Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hard to justify Tim Farron’s 1/7 favourite odds after seein

24

Comments

  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    MikeK said:

    Oh those progressive countries...........!!!!

    Sue ‏@English_Woman 7m7 minutes ago
    A rising tide of anger across Europe at 'Nazi’ social workers - Telegraph http://bit.ly/1MyIB8L

    Remember the secrecy that surrounds the family courts is for the courts, not the children. Wasnt there a case in which an MP was warned he could not bring the case up, or a constituent forbidden to tell his MP what had happened?
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited June 2015
    I did a rough calculation from this on the seats where the LDs are in 2nd place.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11595121/Election-2015-second-place-results-How-it-all-could-have-been-so-different.html
    Just over half , 34 are in the South West and South East. Lamb may be more appealing than the more youthful Farron in what tends to be middle class southern voters and in the south west a higher than average number of pensioners in many seats.
    8 seats are also in Scotland, which look lost for two GEs or more. Overall the chances of the LDs getting beyond 30 seats at the GE look impossible at a time when the NOTA field has UKIP and the Greens competing for protest votes. Getting to 20 seats may be the best to hope for, but it would need the size of the majorities to be analysed.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL But every LD gain from the Tories through Labour tactical votes is one less seat Labour needs to win off the Tories to form a government or one less seat they need to win off the SNP to avoid having to deal with the nationalists

    Yes, and there may, what 3 of them? Or maybe -3 the way things are going.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited June 2015
    tpfkar Is the big attraction of Farron as Leader is that he will be a comfort blanket to the LD members in having a younger campaigning Leader, cheering them up in the rubber chicken circuit?
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited June 2015

    Mr. tpfkar, you've got a vote in the Farron/Lamb contest, I take it?

    Bad luck on the election result. On the plus side, if the SNP stumble you may be able to recover swiftly in Scotland.

    Trouble is Mr Dancer, the SNP have no reason to stumble. Yet. They have a goal which unites all top party members, and simple but powerful outlook and policies to set before their electorate. The L/Dems on the other hand have no firm policies but jump up on lefty band-waggons as and when they occur.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    DavidL Wrong, seats like Eastbourne, Lewes, St Ives, Bath and Twickenham would all go back to the LDs if most Labour voters voted tactically for the LD candidate, even if the Tory vote stayed the same
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    MikeK said:
    Do you breast feed?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,968
    Mr. K, perhaps. The SNP are riding at an unsustainably high level and, one way or another, their support will decline, at which points it's a question of which other parties benefit and to what degree.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    UKIP Deputy Leader accuses the ECJ of facilitating "shady back room deals"

    Published Jun 05, 2015
    The European Court of Justice yesterday (04/06/2015) ruled in favour of the Commission's right to protect the confidentiality of trade documents, including important documents on TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Pact) such as offers by the EU on tariffs, services, investment and procurement .

    UKIP MEP and Deputy Leader Paul Nuttall said, "The Commission last November promised to make all of the negotiating texts publicly available, for them to go back on this promise so quickly stinks of dishonesty. It is clear the last thing that the Commission want is this information to be made public as TTIP simply isn't in our national interest. UKIP was the only major UK party to oppose TTIP in a Committee vote on Wednesday and this move simply justifies that decision further."

    "This judgement is simply facilitating shady back room deals between unelected bureaucrats and transnational corporate fat cats. I call upon the Commission to stay true to their word and make all of the documents available publicly. This level of deceit and dishonestly simply won't be tolerated by the British people and quite frankly they deserve better."
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,968
    Mr. K, TTIP could be fertile ground, as lots on the left seem deeply suspicious of it. If UKIP an encourage leftwingers to bang on about the evils of it, that would help the Out campaign.
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    DavidL said:

    surbiton said:

    DavidL said:

    Hmm...Not the most, well, Liberal of records is it?

    My problem with Tim Farron is that he did not play a role in the Coalition. He now says that he did not get into politics to stand on the sidelines. But when his party had their first chance in government for a Century that is exactly what he did.

