This is not the time to scrap Trident.. too many loonies out there who are within grabbing distance of obtaining their own nuclear weapons...and their declared intention is to use them.
"According to BBC Scotland there's going to be massive movements to Labour."
I also heard that the first cracks appeared in the perfectly crafted Nicola. Admittedly my sources aren't impartial but they try to be accurate. Obviously Labour will lose seats but if they can hold the SNP to say 30 that would be quite an achievement
Is there polling on people's attitude to trident? I would be comfortable with us scrapping it
We should scrap our independent nuclear deterrent, massively downsize the armed forces and start to behave like the prosperous peaceful country in a prosperous peaceful region of the world that we are. We can use the savings to invest in infrastructure.
For somebody who spends so much time in our (relatively) near neighbour Hungary I find that a remarkable POV.
Anyone else sensing a Labour mini resurgence in Scotland? From what I hear Murphy did well last night and was well received.
He made me want to launch my monitor through my window !
But both our opinions are bias here Rog as we have skin in the game so to speak. I was surprised Nicola got 55% on the first debate poll... How many swing voters are there in Scotland though, the Yes group seem to be ~ 83% entrenched for SNP and the Conservative share is immutable. Collapse the Libs back to 4% and there is the rest up for grabs, dunno how many that is.
11 SLAB MPs will be a good night for Labour I reckon.
He's talking to Tory UKIPers, no-one else. That is the Tory campaign strategy; just as the Labour strategy is to talk to the anti-Tories. There is no national debate taking place. The two big parties are having two very different conversations with two very distinct sections of the electorate. That's FPTP for you. Whoever wins is going to lack a proper mandate.
Turnout in England is going to be shocking.
And therefore "legitimacy". Say the poll is 67% and the winning Party polls a third of that - governing with the consent of 22% of the electorate isn't going to be much fun. No wonder the Lamb of God doesn't want to serve a full second term.
If I remember my theology correctly, the Lamb of God's second term will last ten thousand years. That's enough for anyone.
(Lamb of God is a specific title with great significance, not just an cute phrase to throw around for your own amusement)
Google seems to think that 'Lamb of God' is a "groove metal band'.
"According to BBC Scotland there's going to be massive movements to Labour."
I also heard that the first cracks appeared in the perfectly crafted Nicola. Admittedly my sources aren't impartial but they try to be accurate. Obviously Labour will lose seats but if they can hold the SNP to say 30 that would be quite an achievement
Pardon - on what planet would the loss of 30 Labour seats to the SNP would be quite an achievement?
He's talking to Tory UKIPers, no-one else. That is the Tory campaign strategy; just as the Labour strategy is to talk to the anti-Tories. There is no national debate taking place. The two big parties are having two very different conversations with two very distinct sections of the electorate. That's FPTP for you. Whoever wins is going to lack a proper mandate.
Turnout in England is going to be shocking.
And therefore "legitimacy". Say the poll is 67% and the winning Party polls a third of that - governing with the consent of 22% of the electorate isn't going to be much fun. No wonder the Lamb of God doesn't want to serve a full second term.
If I remember my theology correctly, the Lamb of God's second term will last ten thousand years. That's enough for anyone.
(Lamb of God is a specific title with great significance, not just an cute phrase to throw around for your own amusement)
So are other terms like Messiah etc but that doesn't stop people either. We don't live in a theology so people can break the second commandment if they wish.
This is not the time to scrap Trident.. too many loonies out there who are within grabbing distance of obtaining their own nuclear weapons...and their declared intention is to use them.
Yeah.... obviously not so many of the loonies in question operate out of mature defined nation states with easy targets for retaliation (and in many cases don't place a high value on their own lives) so it's a *little* difficult to see the efficacy of a deterrent in those cases.
This is not the time to scrap Trident.. too many loonies out there who are within grabbing distance of obtaining their own nuclear weapons...and their declared intention is to use them.
Yeah.... obviously not so many of the loonies in question operate out of mature defined nation states with easy targets for retaliation (and in many cases don't place a high value on their own lives) so it's a *little* difficult to see the efficacy of a deterrent in those cases.
I thought that... Islamic terrorists generally seem willing enough to die for the cause, and aren't all in one place anyway.
If the Green Party weren't in favour of a big state and mass immigration Id probably join them
Mr. Pulpstar, it's entirely possible to be weak and ruthless at the same time, such as when Honorius deceived Stilicho.
Indeed it is, but it appears on the surface to be a cognitive dissonance - it's not an attack line I'd use on national radio.
Policy is where it's at and questioning what Labour would do with the SNP over a nuclear arrangement. The personal attacks on Miliband put me right off. The whole Conservative election campaign feels completely like 2005 yet again.
This is not the time to scrap Trident.. too many loonies out there who are within grabbing distance of obtaining their own nuclear weapons...and their declared intention is to use them.
Yeah.... obviously not so many of the loonies in question operate out of mature defined nation states with easy targets for retaliation (and in many cases don't place a high value on their own lives) so it's a *little* difficult to see the efficacy of a deterrent in those cases.
I thought that... Islamic terrorists generally seem willing enough to die for the cause, and aren't all in one place anyway.
The Chiefs at the top of the pile aren't so keen to see Paradise.
Mr. Thompson, from memory it describes him as king of the Greek kingdom of Macedon, or similar. [And yes, you're entirely correct. Or at least half-correct, depending on whether you consider him half-Epirot due to his mother being from Epirus].
Is there polling on people's attitude to trident? I would be comfortable with us scrapping it
We should scrap our independent nuclear deterrent, massively downsize the armed forces and start to behave like the prosperous peaceful country in a prosperous peaceful region of the world that we are. We can use the savings to invest in infrastructure.
For somebody who spends so much time in our (relatively) near neighbour Hungary I find that a remarkable POV.
Is the US government still seeking to overthrow Orban?
What really scares me is save for Rand Paul all the prospective US Presidential candidates make Bush and Obama look like doves.
"According to BBC Scotland there's going to be massive movements to Labour."
I also heard that the first cracks appeared in the perfectly crafted Nicola. Admittedly my sources aren't impartial but they try to be accurate. Obviously Labour will lose seats but if they can hold the SNP to say 30 that would be quite an achievement
Pardon - on what planet would the loss of 30 Labour seats to the SNP would be quite an achievement?
It wouldn't be, if the SNP have 30 SLAB MPs they are on 46, but if they on 30 then they will have taken about 16 or 17.
