this one years ago and didn't. Love or hate Tories - they assassinate a loser pronto.
@ScottyNational: News in: Salmond to hold balance of power in Eurovision,Strictly & Galactic Senate. Death Star to be moved over Surrey as price of coalition
Salmond has become dangerously deluded since his historic failure, a case of post referendum psychosis. He needs professional help.
Mr. Taffys, some time (probably 10-15 years) ago I saw a docu-drama about training new soldiers, some men, some women. The women had a quantitatively easier time of it (pressups on their knees, for example). Hopefully that kind of bullshit has been knocked on the head.
One of the reasons Labour won in 1997 was the prawn cocktail offensive.
Labour ministers launched a three year schmoozathon with the City and business leaders.
It worked. When the Tories brought out their New Labour, New Danger fear campaign it had no bite.
Business leaders had listened to New Labour and would give them a chance.
The Tories couldn’t build a coalition of business leaders to make dire warnings about Labour as they had done in past elections.
Ed Miliband’s Labour party has undergone no sustained prawn cocktail offensive.
Instead it is at open war with business promising a waterfall of new taxes and regulations with no upside. It’s all stick and no carrot.
As if "endorsements" from big-business fat cats would win Labour any votes. Much as the Right might hate to admit it, people trust "business leaders" LESS than they trust trade union leaders:
The SNP were not ill-informed. They knew what they were doing. They lied. They lied about oil, they lied about the currency, they lied about EU membership. And they knew that it did not matter. All that mattered was to secure a Yes victory. Whatever truths emerged after a vote for independence the result could not be undone. It was the most cynical electoral campaign ever fought in the UK.
I don't see anything exceptional about this. Due to the incentives involved, referendum campaigns are mostly based on lies. Look at the AV campaign: The main points being pushed by both sides were nearly 100% bogus.
@ScottyNational: News in: Salmond to hold balance of power in Eurovision,Strictly & Galactic Senate. Death Star to be moved over Surrey as price of coalition
Salmond has become dangerously deluded since his historic failure, a case of post referendum psychosis. He needs professional help.
A case of snatching defeat from the jaws of defeat.
He could have gone on to be a GOM* of Scottish politics but evidently couldn't help himself and his every comment is now likely to diminish himself.
Hopefully that kind of bullshit has been knocked on the head.
I'm sure many regiments are fanatically proud of their standards. They do not compromise. The odd recruit has died on Marines training and the regiment is unapologetic.
In the recent docu on the marines, many of the men struggled to make the power to weight ratio required to complete some of the tasks.
What chance do women have? And what is the value of a prized green beret if the training is made easier??
Right or wrong, these moves will undermine our armed forces, especially the elite units who are the sole reason we are still feared by our enemies.
@ScottyNational: News in: Salmond to hold balance of power in Eurovision,Strictly & Galactic Senate. Death Star to be moved over Surrey as price of coalition
Salmond has become dangerously deluded since his historic failure, a case of post referendum psychosis. He needs professional help.
A case of snatching defeat from the jaws of defeat.
He could have gone on to be a GOM* of Scottish politics but evidently couldn't help himself and his every comment is now likely to diminish himself.
Mr. Taffys, some time (probably 10-15 years) ago I saw a docu-drama about training new soldiers, some men, some women. The women had a quantitatively easier time of it (pressups on their knees, for example). Hopefully that kind of bullshit has been knocked on the head.
I'm not against women on the frontline in principle, but they should have be able to pick up 250 lbs (200 lb soldier + kit) and walk a mile or w/e is needed to pass the physical. In practice that's going to mean only perhaps 0.01% of women can do that or so but its no place to be PC.
However, the employees, friends and family of business owners have votes too - and when you've a leader who's alienated them en masse - you can't win.
Being all Soak The Rich may feel very pure and idealistic - it won't get you FPTP. It requires a broad church of self-interest beyond the hard-Left, welfarists of Methyr Tydfellstan, Guardianistas and recent immigrants.
One of the reasons Labour won in 1997 was the prawn cocktail offensive.
Labour ministers launched a three year schmoozathon with the City and business leaders.
It worked. When the Tories brought out their New Labour, New Danger fear campaign it had no bite.
Business leaders had listened to New Labour and would give them a chance.
The Tories couldn’t build a coalition of business leaders to make dire warnings about Labour as they had done in past elections.
Ed Miliband’s Labour party has undergone no sustained prawn cocktail offensive.
Instead it is at open war with business promising a waterfall of new taxes and regulations with no upside. It’s all stick and no carrot.
As if "endorsements" from big-business fat cats would win Labour any votes. Much as the Right might hate to admit it, people trust "business leaders" LESS than they trust trade union leaders:
Mr. Taffys, some time (probably 10-15 years) ago I saw a docu-drama about training new soldiers, some men, some women. The women had a quantitatively easier time of it (pressups on their knees, for example). Hopefully that kind of bullshit has been knocked on the head.
I'm not against women on the frontline in principle, but they should have be able to pick up 250 lbs (200 lb soldier + kit) and walk a mile or w/e is needed to pass the physical. In practice that's going to mean only perhaps 0.01% of women can do that or so but its no place to be PC.
Agree about the need for training to be gender-free, but laugh at your 0.01% assumption.
Mr. Taffys, some time (probably 10-15 years) ago I saw a docu-drama about training new soldiers, some men, some women. The women had a quantitatively easier time of it (pressups on their knees, for example). Hopefully that kind of bullshit has been knocked on the head.
Mr. D., I am sure that sort of nonsense has long gone and it was probably introduced by the males as a piece of discrimination to "prove" ladies couldn't meet performance standards.