    Farron seems to me a road back to the observational, talking head irrelevance that the Lib Dems had prior to 2010. In the past it worked for them in terms of getting elected, having reasonable careers and very decent pensions but as Neill points out the ground they used to occupy is a lot more crowded now.

    The question of what the Lib Dems are for remains unanswered. Surely reasonable, fair minded people with a bit of compassion for those down on their luck will be more useful and have more influence in both the Tories and Labour than they would in this backwater?

    A party genuinely focussed on maintaining our liberties from the authoritarian tendencies in both the major parties ought to have a role. Goodness knows they are both in their different ways authoritarian enough. I just wonder if it is a large enough role to get elected anymore. At the moment the likelier direction for the Lib Dems at the next election is down.

    Smart fella ! He knew even touching the Tories would be radioactive ! If he had, then there would be one more Tory gain !
    But if he is not going to go into bed with the Tories what is the point of the Lib Dems? Their role as Labour's little helpers has been completely superseded by the SNP who will have far more MPs to offer in the next Parliament should the Tories fall short.
    Its always worth applauding an apposite remark. The amazing thing always is having to make them in the first place. I don't we how people expect to make money on the 2020 election if they do not understand the 2015 one. Better not to get started on the EU referendum.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417

    Mr. K, perhaps. The SNP are riding at an unsustainably high level and, one way or another, their support will decline, at which points it's a question of which other parties benefit and to what degree.

    When Scotland becomes independent, for sure.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited June 2015
    DavidL/Flightpath But it is not an apposite remark as Labour would clearly prefer to deal with the LDs than the SNP to avoid turning off English floating voters and the more Labour voters tactically vote LD in Tory-LD marginals the more gains the LDs make from the Tories and the less the chance Labour has to deal with the SNP to form a government
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    HYUFD said:

    Flightpathl If Osborne does fail to meet his deficit target AGAIN, because of his own decisions not the eurozone crisis, and that leads to higher interest rates and a credit downgrade the Tory press will come down as hard on him and Cameron as it did on Major and Lamont after Black Wednesday

    one day you might give an impression you know what you are talking about. As David Smith has regularly pointed out in his economics column in the Sunday Times, the government planned to eliminate the structural deficit. The OBR found this to be bigger than expected. Rather than cripple the economy by more cuts just to meet the target, Osborne carried on cutting at the same rate and allowed the regulators to deal with the consequences of the euro crisis. If you were able you could have followed this from Osborne's own speeches. The govt are continuing to cut its spending at a sustainable rate. This is the issue that is important. Already after only a few weeks we are seeing all the howls from the lefties about this.

  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited June 2015

    I did a rough calculation from this on the seats where the LDs are in 2nd place.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11595121/Election-2015-second-place-results-How-it-all-could-have-been-so-different.html
    Just over half , 34 are in the South West and South East. Lamb may be more appealing than the more youthful Farron in what tends to be middle class southern voters and in the south west a higher than average number of pensioners in many seats.

    But the Lib Dems did much better in those south-west seats under the more left-wing Kennedy, than they did under centrist Clegg.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited June 2015
    ...
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,565

    tpfkar Is the big attraction of Farron as Leader is that he will be a comfort blanket to the LD members in having a younger campaigning Leader, cheering them up in the rubber chicken circuit?

    There is something in that. The party has gone so far out of its comfort zone and got badly burned, both in terms of election results, but also confidence and a lost clarity of purpose. He won't have time for too many members' dinners as leader, so it's about whether he can motivate the party in the same way from the head, rather than group by group as President. only one way to find out.....
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    I thought Farron did well. He refused to be hectored by Neill, corrected Neill about the reason for his vote (which although Neill challenged, Neill had not done the research to actually prove Fallon wrong and just tried to bully Fallon, which Fallon sidestepped).