Anyone else sensing a Labour mini resurgence in Scotland? From what I hear Murphy did well last night and was well received.
He made me want to launch my monitor through my window !
But both our opinions are bias here Rog as we have skin in the game so to speak. I was surprised Nicola got 55% on the first debate poll... How many swing voters are there in Scotland though, the Yes group seem to be ~ 83% entrenched for SNP and the Conservative share is immutable. Collapse the Libs back to 4% and there is the rest up for grabs, dunno how many that is.
11 SLAB MPs will be a good night for Labour I reckon.
I think that is now on the low side. And if Labour gets close to 20 then Labour largest party is absolutely nailed on. From a betting point of view Scotland is seriously interesting at the moment but the implications of a relatively modest change in the percentages up here would be national.
This is not the time to scrap Trident.. too many loonies out there who are within grabbing distance of obtaining their own nuclear weapons...and their declared intention is to use them.
Yeah.... obviously not so many of the loonies in question operate out of mature defined nation states with easy targets for retaliation (and in many cases don't place a high value on their own lives) so it's a *little* difficult to see the efficacy of a deterrent in those cases.
I thought that... Islamic terrorists generally seem willing enough to die for the cause, and aren't all in one place anyway.
The Chiefs at the top of the pile aren't so keen to see Paradise.
The GE campaign has kicked off in South Wilts – first yellow diamond spotted in front garden.
Hard to believe there’s a GE next month; based on door knocking and bumph on the mat, I think there was more activity in the run up to the Euros.
Agreed. It's the most low-key GE in my lifetime. Even when the Tories had no realistic hopes in 2001 and 2005, there was an interesting and exciting campaign with distinct policy positions being debated. This is the dullest one ever, and you'd hardly know there was a poll in less than a month. I have not seen any election posters up in my Labour-held seat which the Tories certainly targeted strongly in 2010. I've had one leaflet from the Labour incumbent (not a mention of EdM therein).
I have just come back from a wonderful week in Ireland over Easter, and flying in and out of Belfast we saw election posters on nearly every lamppost in NI and extensive coverage in the local media. (A billboard poster featuring warm and cuddly SF candidates pictured with the genial bearded softie Gerry A almost made me vomit...)
It's all bizarre, particularly as the Tories simply have to do something to try and hold power in the face of the UKIP surge and LibDem slump. But what are they doing? Are they out there? Is Dave as happy to sleepwalk out of power as he was to sleepwalk into it, just about?
Or does he realise the game is up and he simply cannot win?
I meant the SNP total to be 30. The achievement would be not going down to 6 which some have talked about
Ah, I see your point now - cheers for clearing that up Roger.
Even so, there's not a lot of practical difference if the SNP start with 6 seats and end uip with a majority I Scotland (where BTW the FPTP system very considerably favours Labour).
Does UKIP have a policy on how many nuclear subs we should have?
I cannot speak for UKIP, but it's hard to see how we can maintain a deterrent that is constantly at sea with three boats. If we go for less than four boats, we'd have to alter the whole posture of our nuclear force.
The GE campaign has kicked off in South Wilts – first yellow diamond spotted in front garden.
Hard to believe there’s a GE next month; based on door knocking and bumph on the mat, I think there was more activity in the run up to the Euros.
Agreed. It's the most low-key GE in my lifetime. Even when the Tories had no realistic hopes in 2001 and 2005, there was an interesting and exciting campaign with distinct policy positions being debated. This is the dullest one ever, and you'd hardly know there was a poll in less than a month. I have not seen any election posters up in my Labour-held seat which the Tories certainly targeted strongly in 2010. I've had one leaflet from the Labour incumbent (not a mention of EdM therein).
I have just come back from a wonderful week in Ireland over Easter, and flying in and out of Belfast we saw election posters on nearly every lamppost in NI and extensive coverage in the local media. (A billboard poster featuring warm and cuddly SF candidates pictured with the genial bearded softie Gerry A almost made me vomit...)
It's all bizarre, particularly as the Tories simply have to do something to try and hold power in the face of the UKIP surge and LibDem slump. But what are they doing? Are they out there? Is Dave as happy to sleepwalk out of power as he was to sleepwalk into it, just about?
Or does he realise the game is up and he simply cannot win?
Bob - Why are the Conservatives doing better in Blackpool North, Pendle as opposed to Bury North, Morecambe and Lunsdale ?
Which NW marginals do you expect to fall, and which way ?
Tight oil in a populated area. Potential recovery perhaps 5%. Actual recovery pretty near zero. Wytch Farm which is in a Poole Bay was the most expensive oil field to develop onshore or offshore in history - and that was in the planning conditions of the 1980s!
My current estimate of this likely extraction of southern england oil and gas - near zero!
However why don't you offer the Scots this as a deal. Transfer control of offshore oil and gas and future revenues to Scottish Parliament. In return Scottish Parliament relinquishes any claim to share of this and other onshore English oil - deal or no deal?
Is there polling on people's attitude to trident? I would be comfortable with us scrapping it
We should scrap our independent nuclear deterrent, massively downsize the armed forces and start to behave like the prosperous peaceful country in a prosperous peaceful region of the world that we are. We can use the savings to invest in infrastructure.
For somebody who spends so much time in our (relatively) near neighbour Hungary I find that a remarkable POV.
Hungarians like the British but they don't think of them as chief guarantors of their liberty. Why would they?
Mr. Song, you can't trust the interweb. Wikipedia thinks Alexander was Greek.
I thought he was Macedonian which is what it seems to say (without reading fully)
It depends on if you count Macedonians as a type of Greek, which I think is a matter of some uncertainty. No-one is sure if Mecedonian was a dialect of Greek or a separate (but related) language. An Athenian would have regarded him as a foreigner, but his empire was definitely a Hellenic one.
I don't see anything contentious or unexpected in that, and good for him in confirming it. The issue is Sturgeon being on the rack for her dissembling after Salmond clearly set out the "settled for a generation" position last year.
Of course Cameron's statements are academic, as he's going to be booted out in 4 weeks time, and who knows what Ed would offer to secure his new government's position...
I've updated the predictions on my website (for every UK seat) based on latest Ashcroft and other polls. Let me know which seat predictions are most wrong!
I haven't seen any election posters so far (and I live in a seat that is often marginal). It all seems very quiet so far...
DAVID Cameron has set any future Tory government on a collision course with Nicola Sturgeon's SNP
Mutually beneficial scraps.