From experience, the one thing squaddies won't accept is people who can't measure up. It doesn't matter what their skin colour, religion or gender is, if they can't do the job then they will not be accepted. If they can they will. This is a very sensible view from the squaddies point of view, you don't want you life in the hands of someone you can't trust. Patrick Mercer got into hot water when he, rather clumsily, tried to explain this.
Mr. Taffys, some time (probably 10-15 years) ago I saw a docu-drama about training new soldiers, some men, some women. The women had a quantitatively easier time of it (pressups on their knees, for example). Hopefully that kind of bullshit has been knocked on the head.
I'm not against women on the frontline in principle, but they should have be able to pick up 250 lbs (200 lb soldier + kit) and walk a mile or w/e is needed to pass the physical. In practice that's going to mean only perhaps 0.01% of women can do that or so but its no place to be PC.
I think a small number of Tories just have it in for him - they're closet Kippers.
IIRC @MikeL upthread summed up Mr Cameron's popularity - he looks, walks and talks like a leader.
You can't fake that. Which is why EdM is doomed because he encapsulates none of these qualities. Cruel, but true. Labour needed to face this one years ago and didn't. Love or hate Tories - they assassinate a loser pronto.
I think a small number of Tories just have it in for him - they're closet Kippers.
IIRC @MikeL upthread summed up Mr Cameron's popularity - he looks, walks and talks like a leader.
You can't fake that. Which is why EdM is doomed because he encapsulates none of these qualities. Cruel, but true. Labour needed to face this one years ago and didn't. Love or hate Tories - they assassinate a loser pronto.
Mr. Taffys, some time (probably 10-15 years) ago I saw a docu-drama about training new soldiers, some men, some women. The women had a quantitatively easier time of it (pressups on their knees, for example). Hopefully that kind of bullshit has been knocked on the head.
Tissue Price's Totally Pointless Totalisation of Polls To Predict The Present
Labour 313 Cons 258 LD 18 UKIP 4 SNP 35 Others 22
I'll buy the Lib Dems at 18 and sell Labour at 313, if that's ok.
OK, settlement will be in 5 minutes, since the model predicts the present. I'll let you know what the results are when I've decided them.
Good call on the Lib Dems, they made up 22. But Labour actually secured an overall majority [bigjohnowls will be pleased] and made up 327. So I'm afraid you owe me 10 cases of claret - please PM me to arrange delivery.
Tissue Price's Totally Pointless Totalisation of Polls To Predict The Present
Labour 313 Cons 258 LD 18 UKIP 4 SNP 35 Others 22
I'll buy the Lib Dems at 18 and sell Labour at 313, if that's ok.
OK, settlement will be in 5 minutes, since the model predicts the present. I'll let you know what the results are when I've decided them.
Good call on the Lib Dems, they made up 22. But Labour actually secured an overall majority [bigjohnowls will be pleased] and made up 327. So I'm afraid you owe me 10 cases of claret - please PM me to arrange delivery.
Better luck next time on TPTPTPTPTP.
Hmm, next time I'll stick to shadsy's buzzword bingo.
And he was entirely right. I want brave, physically intimidating killers protecting us. As Col Jessop noted in a Few Good Men "You want me on that wall"
Mr. Taffys, some time (probably 10-15 years) ago I saw a docu-drama about training new soldiers, some men, some women. The women had a quantitatively easier time of it (pressups on their knees, for example). Hopefully that kind of bullshit has been knocked on the head.
Mr. D., I am sure that sort of nonsense has long gone and it was probably introduced by the males as a piece of discrimination to "prove" ladies couldn't meet performance standards.
From experience, the one thing squaddies won't accept is people who can't measure up. It doesn't matter what their skin colour, religion or gender is, if they can't do the job then they will not be accepted. If they can they will. This is a very sensible view from the squaddies point of view, you don't want you life in the hands of someone you can't trust. Patrick Mercer got into hot water when he, rather clumsily, tried to explain this.
Mr. Taffys, some time (probably 10-15 years) ago I saw a docu-drama about training new soldiers, some men, some women. The women had a quantitatively easier time of it (pressups on their knees, for example). Hopefully that kind of bullshit has been knocked on the head.
I'm not against women on the frontline in principle, but they should have be able to pick up 250 lbs (200 lb soldier + kit) and walk a mile or w/e is needed to pass the physical. In practice that's going to mean only perhaps 0.01% of women can do that or so but its no place to be PC.
Agree about the need for training to be gender-free, but laugh at your 0.01% assumption.
I don't know the exact %s
But
"Being quick with equipment will require lifts of 2.5 times body weight on squats and deadlifts, and a minimum of 1.5 times body weight on bench press to ensure enough mass, ligament, and tendon strength to support proper speed training," says Ivezaj, providing a glimpse of what a new and improved APFT might encompass. "A 400-pound deadlift should be average among soldiers."
400 lb deadlift - what proportion of UK men and then women could manage that ?
Mr. Palmer, if Labour is reliant on Scottish votes for English laws the English electorate will not like that one bit.
Sven is fully entitled to have his 1.5 * Westminster pension! It is his visceral hatred of the English which meant that he chose not to provide for his retirement in low-tax Switzerland.
"he [Cameron] looks, walks and talks like a leader."
Maybe so but his behaviour, what he actually does, is that of a PR Spiv. He could not lead a squad of duckings across a fire-bucket. That is probably why he has so many problems with his back-benchers let alone the public. Cameron is lucky in that Labour have come up with Miliband who, for different reasons, is even worse at leadership.
"he [Cameron] looks, walks and talks like a leader."
Maybe so but his behaviour, what he actually does, is that of a PR Spiv. He could not lead a squad of duckings across a fire-bucket. That is probably why he has so many problems with his back-benchers let alone the public. Cameron is lucky in that Labour have come up with Miliband who, for different reasons, is even worse at leadership.