    Fallon failed on only one question (abortion) and did not score as well as he could on another (leadership) - 'Paddy and Cable are the past, their views are what led the party to this disaster, I am a new way' would have been a far better approach.

    Who is better than him?
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL Wrong, seats like Eastbourne, Lewes, St Ives, Bath and Twickenham would all go back to the LDs if most Labour voters voted tactically for the LD candidate, even if the Tory vote stayed the same

    And all of those seats would go to the GeoffMforLifePresident party if all LDs and most Labour voters voted tactically for the GMFLP candidate, even if the Tory vote stayed the same.

    You are moving imaginary armies around a tabletop map in your Fuhrerbunker.

    Meanwhile over in reality, real people voted with real votes at a real election. Accept it.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    MTimT said:


    [snip]
    Who is better than him?

    The fact that the answer is 'nobody' says more about the lack of any LD talent than about Farron though.

  • handandmousehandandmouse Posts: 213
    Both of the Lib Dem leadership frontrunners have now come a cropper when up against Andrew Neil - three weeks ago Norman Lamb ludicrously accused Labour of "bankrupting the country" and was called on this "absurd claim" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02rkw55 - from 02:40).

    Clearly both have their flaws but as a left-liberal I'd obviously prefer Farron over Lamb.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Flightpath You obviously have not read today's Sunday Times where it is reported Osborne is not going to meet his target for £12 billion of welfare cuts, leaving him open to failing to meet his revised target for a surplus in 2018/19 if the economy slows down
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981
    GeoffM said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL Wrong, seats like Eastbourne, Lewes, St Ives, Bath and Twickenham would all go back to the LDs if most Labour voters voted tactically for the LD candidate, even if the Tory vote stayed the same

    And all of those seats would go to the GeoffMforLifePresident party if all LDs and most Labour voters voted tactically for the GMFLP candidate, even if the Tory vote stayed the same.

    You are moving imaginary armies around a tabletop map in your Fuhrerbunker.

    Meanwhile over in reality, real people voted with real votes at a real election. Accept it.
    Please they would all vote for TSE for Directly Elected Dictator Party.

    I remember early in the last parliament one PBer was sticking 50% of 2010 Lib Dems in the Lab column for 2015.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    GeoffM Yet in all those seats the Tories won well under 50% of the vote and the LDs and Labour combined more than the Tories, from 1997-2010 they were all held by the LDs because of Labour tactical votes, because of Clegg's deal with the Tories those voters returned to Labour in 2015

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited June 2015
    GeoffM I should point out I have never voted Labour in my life, only Tory and Liberal (and once Plaid when I needed to use 6 votes in a Welsh election), and from a personal point of view was quite happy with the Coalition, but this is a politicalbetting site so I use my political strategist hat not my personal ideology hat on issues like this
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    MTimT said:

    I thought Farron did well. He refused to be hectored by Neill, corrected Neill about the reason for his vote (which although Neill challenged, Neill had not done the research to actually prove Fallon wrong and just tried to bully Fallon, which Fallon sidestepped).

    Fallon failed on only one question (abortion) and did not score as well as he could on another (leadership) - 'Paddy and Cable are the past, their views are what led the party to this disaster, I am a new way' would have been a far better approach.

    Who is better than him?

    I agree that Farron is a better bet for the Lib Dems than Lamb, but I'm not sure Farron did give a sufficient answer to the question about same sex marriage and the equalities bill. It sounded to me as though he was saying that because it didn't go far enough that he didn't vote for it. Well that's ridiculous, surely it was better than before, therefore you vote for it and continue to campaign for further reforms?
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    HYUFD said:

    Flightpath You obviously have not read today's Sunday Times where it is reported Osborne is not going to meet his target for £12 billion of welfare cuts, leaving him open to failing to meet his revised target for a surplus in 2018/19 if the economy slows down

    Agree. A report in the Sunday Times is irrefutable proof. Osborne is doomed.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981
    GeoffM said:

    HYUFD said:

    Flightpath You obviously have not read today's Sunday Times where it is reported Osborne is not going to meet his target for £12 billion of welfare cuts, leaving him open to failing to meet his revised target for a surplus in 2018/19 if the economy slows down

    Agree. A report in the Sunday Times is irrefutable proof. Osborne is doomed.
    So those Hitler Diaries were true then!
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    edited June 2015
    GeoffM said:

    HYUFD said:

    Flightpath You obviously have not read today's Sunday Times where it is reported Osborne is not going to meet his target for £12 billion of welfare cuts, leaving him open to failing to meet his revised target for a surplus in 2018/19 if the economy slows down

    Agree. A report in the Sunday Times is irrefutable proof. Osborne is doomed.
    He's got his £3bn in year savings to mitigate that, even though it hasn't specifically been reallocated to welfare spending. He also has the distribution of the £12bn timewise to play around with - they were brought forward and they can be pushed back.

    Edit: I never expected £12bn to be implemented this year myself, if ever; and though a slowdown is a risk this issue specifically doesn't add much to the overall risk posed by it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited June 2015
    GeoffM The quotes were from ministers and officials close to Osborne that 'welfare cuts will not be anything like £12 bn' and 'we're hoping growth will get us out of this'
    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1565796.ece
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    GeoffM said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL Wrong, seats like Eastbourne, Lewes, St Ives, Bath and Twickenham would all go back to the LDs if most Labour voters voted tactically for the LD candidate, even if the Tory vote stayed the same

    And all of those seats would go to the GeoffMforLifePresident party if all LDs and most Labour voters voted tactically for the GMFLP candidate, even if the Tory vote stayed the same.

    You are moving imaginary armies around a tabletop map in your Fuhrerbunker.

    Meanwhile over in reality, real people voted with real votes at a real election. Accept it.
    Please they would all vote for TSE for Directly Elected Dictator Party.

    I remember early in the last parliament one PBer was sticking 50% of 2010 Lib Dems in the Lab column for 2015.
    To be fair I did say "if". In reality you and I would hopefully come to an electoral pact before the campaign in exchange for me getting some sort of ministry in your dictatorship. I'm thinking of something that gives me direct control over selecting our Ashes team.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,981
    GeoffM said:

    GeoffM said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL Wrong, seats like Eastbourne, Lewes, St Ives, Bath and Twickenham would all go back to the LDs if most Labour voters voted tactically for the LD candidate, even if the Tory vote stayed the same

    And all of those seats would go to the GeoffMforLifePresident party if all LDs and most Labour voters voted tactically for the GMFLP candidate, even if the Tory vote stayed the same.

    You are moving imaginary armies around a tabletop map in your Fuhrerbunker.

    Meanwhile over in reality, real people voted with real votes at a real election. Accept it.
    Please they would all vote for TSE for Directly Elected Dictator Party.

    I remember early in the last parliament one PBer was sticking 50% of 2010 Lib Dems in the Lab column for 2015.
    To be fair I did say "if". In reality you and I would hopefully come to an electoral pact before the campaign in exchange for me getting some sort of ministry in your dictatorship. I'm thinking of something that gives me direct control over selecting our Ashes team.
    Agreed, I'd also expect you to serve concurrently as Viceroy of Spain once we had invaded Spain
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    HYUFD said:

    GeoffM The quotes were from ministers and officials close to Osborne that 'welfare cuts will not be anything like £12 bn' and 'we're hoping growth will get us out of this'
    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1565796.ece

    My grateful thanks for the link but that is a subscription-only page so i can't view it.
    I have no doubt that it makes your point splendidly.
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    MikeK said:

    UKIP Deputy Leader accuses the ECJ of facilitating "shady back room deals"

    Published Jun 05, 2015
    The European Court of Justice yesterday (04/06/2015) ruled in favour of the Commission's right to protect the confidentiality of trade documents, including important documents on TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Pact) such as offers by the EU on tariffs, services, investment and procurement .