In practice I doubt it. A referendum without a casus belli would risk a second NO, which would bury the SNP's dream for the forseeable future. Nicola will be very cautious here - she can play a long game and doesn't want to blow it.
I've updated the predictions on my website (for every UK seat) based on latest Ashcroft and other polls. Let me know which seat predictions are most wrong!
I haven't seen any election posters so far (and I live in a seat that is often marginal). It all seems very quiet so far...
Honestly? No, I don't, really. Not because of the loonies, but more because of the calculating aggression of Putin. Next couple of years will be OK, but I wouldn't want to be the one who decided that it would all be OK in five or ten years and then find it was too late to be able to protect ourselves. Of course that depends on whether you believe that a nuclear deterrent deters, and I tend towards the view eloquently outlined in Yes (Prime?) Minister: there's no obvious point you would ever use a nuclear deterrent against a smart enemy who isn't setting out to annihilate you and render your land uninhabitable.
What I don't understand is why the Tories are going in so soft on defence. After the aircraft carrier fiasco, they could win back some ground by capitalising on the recent Russian airspace incursions to justify increased defence spending, mostly on kit built in the UK, thereby creating jobs and increasing economic growth (it seems to be the bit of the US economic model they aren't keen on). The Trident debate seems to be all about posturing rather than the substance of a robust defence policy.
I've updated the predictions on my website (for every UK seat) based on latest Ashcroft and other polls. Let me know which seat predictions are most wrong!
I haven't seen any election posters so far (and I live in a seat that is often marginal). It all seems very quiet so far...
I'd lose my Inverclyde bet but would be tremendously pleased if the election came in as you've got it in Scotland.
"says exploration firm UK Oil & Gas Investments (UKOG)."
The 3-15% is the industry estimate. With tight oil you are lucky to get 5% on experience. Actually this ridge extends right up the Central North Sea and offers many many times the potential identifies in the Weald.
However, the issue with onshore oil and onshore tight oil in particular is actual not potential. It is not fracking but try telling that to the householders. Most of the environemental concerns around this are hooey. However potential contamination of the water table is not. It is a genuine risk.
So again how about it. Straight swap - England's onshore oil for Scotlands offshore oil?
The GE campaign has kicked off in South Wilts – first yellow diamond spotted in front garden.
Hard to believe there’s a GE next month; based on door knocking and bumph on the mat, I think there was more activity in the run up to the Euros.
Agreed. It's the most low-key GE in my lifetime. Even when the Tories had no realistic hopes in 2001 and 2005, there was an interesting and exciting campaign with distinct policy positions being debated. This is the dullest one ever, and you'd hardly know there was a poll in less than a month. I have not seen any election posters up in my Labour-held seat which the Tories certainly targeted strongly in 2010. I've had one leaflet from the Labour incumbent (not a mention of EdM therein).
I have just come back from a wonderful week in Ireland over Easter, and flying in and out of Belfast we saw election posters on nearly every lamppost in NI and extensive coverage in the local media. (A billboard poster featuring warm and cuddly SF candidates pictured with the genial bearded softie Gerry A almost made me vomit...)
It's all bizarre, particularly as the Tories simply have to do something to try and hold power in the face of the UKIP surge and LibDem slump. But what are they doing? Are they out there? Is Dave as happy to sleepwalk out of power as he was to sleepwalk into it, just about?
Or does he realise the game is up and he simply cannot win?
Bob - Why are the Conservatives doing better in Blackpool North, Pendle as opposed to Bury North, Morecambe and Lunsdale ?
Which NW marginals do you expect to fall, and which way ?
I think the solidity of the UKIP vote may be key. It seems to have fallen back in Pendle and Blackpool, helping the Tories.
Of course, that's a key issue right across the UK. Were it not for UKIP, I expect Cameron would be re-elected comfortably and possibly with a majority, given many people seem entirely comfortable with him being PM, and certainly in preference to EdM.
UKIP were always going to hand seats to Labour if they increased their vote on 2010. Cameron needed to kill the UKIP vote. He didn't, he won't be able to do it now at this stage, and therefore the election is lost - EdM becomes PM, and that has looked likely for some time quite frankly.
This is not the time to scrap Trident.. too many loonies out there who are within grabbing distance of obtaining their own nuclear weapons...and their declared intention is to use them.
What concerns me is the stealthy way (by design or accident) that military capabilities are often degraded or destroyed:
1) A capability is required. 2) The military say what they need to meet that capability. 3) Resources are made available. 4) After a few years, politicians want to save money, and skim some of the resources (e.g. reducing fleet size) 5) Another few years on, more cuts are made. Friendly service chiefs (often from other services to the one affected) say the cuts are fine. 6) After another few years, the military say that the capability cannot be met due to lack of resources. 7) Instead of looking at whether that capability is still needed, politicians just cut the rest of the resources, and the capability is lost.
This has been seen time and time again. It is what I fear will happen if we go for a three-boat Trident scheme by stealth.
Honestly? No, I don't, really. Not because of the loonies, but more because of the calculating aggression of Putin. Next couple of years will be OK, but I wouldn't want to be the one who decided that it would all be OK in five or ten years and then find it was too late to be able to protect ourselves. Of course that depends on whether you believe that a nuclear deterrent deters, and I tend towards the view eloquently outlined in Yes (Prime?) Minister: there's no obvious point you would ever use a nuclear deterrent against a smart enemy who isn't setting out to annihilate you and render your land uninhabitable.
What I don't understand is why the Tories are going in so soft on defence. After the aircraft carrier fiasco, they could win back some ground by capitalising on the recent Russian airspace incursions to justify increased defence spending, mostly on kit built in the UK, thereby creating jobs and increasing economic growth (it seems to be the bit of the US economic model they aren't keen on). The Trident debate seems to be all about posturing rather than the substance of a robust defence policy.
There haven't been any Russian incursions of our airspace, international airspace is open to everyone. I am interested in what aggression? Russia isn't seeking to harm our economy, destabilise our government to achieve regime change let alone funding/arming dissident Irish rebels in Northern Ireland.
Defence spending is a loss to the economy. I prefer it to be spent elsewhere.
The GE campaign has kicked off in South Wilts – first yellow diamond spotted in front garden.
Hard to believe there’s a GE next month; based on door knocking and bumph on the mat, I think there was more activity in the run up to the Euros.
Agreed. It's the most low-key GE in my lifetime. Even when the Tories had no realistic hopes in 2001 and 2005, there was an interesting and exciting campaign with distinct policy positions being debated. This is the dullest one ever, and you'd hardly know there was a poll in less than a month. I have not seen any election posters up in my Labour-held seat which the Tories certainly targeted strongly in 2010. I've had one leaflet from the Labour incumbent (not a mention of EdM therein).