He has been hampered/inhibited by coalition.
But.
We don't know whether the fist inside the velvet glove is iron. Or blancmange.
However, the employees, friends and family of business owners have votes too - and when you've a leader who's alienated them en masse - you can't win.
Being all Soak The Rich may feel very pure and idealistic - it won't get you FPTP. It requires a broad church of self-interest beyond the hard-Left, welfarists of Methyr Tydfellstan, Guardianistas and recent immigrants.
Employees? I'm pretty sure if you asked a shop-floor worker at any Tesco's what they thought of the head honchos of the company paying themselves huge salaries, they'd be even more scathing than me!
There are easily enough people who would agree with a "soak the rich" strategy for Labour to win on that basis, if they had a competent/charismatic enough leader with the guts to go for it.
I think a small number of Tories just have it in for him - they're closet Kippers.
IIRC @MikeL upthread summed up Mr Cameron's popularity - he looks, walks and talks like a leader.
You can't fake that. Which is why EdM is doomed because he encapsulates none of these qualities. Cruel, but true. Labour needed to face this one years ago and didn't. Love or hate Tories - they assassinate a loser pronto.
I think a small number of Tories just have it in for him - they're closet Kippers.
IIRC @MikeL upthread summed up Mr Cameron's popularity - he looks, walks and talks like a leader.
You can't fake that. Which is why EdM is doomed because he encapsulates none of these qualities. Cruel, but true. Labour needed to face this one years ago and didn't. Love or hate Tories - they assassinate a loser pronto.
As an aside, a girl in my year at school became a bomb disposal officer, and we lost one such (Lisa Head) in Afghanistan a few years ago.
If women can do bomb disposal, they can be infantry.
"Before you can become a Bomb Disposal specialist, you must first complete soldier or officer training, Combat Engineer training and then trade training (soldiers only). You should then ask to specialise in Bomb Disposal."
The Army has an in-joke: 'If at first you don't succeed - maybe Bomb Disposal is not for you'
Mr. Taffys, some time (probably 10-15 years) ago I saw a docu-drama about training new soldiers, some men, some women. The women had a quantitatively easier time of it (pressups on their knees, for example). Hopefully that kind of bullshit has been knocked on the head.
I'm not against women on the frontline in principle, but they should have be able to pick up 250 lbs (200 lb soldier + kit) and walk a mile or w/e is needed to pass the physical. In practice that's going to mean only perhaps 0.01% of women can do that or so but its no place to be PC.
Agree about the need for training to be gender-free, but laugh at your 0.01% assumption.
I don't know the exact %s
But
"Being quick with equipment will require lifts of 2.5 times body weight on squats and deadlifts, and a minimum of 1.5 times body weight on bench press to ensure enough mass, ligament, and tendon strength to support proper speed training," says Ivezaj, providing a glimpse of what a new and improved APFT might encompass. "A 400-pound deadlift should be average among soldiers."
400 lb deadlift - what proportion of UK men and then women could manage that ?
One thing that is worth doing is to make comparisons with December 2009. Looking at the ICM/Guardian polls, and the previous general election vote retention figures now (with changes on December 2009) are:
Con 56% (-10) Lab 63% (+11) Lib 32% (-17)
They're not as different as I thought they would be. Perhaps 2015 won't be as exciting as most people assume?
Mr. Taffys, some time (probably 10-15 years) ago I saw a docu-drama about training new soldiers, some men, some women. The women had a quantitatively easier time of it (pressups on their knees, for example). Hopefully that kind of bullshit has been knocked on the head.
I'm not against women on the frontline in principle, but they should have be able to pick up 250 lbs (200 lb soldier + kit) and walk a mile or w/e is needed to pass the physical. In practice that's going to mean only perhaps 0.01% of women can do that or so but its no place to be PC.
Agree about the need for training to be gender-free, but laugh at your 0.01% assumption.
I don't know the exact %s
But
"Being quick with equipment will require lifts of 2.5 times body weight on squats and deadlifts, and a minimum of 1.5 times body weight on bench press to ensure enough mass, ligament, and tendon strength to support proper speed training," says Ivezaj, providing a glimpse of what a new and improved APFT might encompass. "A 400-pound deadlift should be average among soldiers."
400 lb deadlift - what proportion of UK men and then women could manage that ?
My view for what it is worth, probably not much, is that it reflects volatility in the underlying population. Polls work best when there is only one degree of freedom that is being investigated eg. there is movement between L and C,or vice versa. The sampling frame can get a good match to the underlying population attributes.
But where there is multiple movements between parties based on location and fairly narrow characteristics (eg Mosaic types) it is very difficult to get an appropriate sample, or adjust because the people who have answered do not reflect what the polling house considers to be the right population distribution.
This causes additional variability in polls and in particular between polling houses.
In short it is the difference between picking balls out of a bag to predict the relative proportions of colours, and where you first have to pick which bag to take whilst the ball are continuing to change colour.
@IsabelHardman: Interesting bit of Tory plotting about how to use a potential Labour/SNP pact to their advantage on the doorstep http://t.co/UI3Yg1demd
Oh, now you're poking me with a pointy stick, Sir.
PR is a game worth billions - and if you're PM you need to know how to play that game better than your opponents abroad. One may think it's a trivial skill - but it will win us collectively a great deal using it.
The greatest skill a politician can have is the ability to manipulate without appearing to do so - it's all hearts and minds. And I see value in expertise at it. Sure Mr Cameron drops the ball sometimes and can be apparently complacent/arrogant, but when the chips are down, he delivers.
Who on PB isn't arrogant? Surely it's the definition of us all - we're opinionated and fighting for our position with every post. I don't think it's a failing or vice - without bods like us, nothing would get done that required passion/was unpopular.