I have just come back from a wonderful week in Ireland over Easter, and flying in and out of Belfast we saw election posters on nearly every lamppost in NI and extensive coverage in the local media. (A billboard poster featuring warm and cuddly SF candidates pictured with the genial bearded softie Gerry A almost made me vomit...)
It's all bizarre, particularly as the Tories simply have to do something to try and hold power in the face of the UKIP surge and LibDem slump. But what are they doing? Are they out there? Is Dave as happy to sleepwalk out of power as he was to sleepwalk into it, just about?
Or does he realise the game is up and he simply cannot win?
Bob - Why are the Conservatives doing better in Blackpool North, Pendle as opposed to Bury North, Morecambe and Lunsdale ?
Which NW marginals do you expect to fall, and which way ?
I think the solidity of the UKIP vote may be key. It seems to have fallen back in Pendle and Blackpool, helping the Tories.
Of course, that's a key issue right across the UK. Were it not for UKIP, I expect Cameron would be re-elected comfortably and possibly with a majority, given many people seem entirely comfortable with him being PM, and certainly in preference to EdM.
UKIP were always going to hand seats to Labour if they increased their vote on 2010. Cameron needed to kill the UKIP vote. He didn't, he won't be able to do it now at this stage, and therefore the election is lost - EdM becomes PM, and that has looked likely for some time quite frankly.
That might be the case, but that bodes well for the future, if Farage fails and leaves, UKIP could fall apart without him, then where do those voters go?
"says exploration firm UK Oil & Gas Investments (UKOG)."
The 3-15% is the industry estimate. With tight oil you are lucky to get 5% on experience. Actually this ridge extends right up the Central North Sea and offers many many times the potential identifies in the Weald.
However, the issue with onshore oil and onshore tight oil in particular is actual not potential. It is not fracking but try telling that to the householders. Most of the environemental concerns around this are hooey. However potential contamination of the water table is not. It is a genuine risk.
So again how about it. Straight swap - England's onshore oil for Scotlands offshore oil?
It's all the UK's oil. We are one glorious country.
Oh, and yesterday was a big win for the Conservatives on their message for this election: The choice between Competence and Chaos.
The two Eds Laurel and Hardy routine was comedy gold.
Massive win for Edward Samuel Miliband. In touch with the common man and not the friend of tax dodging rich.
I am actually rather bemused by the level of cheer-leading for Miliband even from the left, there isn't going to be a LAB majority, so the best they can hope for is being propped up in power for a bit by the SNP, who actually have no interest in do what is right for the Labour Party or the UK. How they can believe this can result in anything other than a complete clusterf*ck that will render Labour unelectable for a generation is beyond me.
I am torn between anxiety as to the damage another Labour government could cause so soon after last time and a sort of amusement of how much of a cluster f**k a weak Labour government under Milliband would be.
Honestly? No, I don't, really. Not because of the loonies, but more because of the calculating aggression of Putin. Next couple of years will be OK, but I wouldn't want to be the one who decided that it would all be OK in five or ten years and then find it was too late to be able to protect ourselves. Of course that depends on whether you believe that a nuclear deterrent deters, and I tend towards the view eloquently outlined in Yes (Prime?) Minister: there's no obvious point you would ever use a nuclear deterrent against a smart enemy who isn't setting out to annihilate you and render your land uninhabitable.
What I don't understand is why the Tories are going in so soft on defence. After the aircraft carrier fiasco, they could win back some ground by capitalising on the recent Russian airspace incursions to justify increased defence spending, mostly on kit built in the UK, thereby creating jobs and increasing economic growth (it seems to be the bit of the US economic model they aren't keen on). The Trident debate seems to be all about posturing rather than the substance of a robust defence policy.
It's all about going after those UKIP voters who don't like Miliband. That is the entire Tory electoral strategy. In the same way, the Labour strategy is all about getting to that part of the electorate that doesn't like the Tories. It's the nature of the beast under FPTP.
Interesting to see it's the Kimmeridge formation, which has been exploited in Dorset for donkey's years. Indeed, the rig by the shore at Kimmeridge Bay (by the entrance to the MOD Lulworth Ranges) has been producing oil more or less continuously since 1961, albeit in small quantities.
Oh, and the cliffs nearby can spontaneously combust due to the oil in the shale. For pictures and information on the geology of the area, see Ian West's excellent site:
The GE campaign has kicked off in South Wilts – first yellow diamond spotted in front garden.
Hard to believe there’s a GE next month; based on door knocking and bumph on the mat, I think there was more activity in the run up to the Euros.
Or does he realise the game is up and he simply cannot win?
Bob - Why are the Conservatives doing better in Blackpool North, Pendle as opposed to Bury North, Morecambe and Lunsdale ?
Which NW marginals do you expect to fall, and which way ?
I think the solidity of the UKIP vote may be key. It seems to have fallen back in Pendle and Blackpool, helping the Tories.
Of course, that's a key issue right across the UK. Were it not for UKIP, I expect Cameron would be re-elected comfortably and possibly with a majority, given many people seem entirely comfortable with him being PM, and certainly in preference to EdM.
UKIP were always going to hand seats to Labour if they increased their vote on 2010. Cameron needed to kill the UKIP vote. He didn't, he won't be able to do it now at this stage, and therefore the election is lost - EdM becomes PM, and that has looked likely for some time quite frankly.
That might be the case, but that bodes well for the future, if Farage fails and leaves, UKIP could fall apart without him, then where do those voters go?
EdM might have destroyed the UK by then!
Of course, and this has been my hunch for some time, I think if he manages to form a government without needing the SNP (who I don't think will do as well as polls suggest), then given the favourable economic climate, he might actually turn out not to be a disaster as PM. To be honest, that's my biggest fear and may be a fear of very many in the Tory Party, although the PM doesn't seem fazed as he continues his amiable farewell tour round his party's activists across the UK...
Speaking at Microsoft in London, Miliband is outlining his plans for vocational education.
It will include guaranteed apprenticeships for those with the grades, compulsory work experience and £50 million for face-to-face careers advice meaning teenagers are better informed of their options.
He says a labour curriculum will foster "creativity, imagination and being able to dream of a better future."
By contrast, the Tories are "narrowing horizons and stifling creativity".
Labour will hire around 1,000 careers advisers, with one per every two or three schools.
The cash will come from the fund set up to widen access to university.
More business people should become school governors, Tristram Hunt, the shadow education secretary says.
I would have respect for backstabber Miliband if he had stabbed his brother in the back "for the good of the country" - but he said it was "for the good of the party".
I've updated the predictions on my website (for every UK seat) based on latest Ashcroft and other polls. Let me know which seat predictions are most wrong!
I haven't seen any election posters so far (and I live in a seat that is often marginal). It all seems very quiet so far...
I fear you aren't regionalising the UKIP/Green vote enough. Would be surprised if UKIP came 3rd in Manchester Withington, for example, ahead of the Greens given the weak results for UKIP in the 2014 Euros/Locals there and the seat demographics. Would also be surprised if the Greens came outside the Top 3 in Bristol West given their local election success.
Honestly? No, I don't, really. Not because of the loonies, but more because of the calculating aggression of Putin. Next couple of years will be OK, but I wouldn't want to be the one who decided that it would all be OK in five or ten years and then find it was too late to be able to protect ourselves. Of course that depends on whether you believe that a nuclear deterrent deters, and I tend towards the view eloquently outlined in Yes (Prime?) Minister: there's no obvious point you would ever use a nuclear deterrent against a smart enemy who isn't setting out to annihilate you and render your land uninhabitable.
What I don't understand is why the Tories are going in so soft on defence. After the aircraft carrier fiasco, they could win back some ground by capitalising on the recent Russian airspace incursions to justify increased defence spending, mostly on kit built in the UK, thereby creating jobs and increasing economic growth (it seems to be the bit of the US economic model they aren't keen on). The Trident debate seems to be all about posturing rather than the substance of a robust defence policy.
It's all about going after those UKIP voters who don't like Miliband. That is the entire Tory electoral strategy. In the same way, the Labour strategy is all about getting to that part of the electorate that doesn't like the Tories. It's the nature of the beast under FPTP.
There must be plenty of people like me who are not bothered about either of them... I can honestly say I don't care which one of them is PM, although find myself sticking up for Miliband due to the personal nature of abuse he gets...
With 4 weeks still to go, there is plenty of time for the Conservatives to get their message across - In fact you could argue that a later contact note is better as your message is the last one heard. The concern, however is that postal votes go out earlier of course - but they (whether by fair means or foul) tend to heavily favour Labour.
John Langley, who is standing as a councillor in the Stockwood constituency in the coming city council elections, is known in adult film circles as Johnny Rockard.
I would have respect for backstabber Miliband if he had stabbed his brother in the back "for the good of the country" - but he said it was "for the good of the party".
Ugh.
But he didn't 'stab him in the back', they both stood as candidates in an open leadership election and he won, simple as that.
It will include guaranteed apprenticeships for those with the grades, compulsory work experience and £50 million for face-to-face careers advice meaning teenagers are better informed of their options.
Labour will hire around 1,000 careers advisers, with one per every two or three schools.
£50,000 pa each?! Interested to know where these trained people are to be found. Somewhere like ATOS?
It reminds me of Yvette Cooper's ill fated HIPs debacle, and the inspectors who trained at great expense, and never got any work.
Honestly? No, I don't, really. Not because of the loonies, but more because of the calculating aggression of Putin. Next couple of years will be OK, but I wouldn't want to be the one who decided that it would all be OK in five or ten years and then find it was too late to be able to protect ourselves. Of course that depends on whether you believe that a nuclear deterrent deters, and I tend towards the view eloquently outlined in Yes (Prime?) Minister: there's no obvious point you would ever use a nuclear deterrent against a smart enemy who isn't setting out to annihilate you and render your land uninhabitable.
What I don't understand is why the Tories are going in so soft on defence. After the aircraft carrier fiasco, they could win back some ground by capitalising on the recent Russian airspace incursions to justify increased defence spending, mostly on kit built in the UK, thereby creating jobs and increasing economic growth (it seems to be the bit of the US economic model they aren't keen on). The Trident debate seems to be all about posturing rather than the substance of a robust defence policy.
There haven't been any Russian incursions of our airspace, international airspace is open to everyone. I am interested in what aggression? Russia isn't seeking to harm our economy, destabilise our government to achieve regime change let alone funding/arming dissident Irish rebels in Northern Ireland.
Defence spending is a loss to the economy. I prefer it to be spent elsewhere.
You're right I think... let's say "threatened incursions". The point is that one can certainly see a point in the medium term future where Putin continues a few pages further through the traditional Soviet playbook and we and our European neighbours feel like it would be comforting to have a good pile of military hardware on the Eastern borders and a few more planes ready to go. Would I prefer to see the money spent on policies that create infrastructure, jobs and economic growth in other ways? Yes, probably. But I'm nervous that the obsession with denigrating the role of the state and minimising taxation would be used as an excuse not to tool up even if it was clearly necessary.
If a group of like minded individuals that supported party X wanted to help their party in the election, had a whip around and raised a big chunk of money, would they be breaking any election laws if they used that money to run surveys, produce literature, put up posters etc if it wasn't in cooperation with, or at the behest of the political party ? If so, what about if they didn't actually name candidates or parties and just promoted or supported particular policies ? Businessmen for Europe, or, Lefties for a Better Funded NHS, or whatever.
No, the (controversial) Lobbying Act cracks down hard on this, to the point that many NGOs are scared to say anything much on any significant scale. If the impact of your activity helps some candidates more than others, it has potential implications for election expenses. The group could do surveys, I thiink, but not a lot more.
Many thanks for that. Doesn't this rather open the way so some group "helpfully" spending your allowance ways that are accidentally-on-purpose monstrously inefficient, so that you suddenly find you have no budget left even though you never approved of their involvement or methods ?
Honestly? No, I don't, really. Not because of the loonies, but more because of the calculating aggression of Putin. Next couple of years will be OK, but I wouldn't want to be the one who decided that it would all be OK in five or ten years and then find it was too late to be able to protect ourselves. Of course that depends on whether you believe that a nuclear deterrent deters, and I tend towards the view eloquently outlined in Yes (Prime?) Minister: there's no obvious point you would ever use a nuclear deterrent against a smart enemy who isn't setting out to annihilate you and render your land uninhabitable.
What I don't understand is why the Tories are going in so soft on defence. After the aircraft carrier fiasco, they could win back some ground by capitalising on the recent Russian airspace incursions to justify increased defence spending, mostly on kit built in the UK, thereby creating jobs and increasing economic growth (it seems to be the bit of the US economic model they aren't keen on). The Trident debate seems to be all about posturing rather than the substance of a robust defence policy.