"he [Cameron] looks, walks and talks like a leader."
Maybe so but his behaviour, what he actually does, is that of a PR Spiv. He could not lead a squad of duckings across a fire-bucket. That is probably why he has so many problems with his back-benchers let alone the public. Cameron is lucky in that Labour have come up with Miliband who, for different reasons, is even worse at leadership.
"..the one thing we haven't got is clarity". Quite so and although it is the drift to SNP, Ukip and even Greens that has attracted the most attention recently close study of the Lib Dems as the GE approaches might be instructive. If polling indicates a small Lab lead in seats looks likely how will the residual (ie non switching) 2010 LD voters in Con/LD battle grounds react? Will they continue to vote LD if that party hints that they are more likely to get into bed with Lab than the Tories after the election? Sitting on the fence will be a lot harder for the LDs in 2015 than 2010.
However, the employees, friends and family of business owners have votes too - and when you've a leader who's alienated them en masse - you can't win.
Being all Soak The Rich may feel very pure and idealistic - it won't get you FPTP. It requires a broad church of self-interest beyond the hard-Left, welfarists of Methyr Tydfellstan, Guardianistas and recent immigrants.
One of the reasons Labour won in 1997 was the prawn cocktail offensive.
Labour ministers launched a three year schmoozathon with the City and business leaders.
It worked. When the Tories brought out their New Labour, New Danger fear campaign it had no bite.
Business leaders had listened to New Labour and would give them a chance.
The Tories couldn’t build a coalition of business leaders to make dire warnings about Labour as they had done in past elections.
Ed Miliband’s Labour party has undergone no sustained prawn cocktail offensive.
Instead it is at open war with business promising a waterfall of new taxes and regulations with no upside. It’s all stick and no carrot.
As if "endorsements" from big-business fat cats would win Labour any votes. Much as the Right might hate to admit it, people trust "business leaders" LESS than they trust trade union leaders:
My view for what it is worth, probably not much, is that it reflects volatility in the underlying population. Polls work best when there is only one degree of freedom that is being investigated eg. there is movement between L and C,or vice versa. The sampling frame can get a good match to the underlying population attributes.
But where there is multiple movements between parties based on location and fairly narrow characteristics (eg Mosaic types) it is very difficult to get an appropriate sample, or adjust because the people who have answered do not reflect what the polling house considers to be the right population distribution.
This causes additional variability in polls and in particular between polling houses.
In short it is the difference between picking balls out of a bag to predict the relative proportions of colours, and where you first have to pick which bag to take whilst the ball are continuing to change colour.
Ye - for sure, but the averages should be fairly close and on all measures you get Labour perhaps 2% ahead of the Conservatives or so.
Being an old Etonian he was born to lead but as for being a borm leader.....you're taking the piss!
!
Cameron can appear pretty decent, and at times his leadership can be calm which is probably of some help, and maybe there's a case that he is an ok PM - I don't think he's been a disaster - but as a leader of his party he's been wholly unable to control or lead them, or stop the flight to UKIP, so pretty much a disaster there.
Mr. kle4, I agree, and he deserves at least some censure for that. I also think that some on the backbenchers are entirely unrealistic and unreasonable, and that *any* leader would've suffered some lack of control due to backbench intransigence (although it could've been far less with better management).
Only Tony The Tory won for Labour since erm Jim Callaghan. And we all know how that ended.
I do greatly admire your principled stance - I'd really like to meet you. However I think even if Tony The Tory was in charge now, Labour would still be on a downer. Alienating a huge chunk of voters and their employers isn't smart. 80% of people are employed by small/medium businesses. Not Tesco or Vodafone or Amazon or Bank XYZ or whatever bogeyman Labour are picking on today.
These businesses and their employees pay a huge % of tax. Rubbishing them as baby-eaters does Labour no good. There is no NHS paid for by the bottom 9m whom I suspect use it the most.
Kill the Golden Goose with feel-good rhetoric. It will only hurt the most vulnerable.
However, the employees, friends and family of business owners have votes too - and when you've a leader who's alienated them en masse - you can't win.
Being all Soak The Rich may feel very pure and idealistic - it won't get you FPTP. It requires a broad church of self-interest beyond the hard-Left, welfarists of Methyr Tydfellstan, Guardianistas and recent immigrants.
Employees? I'm pretty sure if you asked a shop-floor worker at any Tesco's what they thought of the head honchos of the company paying themselves huge salaries, they'd be even more scathing than me!
There are easily enough people who would agree with a "soak the rich" strategy for Labour to win on that basis, if they had a competent/charismatic enough leader with the guts to go for it.
One of the reasons Labour won in 1997 was the prawn cocktail offensive.
Labour ministers launched a three year schmoozathon with the City and business leaders.
It worked. When the Tories brought out their New Labour, New Danger fear campaign it had no bite.
Business leaders had listened to New Labour and would give them a chance.
The Tories couldn’t build a coalition of business leaders to make dire warnings about Labour as they had done in past elections.
Ed Miliband’s Labour party has undergone no sustained prawn cocktail offensive.
Instead it is at open war with business promising a waterfall of new taxes and regulations with no upside. It’s all stick and no carrot.
Labour's bigger problem is that it has almost no one who has any significant experience of working in the private sector at a senior level. Rachel Reeves is the obvious exception. Not only has Labour poor links with the private sector, it has so far demonstrated no conception of the challenges of the private sector.
I'd actually agree that that's a problem, although it's about time we had a government that was prepared to challenge big business. What is democracy for otherwise?
Mr. kle4, I agree, and he deserves at least some censure for that. I also think that some on the backbenchers are entirely unrealistic and unreasonable, and that *any* leader would've suffered some lack of control due to backbench intransigence (although it could've been far less with better management).