It's all about going after those UKIP voters who don't like Miliband. That is the entire Tory electoral strategy. In the same way, the Labour strategy is all about getting to that part of the electorate that doesn't like the Tories. It's the nature of the beast under FPTP.
There must be plenty of people like me who are not bothered about either of them... I can honestly say I don't care which one of them is PM, although find myself sticking up for Miliband due to the personal nature of abuse he gets...
But I do cringe when he is on TV
The Tories have presumably focus-grouped the Miliband thing to death. If they are wrong, they'll lose the election.
Honestly? No, I don't, really. Not because of the loonies, but more because of the calculating aggression of Putin. Next couple of years will be OK, but I wouldn't want to be the one who decided that it would all be OK in five or ten years and then find it was too late to be able to protect ourselves. Of course that depends on whether you believe that a nuclear deterrent deters, and I tend towards the view eloquently outlined in Yes (Prime?) Minister: there's no obvious point you would ever use a nuclear deterrent against a smart enemy who isn't setting out to annihilate you and render your land uninhabitable.
What I don't understand is why the Tories are going in so soft on defence. After the aircraft carrier fiasco, they could win back some ground by capitalising on the recent Russian airspace incursions to justify increased defence spending, mostly on kit built in the UK, thereby creating jobs and increasing economic growth (it seems to be the bit of the US economic model they aren't keen on). The Trident debate seems to be all about posturing rather than the substance of a robust defence policy.
It's all about going after those UKIP voters who don't like Miliband. That is the entire Tory electoral strategy. In the same way, the Labour strategy is all about getting to that part of the electorate that doesn't like the Tories. It's the nature of the beast under FPTP.
Except, of course, that it isn't. Elections in FPTP are won or lost by the large floating and broadly centre ground. Cameron would be wise not to forget this, particularly in the manifesto, in the weeks ahead before May 7th.
I would have respect for backstabber Miliband if he had stabbed his brother in the back "for the good of the country" - but he said it was "for the good of the party".
Ugh.
But he didn't 'stab him in the back', they both stood as candidates in an open leadership election and he won, simple as that.
If it was all so Queensbury rules then why isn't David Shad For Sec and is his dear old mum so upset ? He was at best "economical regarding his intentions".
"Miliband said that he had “not really” spoken to David – long seen as the heir apparent to Brown – about the leadership before he announced his decision to stand. “We had conversations, but they were probably quite elliptical conversations,” he said."
Honestly? No, I don't, really. Not because of the loonies, but more because of the calculating aggression of Putin. Next couple of years will be OK, but I wouldn't want to be the one who decided that it would all be OK in five or ten years and then find it was too late to be able to protect ourselves. Of course that depends on whether you believe that a nuclear deterrent deters, and I tend towards the view eloquently outlined in Yes (Prime?) Minister: there's no obvious point you would ever use a nuclear deterrent against a smart enemy who isn't setting out to annihilate you and render your land uninhabitable.
What I don't understand is why the Tories are going in so soft on defence. After the aircraft carrier fiasco, they could win back some ground by capitalising on the recent Russian airspace incursions to justify increased defence spending, mostly on kit built in the UK, thereby creating jobs and increasing economic growth (it seems to be the bit of the US economic model they aren't keen on). The Trident debate seems to be all about posturing rather than the substance of a robust defence policy.
It's all about going after those UKIP voters who don't like Miliband. That is the entire Tory electoral strategy. In the same way, the Labour strategy is all about getting to that part of the electorate that doesn't like the Tories. It's the nature of the beast under FPTP.
Except, of course, that it isn't. Elections in FPTP are won or lost by the large floating and broadly centre ground. Cameron would be wise not to forget this and 'liberal Conservatism', particularly in the manifesto, in the weeks ahead before May 7th.
I've updated the predictions on my website (for every UK seat) based on latest Ashcroft and other polls. Let me know which seat predictions are most wrong!
I haven't seen any election posters so far (and I live in a seat that is often marginal). It all seems very quiet so far...
I've updated the predictions on my website (for every UK seat) based on latest Ashcroft and other polls. Let me know which seat predictions are most wrong!
I haven't seen any election posters so far (and I live in a seat that is often marginal). It all seems very quiet so far...
Honestly? No, I don't, really. Not because of the loonies, but more because of the calculating aggression of Putin. Next couple of years will be OK, but I wouldn't want to be the one who decided that it would all be OK in five or ten years and then find it was too late to be able to protect ourselves. Of course that depends on whether you believe that a nuclear deterrent deters, and I tend towards the view eloquently outlined in Yes (Prime?) Minister: there's no obvious point you would ever use a nuclear deterrent against a smart enemy who isn't setting out to annihilate you and render your land uninhabitable.
What I don't understand is why the Tories are going in so soft on defence. After the aircraft carrier fiasco, they could win back some ground by capitalising on the recent Russian airspace incursions to justify increased defence spending, mostly on kit built in the UK, thereby creating jobs and increasing economic growth (it seems to be the bit of the US economic model they aren't keen on). The Trident debate seems to be all about posturing rather than the substance of a robust defence policy.
It's all about going after those UKIP voters who don't like Miliband. That is the entire Tory electoral strategy. In the same way, the Labour strategy is all about getting to that part of the electorate that doesn't like the Tories. It's the nature of the beast under FPTP.
There must be plenty of people like me who are not bothered about either of them... I can honestly say I don't care which one of them is PM, although find myself sticking up for Miliband due to the personal nature of abuse he gets...
But I do cringe when he is on TV
The Tories have presumably focus-grouped the Miliband thing to death. If they are wrong, they'll lose the election.
It pains me to say it but this EdM thing is a bit like policy. Erstwhile attractive policies suddenly lose their allure when associated with the Conservatives. EdM as PM is a pretty ridiculous proposition; but when Conservatives start saying so EdM is viewed more favourably. The Conservatives still have a huge image problem, unfortunately - more so even than EdM!
Honestly? No, I don't, really. Not because of the loonies, but more because of the calculating aggression of Putin. Next couple of years will be OK, but I wouldn't want to be the one who decided that it would all be OK in five or ten years and then find it was too late to be able to protect ourselves. Of course that depends on whether you believe that a nuclear deterrent deters, and I tend towards the view eloquently outlined in Yes (Prime?) Minister: there's no obvious point you would ever use a nuclear deterrent against a smart enemy who isn't setting out to annihilate you and render your land uninhabitable.
What I don't understand is why the Tories are going in so soft on defence. After the aircraft carrier fiasco, they could win back some ground by capitalising on the recent Russian airspace incursions to justify increased defence spending, mostly on kit built in the UK, thereby creating jobs and increasing economic growth (it seems to be the bit of the US economic model they aren't keen on). The Trident debate seems to be all about posturing rather than the substance of a robust defence policy.
It's all about going after those UKIP voters who don't like Miliband. That is the entire Tory electoral strategy. In the same way, the Labour strategy is all about getting to that part of the electorate that doesn't like the Tories. It's the nature of the beast under FPTP.
There must be plenty of people like me who are not bothered about either of them... I can honestly say I don't care which one of them is PM, although find myself sticking up for Miliband due to the personal nature of abuse he gets...
But I do cringe when he is on TV
The Tories have presumably focus-grouped the Miliband thing to death. If they are wrong, they'll lose the election.
To be fair I don't know anyone who speaks positively of him.. My mum is staunch labour and says he is 'whammy' and the wrong brother won
My mate who is a out and out tory thinks he is a snide who should have cut a deal w his brother, toss a coin and support whoever won
Another who is an ex lab now ukip just says he seems false
Even my leftie mate despairs of him saying he is no frontman
I don't dislike him, but dinr think i could run against a close friend let alone my brother.. That is ruthless and it's what people dislike him for more than any geekiness I think
I would have respect for backstabber Miliband if he had stabbed his brother in the back "for the good of the country" - but he said it was "for the good of the party".
Ugh.
But he didn't 'stab him in the back', they both stood as candidates in an open leadership election and he won, simple as that.
After previously saying he wouldn't and that he'd support his own brother after the election if David didn't stand against Brown before it. David upheld his end of the deal, Ed reneged on his end. That's backstabbing.
This seat isn’t a marginal so I’m not surprised that we’ve only been canvassed once (by Labour) and had one piece of literature (Labour again). However I drove into Colchester last night along the Old London Road and there was no sign whatsoever that there was an election going on. No posters, no window stickers (that I could see, anyway).
Roughly the usual amount of diamonds (3 or 4) along Braiswick/Bergholt Road though. Only Tory poster I've seen so far was in Stanway.
There was one in a farmers field heading towards Sudbury
I don't see anything contentious or unexpected in that, and good for him in confirming it. The issue is Sturgeon being on the rack for her dissembling after Salmond clearly set out the "settled for a generation" position last year.
Of course Cameron's statements are academic, as he's going to be booted out in 4 weeks time, and who knows what Ed would offer to secure his new government's position...
Mr Salmond made it clear at the time that it was his personal opinion and not that of anyone else.
In any case, it's standard UK doctrine that one government can't tie its successors.
I've updated the predictions on my website (for every UK seat) based on latest Ashcroft and other polls. Let me know which seat predictions are most wrong!
I haven't seen any election posters so far (and I live in a seat that is often marginal). It all seems very quiet so far...
I've updated the predictions on my website (for every UK seat) based on latest Ashcroft and other polls. Let me know which seat predictions are most wrong!
I haven't seen any election posters so far (and I live in a seat that is often marginal). It all seems very quiet so far...
You're right I think... let's say "threatened incursions". The point is that one can certainly see a point in the medium term future where Putin continues a few pages further through the traditional Soviet playbook and we and our European neighbours feel like it would be comforting to have a good pile of military hardware on the Eastern borders and a few more planes ready to go. Would I prefer to see the money spent on policies that create infrastructure, jobs and economic growth in other ways? Yes, probably. But I'm nervous that the obsession with denigrating the role of the state and minimising taxation would be used as an excuse not to tool up even if it was clearly necessary.
During the Cold War it was common for all sides to run flights up and down the enemy's territory, staying just within the airspace. It was good for training, ELINT etc, and sometimes led to embarrassing incidents such as the US-China air collision a few years back.
But the Russians stopped these long-range aviation missions after the Cold War, only restarting around 2007. These missions are getting increasingly frequent. They are also slowly upgrading their lovely Blackjacks and Bears (*), just as the US are upgrading their B52-H's and B1-B's.
It's a rather pointless expression of military might, Putin's response to the sanctions.
(*) Mission for mission, Russian planes tend to be more beautiful than American ones IMHO. They're often more capable in raw terms, American training and avionics making up the difference.
Comments
Our polling suggests people aren't noticing Labour messages as much as the single Tory theme on the economy.
"According to BBC Scotland there's going to be massive movements to Labour."
I also heard that the first cracks appeared in the perfectly crafted Nicola. Admittedly my sources aren't impartial but they try to be accurate. Obviously Labour will lose seats but if they can hold the SNP to say 30 that would be quite an achievement
But both our opinions are bias here Rog as we have skin in the game so to speak. I was surprised Nicola got 55% on the first debate poll... How many swing voters are there in Scotland though, the Yes group seem to be ~ 83% entrenched for SNP and the Conservative share is immutable. Collapse the Libs back to 4% and there is the rest up for grabs, dunno how many that is.
11 SLAB MPs will be a good night for Labour I reckon.
It's akin to claiming that because one's house hasn't burnt down recently, home insurance is unnecessary.
If the Green Party weren't in favour of a big state and mass immigration Id probably join them
That's without getting his boring, sociology lecturer persona.
Soubry got him spot on.
Policy is where it's at and questioning what Labour would do with the SNP over a nuclear arrangement. The personal attacks on Miliband put me right off. The whole Conservative election campaign feels completely like 2005 yet again.
'Anyone else sensing a Labour mini resurgence in Scotland? From what I hear Murphy did well last night and was well received.'
Murphy managed to get a Labour supporter in the audience to claim she had changed her mind and would now be voting Labour,so yes really well received.
What really scares me is save for Rand Paul all the prospective US Presidential candidates make Bush and Obama look like doves.
"Pardon - on what planet would the loss of 30 Labour seats to the SNP would be quite an achievement? "
I meant the SNP total to be 30. The achievement would be not going down to 6 which some have talked about
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/cameron-signals-a-future-tory-government-could-block-any-snp-bid-for-a-se.122747022
http://youtu.be/HubNYZ0dUIA
SNP taking LibDem seats does harm Dave's chances of remaining PM.
I am 'incredibly relaxed' about the SNP surge. Of course, I'm not a SLAB MP trying to retain my seat!