That's fair. Some of his malcontents have been truly unleadable.
My view for what it is worth, probably not much, is that it reflects volatility in the underlying population. Polls work best when there is only one degree of freedom that is being investigated eg. there is movement between L and C,or vice versa. The sampling frame can get a good match to the underlying population attributes.
But where there is multiple movements between parties based on location and fairly narrow characteristics (eg Mosaic types) it is very difficult to get an appropriate sample, or adjust because the people who have answered do not reflect what the polling house considers to be the right population distribution.
This causes additional variability in polls and in particular between polling houses.
In short it is the difference between picking balls out of a bag to predict the relative proportions of colours, and where you first have to pick which bag to take whilst the ball are continuing to change colour.
Ye - for sure, but the averages should be fairly close and on all measures you get Labour perhaps 2% ahead of the Conservatives or so.
Pulpstar While I don't necessarily disagree with your reasoning re your betting options personally I would be wary of placing too much emphasis on the polls of the last ten days or so. There is such a thing as pre Christmas blues as people realise they can't afford all those high profile goodies. Also the news agenda in that period hasn't exactly created much of a feel good factor either. Andrew Neil is right when he recommends forgetting about the polls until mid January.
The latest Populus is actually good for the Conservatives (Even though they're behind) can't remember the last time they were over 500 respondents... also slightly ahead in the properly weighted 10/10 to vote.
As an aside, a girl in my year at school became a bomb disposal officer, and we lost one such (Lisa Head) in Afghanistan a few years ago.
If women can do bomb disposal, they can be infantry.
"Before you can become a Bomb Disposal specialist, you must first complete soldier or officer training, Combat Engineer training and then trade training (soldiers only). You should then ask to specialise in Bomb Disposal."
The Army has an in-joke: 'If at first you don't succeed - maybe Bomb Disposal is not for you'
Hey, this isn’t exactly the best place to say this, but I couldn’t find a contact email for you. I love your blog, read it every week, I always find it insightful and measured. I wasn’t such a fan of your Scottish Indy coverage, just because I don’t think it was sufficiently critical of the SNP assertions, but I always admired the points you made. I think it’s always important to reflect back on your vote to see if you would do the same now, particularly with something as important and game changing as the Scottish referendum.
I had a very sobering conversation with a mate about the falling price of oil and what would have happened if Scotland had become Independent this year. We were promised by Salmond and the SNP that the price of oil would remain at $113 per barrel, and that this would float us through to a massive budget surplus, and we’d have low taxes, better living, and more money. Those of us who pointed out that $113 per barrel wasn’t a stable or accurate reflection on the market were accused of scaremongering and being anti-Scottish.
Now that oil has crashed to around $60 per barrel just a few months later, we’d have lost billions of pounds overnight, have a huge budget shortfall, and be forced to rack up a massive deficit, with a much smaller population to pay it off. We’d be locked into an unrecognised sharing of the pound, so Scotland would be unable to devalue its currency or undertake quantative easing to minimise the damage. Prices would soar, wages would crash, and thousands more jobs in the oil sector (1,000 already, 35,000 over the next 5 years), and elsewhere would be lost, and swinging cuts would be made into the public sector, schools and the NHS, that would make the Conservatives and LibDems austerity policy look like a fond memory. We’d have crippled ourselves coming out the gate as a new country, scaring off investors, and creating a massive recession in Scotland, all because of the assertions of one incredibly ill-informed party, the SNP.
I for one am glad that we remained part of the UK; as oil prices continue to fall, Scotland has lost a lot of money, and yet we won’t feel it, because the safety net of the UK will shore up our economy, and cover the shortfall this creates. This means that instead of dire news and our country going into meltdown, we can smile and talk about how cheap our petrol and heating bills are, and settle in for a Merry Christmas.
And because of the weakness of the Westminster parties, it was very nearly successful.
One of the Westminster parties supporters voted 95% to stay in the Union.....
Only Tony The Tory won for Labour since erm Jim Callaghan. And we all know how that ended.
I do greatly admire your principled stance - I'd really like to meet you. However I think even if Tony The Tory was in charge now, Labour would still be on a downer. Alienating a huge chunk of voters and their employers isn't smart. 80% of people are employed by small/medium businesses. Not Tesco or Vodafone or Amazon or Bank XYZ or whatever bogeyman Labour are picking on today.
These businesses and their employees pay a huge % of tax. Rubbishing them as baby-eaters does Labour no good. There is no NHS paid for by the bottom 9m whom I suspect use it the most.
Kill the Golden Goose with feel-good rhetoric. It will only hurt the most vulnerable.
However, the employees, friends and family of business owners have votes too - and when you've a leader who's alienated them en masse - you can't win.
Being all Soak The Rich may feel very pure and idealistic - it won't get you FPTP. It requires a broad church of self-interest beyond the hard-Left, welfarists of Methyr Tydfellstan, Guardianistas and recent immigrants.
Employees? I'm pretty sure if you asked a shop-floor worker at any Tesco's what they thought of the head honchos of the company paying themselves huge salaries, they'd be even more scathing than me!
There are easily enough people who would agree with a "soak the rich" strategy for Labour to win on that basis, if they had a competent/charismatic enough leader with the guts to go for it.
I can't remember the last Labour proposal that was specifically anti-small/medium business.
My view for what it is worth, probably not much, is that it reflects volatility in the underlying population. Polls work best when there is only one degree of freedom that is being investigated eg. there is movement between L and C,or vice versa. The sampling frame can get a good match to the underlying population attributes.
But where there is multiple movements between parties based on location and fairly narrow characteristics (eg Mosaic types) it is very difficult to get an appropriate sample, or adjust because the people who have answered do not reflect what the polling house considers to be the right population distribution.
This causes additional variability in polls and in particular between polling houses.
In short it is the difference between picking balls out of a bag to predict the relative proportions of colours, and where you first have to pick which bag to take whilst the ball are continuing to change colour.
As an aside, a girl in my year at school became a bomb disposal officer, and we lost one such (Lisa Head) in Afghanistan a few years ago.
If women can do bomb disposal, they can be infantry.
"Before you can become a Bomb Disposal specialist, you must first complete soldier or officer training, Combat Engineer training and then trade training (soldiers only). You should then ask to specialise in Bomb Disposal."
The Army has an in-joke: 'If at first you don't succeed - maybe Bomb Disposal is not for you'
Hey, this isn’t exactly the best place to say this, but I couldn’t find a contact email for you. I love your blog, read it every week, I always find it insightful and measured. I wasn’t such a fan of your Scottish Indy coverage, just because I don’t think it was sufficiently critical of the SNP assertions, but I always admired the points you made. I think it’s always important to reflect back on your vote to see if you would do the same now, particularly with something as important and game changing as the Scottish referendum.
I had a very sobering conversation with a mate about the falling price of oil and what would have happened if Scotland had become Independent this year. We were promised by Salmond and the SNP that the price of oil would remain at $113 per barrel, and that this would float us through to a massive budget surplus, and we’d have low taxes, better living, and more money. Those of us who pointed out that $113 per barrel wasn’t a stable or accurate reflection on the market were accused of scaremongering and being anti-Scottish.
Now that oil has crashed to around $60 per barrel just a few months later, we’d have lost billions of pounds overnight, have a huge budget shortfall, and be forced to rack up a massive deficit, with a much smaller population to pay it off. We’d be locked into an unrecognised sharing of the pound, so Scotland would be unable to devalue its currency or undertake quantative easing to minimise the damage. Prices would soar, wages would crash, and thousands more jobs in the oil sector (1,000 already, 35,000 over the next 5 years), and elsewhere would be lost, and swinging cuts would be made into the public sector, schools and the NHS, that would make the Conservatives and LibDems austerity policy look like a fond memory. We’d have crippled ourselves coming out the gate as a new country, scaring off investors, and creating a massive recession in Scotland, all because of the assertions of one incredibly ill-informed party, the SNP.
I for one am glad that we remained part of the UK; as oil prices continue to fall, Scotland has lost a lot of money, and yet we won’t feel it, because the safety net of the UK will shore up our economy, and cover the shortfall this creates. This means that instead of dire news and our country going into meltdown, we can smile and talk about how cheap our petrol and heating bills are, and settle in for a Merry Christmas.
And because of the weakness of the Westminster parties, it was very nearly successful.
One of the Westminster parties supporters voted 95% to stay in the Union.....
However, the employees, friends and family of business owners have votes too - and when you've a leader who's alienated them en masse - you can't win.
Being all Soak The Rich may feel very pure and idealistic - it won't get you FPTP. It requires a broad church of self-interest beyond the hard-Left, welfarists of Methyr Tydfellstan, Guardianistas and recent immigrants.
One of the reasons Labour won in 1997 was the prawn cocktail offensive.
Labour ministers launched a three year schmoozathon with the City and business leaders.
It worked. When the Tories brought out their New Labour, New Danger fear campaign it had no bite.
Business leaders had listened to New Labour and would give them a chance.
The Tories couldn’t build a coalition of business leaders to make dire warnings about Labour as they had done in past elections.
Ed Miliband’s Labour party has undergone no sustained prawn cocktail offensive.
Instead it is at open war with business promising a waterfall of new taxes and regulations with no upside. It’s all stick and no carrot.
As if "endorsements" from big-business fat cats would win Labour any votes. Much as the Right might hate to admit it, people trust "business leaders" LESS than they trust trade union leaders:
I have a feeling physical intimidation is not a big factor in modern warfare. An SA80 2 drops a big person just as easy as a small one. Maybe easier.
I have no problem with Kelly or Fatima. I'm sure both could fight alongside the men giving absolutely no quarter whatever.
But we talking here about truly exceptional athletes and people.
I wonder what Yokel, our army poster, thinks about all this...
Women are physically better suited to space travel in general because they're generally smaller - so need less calories etc. There's no way I could drop my weight below 160 lbs or so, (Currently 210 or so) - I'd be a terrible candidate for a long term space mission.
On physically intimidating, I'd have guessed that the Japanese army in WW2 was a whole lot smaller than the US one, but it gave the Americans a run for their money for a good time.
Allowing women into combat zones does not mean that 50% of those fighting will be women in the future. Presumably, only those women who can pass muster physically will get onto the frontline. At a guess maybe 5% to 10% might have a chance.
Hey, this isn’t exactly the best place to say this, but I couldn’t find a contact email for you. I love your blog, read it every week, I always find it insightful and measured. I wasn’t such a fan of your Scottish Indy coverage, just because I don’t think it was sufficiently critical of the SNP assertions, but I always admired the points you made. I think it’s always important to reflect back on your vote to see if you would do the same now, particularly with something as important and game changing as the Scottish referendum.
I had a very sobering conversation with a mate about the falling price of oil and what would have happened if Scotland had become Independent this year. We were promised by Salmond and the SNP that the price of oil would remain at $113 per barrel, and that this would float us through to a massive budget surplus, and we’d have low taxes, better living, and more money. Those of us who pointed out that $113 per barrel wasn’t a stable or accurate reflection on the market were accused of scaremongering and being anti-Scottish.