I have just come back from a wonderful week in Ireland over Easter, and flying in and out of Belfast we saw election posters on nearly every lamppost in NI and extensive coverage in the local media. (A billboard poster featuring warm and cuddly SF candidates pictured with the genial bearded softie Gerry A almost made me vomit...)
It's all bizarre, particularly as the Tories simply have to do something to try and hold power in the face of the UKIP surge and LibDem slump. But what are they doing? Are they out there? Is Dave as happy to sleepwalk out of power as he was to sleepwalk into it, just about?
Or does he realise the game is up and he simply cannot win?
Which is where the discussion should be, IMHO.
As an aside:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23323269
Mutually beneficial scraps.
Which NW marginals do you expect to fall, and which way ?
Tight oil in a populated area. Potential recovery perhaps 5%. Actual recovery pretty near zero. Wytch Farm which is in a Poole Bay was the most expensive oil field to develop onshore or offshore in history - and that was in the planning conditions of the 1980s!
My current estimate of this likely extraction of southern england oil and gas - near zero!
However why don't you offer the Scots this as a deal. Transfer control of offshore oil and gas and future revenues to Scottish Parliament. In return Scottish Parliament relinquishes any claim to share of this and other onshore English oil - deal or no deal?
I don't see anything contentious or unexpected in that, and good for him in confirming it. The issue is Sturgeon being on the rack for her dissembling after Salmond clearly set out the "settled for a generation" position last year.
Of course Cameron's statements are academic, as he's going to be booted out in 4 weeks time, and who knows what Ed would offer to secure his new government's position...
I haven't seen any election posters so far (and I live in a seat that is often marginal). It all seems very quiet so far...
What I don't understand is why the Tories are going in so soft on defence. After the aircraft carrier fiasco, they could win back some ground by capitalising on the recent Russian airspace incursions to justify increased defence spending, mostly on kit built in the UK, thereby creating jobs and increasing economic growth (it seems to be the bit of the US economic model they aren't keen on). The Trident debate seems to be all about posturing rather than the substance of a robust defence policy.
"says exploration firm UK Oil & Gas Investments (UKOG)."
The 3-15% is the industry estimate. With tight oil you are lucky to get 5% on experience. Actually this ridge extends right up the Central North Sea and offers many many times the potential identifies in the Weald.
However, the issue with onshore oil and onshore tight oil in particular is actual not potential. It is not fracking but try telling that to the householders. Most of the environemental concerns around this are hooey. However potential contamination of the water table is not. It is a genuine risk.
So again how about it. Straight swap - England's onshore oil for Scotlands offshore oil?
Of course, that's a key issue right across the UK. Were it not for UKIP, I expect Cameron would be re-elected comfortably and possibly with a majority, given many people seem entirely comfortable with him being PM, and certainly in preference to EdM.
UKIP were always going to hand seats to Labour if they increased their vote on 2010. Cameron needed to kill the UKIP vote. He didn't, he won't be able to do it now at this stage, and therefore the election is lost - EdM becomes PM, and that has looked likely for some time quite frankly.
1) A capability is required.
2) The military say what they need to meet that capability.
3) Resources are made available.
4) After a few years, politicians want to save money, and skim some of the resources (e.g. reducing fleet size)
5) Another few years on, more cuts are made. Friendly service chiefs (often from other services to the one affected) say the cuts are fine.
6) After another few years, the military say that the capability cannot be met due to lack of resources.
7) Instead of looking at whether that capability is still needed, politicians just cut the rest of the resources, and the capability is lost.
This has been seen time and time again. It is what I fear will happen if we go for a three-boat Trident scheme by stealth.
Defence spending is a loss to the economy. I prefer it to be spent elsewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimmeridge_Oil_Field
Oh, and the cliffs nearby can spontaneously combust due to the oil in the shale. For pictures and information on the geology of the area, see Ian West's excellent site:
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~imw/kimfire.htm
Of course, and this has been my hunch for some time, I think if he manages to form a government without needing the SNP (who I don't think will do as well as polls suggest), then given the favourable economic climate, he might actually turn out not to be a disaster as PM. To be honest, that's my biggest fear and may be a fear of very many in the Tory Party, although the PM doesn't seem fazed as he continues his amiable farewell tour round his party's activists across the UK...
And two more are about to go up on my house and the flat I rent out
The ukip letter I recieved says they have sent out 43,000 leaflets too already, so maybe they are more confident than I thought
I made it a tier 2 bet based on 2010 numbers... The locals/euros weren't great though iirc
A definite 2nd place though
Operation Mockingbird.
Ugh.
As Mr. Observer says, we are all members of one United Kingdom, as recently reaffirmed by the vote in Scotland.
But I do cringe when he is on TV
We wait to see what effect 2 difficult debates for Sturgeon has.
May tip a handful of seats back to Labour given the yawning majorities the SNP have to overcome. But a comeback? Not going to happen.
Meanwhile Coburn rammed a couple more nails in the UKIP coffin.
It reminds me of Yvette Cooper's ill fated HIPs debacle, and the inspectors who trained at great expense, and never got any work.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/miliband-brothers-ed-and-david-not-reconciled-1-3200175
"Miliband said that he had “not really” spoken to David – long seen as the heir apparent to Brown – about the leadership before he announced his decision to stand. “We had conversations, but they were probably quite elliptical conversations,” he said."
UK-Elect April 8th forecast
My mate who is a out and out tory thinks he is a snide who should have cut a deal w his brother, toss a coin and support whoever won
Another who is an ex lab now ukip just says he seems false
Even my leftie mate despairs of him saying he is no frontman
I don't dislike him, but dinr think i could run against a close friend let alone my brother.. That is ruthless and it's what people dislike him for more than any geekiness I think
In any case, it's standard UK doctrine that one government can't tie its successors.
PS - are there any polls due today (apart from the usual YouGov)?
There will also be a YouGov Scotland poll out at 10pm.
Fieldwork started after the first Scottish debate on Tuesday.
That's probably the most significant poll of the day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident
But the Russians stopped these long-range aviation missions after the Cold War, only restarting around 2007. These missions are getting increasingly frequent. They are also slowly upgrading their lovely Blackjacks and Bears (*), just as the US are upgrading their B52-H's and B1-B's.
It's a rather pointless expression of military might, Putin's response to the sanctions.
(*) Mission for mission, Russian planes tend to be more beautiful than American ones IMHO. They're often more capable in raw terms, American training and avionics making up the difference.
Nothing anywhere else.