Now that oil has crashed to around $60 per barrel just a few months later, we’d have lost billions of pounds overnight, have a huge budget shortfall, and be forced to rack up a massive deficit, with a much smaller population to pay it off. We’d be locked into an unrecognised sharing of the pound, so Scotland would be unable to devalue its currency or undertake quantative easing to minimise the damage. Prices would soar, wages would crash, and thousands more jobs in the oil sector (1,000 already, 35,000 over the next 5 years), and elsewhere would be lost, and swinging cuts would be made into the public sector, schools and the NHS, that would make the Conservatives and LibDems austerity policy look like a fond memory. We’d have crippled ourselves coming out the gate as a new country, scaring off investors, and creating a massive recession in Scotland, all because of the assertions of one incredibly ill-informed party, the SNP.
I for one am glad that we remained part of the UK; as oil prices continue to fall, Scotland has lost a lot of money, and yet we won’t feel it, because the safety net of the UK will shore up our economy, and cover the shortfall this creates. This means that instead of dire news and our country going into meltdown, we can smile and talk about how cheap our petrol and heating bills are, and settle in for a Merry Christmas.
And because of the weakness of the Westminster parties, it was very nearly successful.
One of the Westminster parties supporters voted 95% to stay in the Union.....
95% of not very many is not very many.
The SNP heartlands were more pro-Union than the Labour run slums in the referendum.
Comments
Fascinating.*
*Not really.
Like journalists who undergo hostile training. They aren't there to do the job of another.
My best mate used to run the RN bomb disposal team on the South Coast. And defused a massive one in Turkey - he's been through 5 wives and only 45.
He's just super. Forced to retire and now does oil rig diving maintenance instead.
It proves that:
*) female front-line soldiers can work with men on the ground in combat situations.
*) We (as a society) are willing for them to work in the most hazardous of situations.
*) They can shoot and carry loads (again, requirements for a BDO)
*) They can have a cool head to do an immensely difficult task.
"Before you can become a Bomb Disposal specialist, you must first complete soldier or officer training, Combat Engineer training and then trade training (soldiers only). You should then ask to specialise in Bomb Disposal."
http://www.army.mod.uk/royalengineers/26642.aspx
@MSmithsonPB: Even more polls
Populus
Lab 35 (-1), Con 34 (=), LD 9 (-1), UKIP 13 (+1
The vital question is which of the pollsters (if any) is correctly accounting for UKIP in England and UKIP in kilts the SNP in Scotland
It was you that introduced the sporting metaphor, not me.
The fact is that troops are trained without weapons. What happens when few, if any, women hack the marines training, or the paratroops training, or the guards training.
Do we make it easier?
I don't know why many PB Tories view Cameron so poorly. He is by far the best asset the Tories have...
Tissue Price's Totally Pointless Totalisation of Polls To Predict The Present
Labour 313
Cons 258
LD 18
UKIP 4
SNP 35
Others 22
I agree then if it has been proven that they are up to the job then why not - although I can't help myself note that as an attached, it would be different to, say, 50% of the patrol being female, but that could easily be my dinosauric thinking.
Why is IPSOS so good for the Conservatives but no other pollsters are - they are 10/10 to vote (Which helps CONs over LAB - but that wasn't relevant in their latest poll)
Anyway ICM asks the VI question 2nd which is why I assume their raw numbers are slightly lower than IPSOS...
ICM goes 222 Labour -> 202 weighted; 195 -> 158 CON weighted
IPSOS goes 269 Labour -> 238 weighted; 251 -> 269 CON weighted
So just considering Lab/Con (I know, I know) ICM is 53.2% unweighted -> 56.1% weighted
IPSOS Mori is 51.7% Labour unweighted -> 46.9% weighted
So Lab goes taking a straight mean of the two: 52.45 unweighted -> 51.5 weighted
Which fits in with my perception that they are a couple of points ahead.
QED.
IIRC @MikeL upthread summed up Mr Cameron's popularity - he looks, walks and talks like a leader.
You can't fake that. Which is why EdM is doomed because he encapsulates none of these qualities. Cruel, but true. Labour needed to face this one years ago and didn't. Love or hate Tories - they assassinate a loser pronto.
How ridiculous. And soldiers will obviously know when they've a weed on the team. There is no place for PC when lives are literally at risk.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/Feb2013_Trust_Topline.PDF
He could have gone on to be a GOM* of Scottish politics but evidently couldn't help himself and his every comment is now likely to diminish himself.
*not Gordo, this time...
I'm sure many regiments are fanatically proud of their standards. They do not compromise. The odd recruit has died on Marines training and the regiment is unapologetic.
In the recent docu on the marines, many of the men struggled to make the power to weight ratio required to complete some of the tasks.
What chance do women have? And what is the value of a prized green beret if the training is made easier??
Right or wrong, these moves will undermine our armed forces, especially the elite units who are the sole reason we are still feared by our enemies.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
:you-can't-flag-a-moderator's-post-even-if-the-scots-born-plastic-yorkshireman-is-but-a-wee-administrator:
Being all Soak The Rich may feel very pure and idealistic - it won't get you FPTP. It requires a broad church of self-interest beyond the hard-Left, welfarists of Methyr Tydfellstan, Guardianistas and recent immigrants. As if "endorsements" from big-business fat cats would win Labour any votes. Much as the Right might hate to admit it, people trust "business leaders" LESS than they trust trade union leaders:
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/Feb2013_Trust_Topline.PDF
From experience, the one thing squaddies won't accept is people who can't measure up. It doesn't matter what their skin colour, religion or gender is, if they can't do the job then they will not be accepted. If they can they will. This is a very sensible view from the squaddies point of view, you don't want you life in the hands of someone you can't trust. Patrick Mercer got into hot water when he, rather clumsily, tried to explain this.
http://www.army.mod.uk/royalengineers/26642.aspx
(the report looks interesting; I haven't been able to read it yet).
And:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1738487.stm
Better luck next time on TPTPTPTPTP.
From their own figures:
Labour: 34.68
Cons: 34.26
LDs: 9.3
Green: 4.2
UKIP: 12.85
Scottish Sub-sample::
SNP: 34.4
Labour: 30.3
Cons: 20.5
LDs: 10.7
I don't know the exact %s
But
"Being quick with equipment will require lifts of 2.5 times body weight on squats and deadlifts, and a minimum of 1.5 times body weight on bench press to ensure enough mass, ligament, and tendon strength to support proper speed training," says Ivezaj, providing a glimpse of what a new and improved APFT might encompass. "A 400-pound deadlift should be average among soldiers."
400 lb deadlift - what proportion of UK men and then women could manage that ?
"he [Cameron] looks, walks and talks like a leader."
Maybe so but his behaviour, what he actually does, is that of a PR Spiv. He could not lead a squad of duckings across a fire-bucket. That is probably why he has so many problems with his back-benchers let alone the public. Cameron is lucky in that Labour have come up with Miliband who, for different reasons, is even worse at leadership.
But.
We don't know whether the fist inside the velvet glove is iron. Or blancmange.
There are easily enough people who would agree with a "soak the rich" strategy for Labour to win on that basis, if they had a competent/charismatic enough leader with the guts to go for it.
Being our offensive weapon suits me. Like having Vinnie Jones on your team.
I can do about half that. And still look female.
http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/Ukip-suspend-Winston-McKenzie-Lambeth-Croydon/story-25740404-detail/story.html
Nobody is suggesting women aren't brave. Some are braver than men. But in some cases bravery might not be enough.
Con 56% (-10)
Lab 63% (+11)
Lib 32% (-17)
They're not as different as I thought they would be. Perhaps 2015 won't be as exciting as most people assume?
Being an old Etonian he was born to lead but as for being a borm leader.....you're taking the piss!
Sean F "the world is divided..."
Very funny!
My view for what it is worth, probably not much, is that it reflects volatility in the underlying population. Polls work best when there is only one degree of freedom that is being investigated eg. there is movement between L and C,or vice versa. The sampling frame can get a good match to the underlying population attributes.
But where there is multiple movements between parties based on location and fairly narrow characteristics (eg Mosaic types) it is very difficult to get an appropriate sample, or adjust because the people who have answered do not reflect what the polling house considers to be the right population distribution.
This causes additional variability in polls and in particular between polling houses.
In short it is the difference between picking balls out of a bag to predict the relative proportions of colours, and where you first have to pick which bag to take whilst the ball are continuing to change colour.
@IsabelHardman: Interesting bit of Tory plotting about how to use a potential Labour/SNP pact to their advantage on the doorstep http://t.co/UI3Yg1demd
PR is a game worth billions - and if you're PM you need to know how to play that game better than your opponents abroad. One may think it's a trivial skill - but it will win us collectively a great deal using it.
The greatest skill a politician can have is the ability to manipulate without appearing to do so - it's all hearts and minds. And I see value in expertise at it. Sure Mr Cameron drops the ball sometimes and can be apparently complacent/arrogant, but when the chips are down, he delivers.
Who on PB isn't arrogant? Surely it's the definition of us all - we're opinionated and fighting for our position with every post. I don't think it's a failing or vice - without bods like us, nothing would get done that required passion/was unpopular.
Expect to see that on a Tory poster in 3, 2, 1...
There are more than "people you do not like" who believe that rich people and wealthy corporations should pay more tax.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/18/george-osborne-top-adviser-18-percent-pay-rise-rupert-harrison
Lucy Powell "I am not going to answer that"
Only Tony The Tory won for Labour since erm Jim Callaghan. And we all know how that ended.
I do greatly admire your principled stance - I'd really like to meet you. However I think even if Tony The Tory was in charge now, Labour would still be on a downer. Alienating a huge chunk of voters and their employers isn't smart. 80% of people are employed by small/medium businesses. Not Tesco or Vodafone or Amazon or Bank XYZ or whatever bogeyman Labour are picking on today.
These businesses and their employees pay a huge % of tax. Rubbishing them as baby-eaters does Labour no good. There is no NHS paid for by the bottom 9m whom I suspect use it the most.
Kill the Golden Goose with feel-good rhetoric. It will only hurt the most vulnerable.
In the old days the choice was simple. Now its very complex. So many variables.
I'd actually agree that that's a problem, although it's about time we had a government that was prepared to challenge big business. What is democracy for otherwise?
That's a "brave" press strategy
I wouldn't want to meet Kelly Holmes or Fatima Whitbread in a dark alley if they had dark intentions.
IIRC yours had better stabling than Eton.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30548443
Mr. kle4, it's vaguely reminiscent of the failing Western Empire. When even an Aurelian can be assassinated, what hope did lesser men stand?
Osborne's VATmoss OTOH..............................................
FWIW the latest Nottinghamshire local had a 3% lab to con swing.
edit: sorry that's a long link...!
I have a feeling physical intimidation is not a big factor in modern warfare. An SA80 2 drops a big person just as easy as a small one. Maybe easier.
I have no problem with Kelly or Fatima. I'm sure both could fight alongside the men giving absolutely no quarter whatever.
But we talking here about truly exceptional athletes and people.
I wonder what Yokel, our army poster, thinks about all this...
What is she thinking of?!
Not many of us. And when those with the cheque book bugger off? Oh... There are more than "people you do not like" who believe that rich people and wealthy corporations should pay more tax.
Allowing women into combat zones does not mean that 50% of those fighting will be women in the future. Presumably, only those women who can pass muster physically will get onto the frontline. At a guess maybe 5% to 10% might have a chance.