    UKIP MEP and Deputy Leader Paul Nuttall said, "The Commission last November promised to make all of the negotiating texts publicly available, for them to go back on this promise so quickly stinks of dishonesty. It is clear the last thing that the Commission want is this information to be made public as TTIP simply isn't in our national interest. UKIP was the only major UK party to oppose TTIP in a Committee vote on Wednesday and this move simply justifies that decision further."

    "This judgement is simply facilitating shady back room deals between unelected bureaucrats and transnational corporate fat cats. I call upon the Commission to stay true to their word and make all of the documents available publicly. This level of deceit and dishonestly simply won't be tolerated by the British people and quite frankly they deserve better."

    Who cares what UKIP think. They are an irrelevance. One MP, what a joke party. Remind me how many did you predict?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    GeoffM I gave you the key quotes required so hopefully that gives enough context

    TWR The article also stated the target may never be hit
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    Labour selections for 2016 Welsh Assembly seats where AMs are retiring have started

    Delyn: AWS
    Cynon Valley: Open
    Caerphilly and Islwyn: twinned together. 2 candidates to be selected: 1 man and 1 woman.

    Newport West selection concluded earlier this year (Former Euro election candidate Jayne Bryant won it)

    So far I believe 7 retirements have been confirmed at next year elections in Wales

    5 Labour AMs

    Sandy Mewies (Labour, Delyn): born in 1950, first elected in 2003
    Christine Chapman (Labour, Cynon Valley): born in 1956, first elected in 1999
    Jeff Cuthbert (Labour, Caerphilly): born in 1948, first elected in 2003
    Gwyn Price (Labour, Islwyn): born in ??, first elected in 2011
    Rosemary Butler (Labour, Newport West): born in 1943, first elected in 1999

    3 Plaid AMs


    Rhodri Glyn Thomas (Plaid, Carmarthen East): born in 1953, first elected in 1999
    Alun Ffred Jones (Plaid, Arfon): born in 1949, first elected in 2003
    Jocelyn Davies (Plaid, South East Wales): born in 1959, first elected in 1999

    In Carmarthen East Plaid selected former MP Adam Price. Cllr Siân Gwenllian won Arfon selection.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    O/t very interesting article on YouGov front page FT life & arts. Can't link as about to fly to Canada. Title "It's the first time we've been wrong" if someone wants to google
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    EPG said:

    It seems very very foolish to assume that every election in the future will look like 2015. One day the Conservative Party will win 200 seats again. The question is what the rest of the House of Commons will look like at that time.

    I would be surprised to see the Conservatives reduced to 200 seats again in my lifetime, unless they were eclipsed by a party other than Labour,
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited June 2015
    SeanF If they were caught in a pincer movement, losing seats to Labour, UKIP and the LDs it could happen
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Charles said:

    O/t very interesting article on YouGov front page FT life & arts. Can't link as about to fly to Canada. Title "It's the first time we've been wrong" if someone wants to google

    There's nothing new in it really.
  • Can someone who has been to prison for a crime be voted in as leader of a Political Party

    I don't think it is a bar to being PM.

    However you can't be a Police and Crime Commisioner with a criminal record, spent or unspent.
    The bar to becoming a Police and Crime Commissioner is if you have been convicted of an offence punishable for adults by imprisonment. So a conviction for perverting the course of justice, for which the maximum sentence is imprisonment for life, would be a bar (see the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, s. 66(3)(c)). This would seem to allow those who have been dealt with by an out of court disposal for an imprisonable offence, including a disposal conditional on an admission of guilt, to stand.

    There are two relevant bars to standing for the House of Commons. No person who is detained pursuant to a sentence of imprisonment exceeding a year may stand for, or hold office as an MP (Representation of the People Act 1981, ss. 1-2). In addition, a person convicted of treason is, subject to the prerogative of mercy, disqualified for life from being elected, sitting, or voting as a member of either House of Parliament, or of exercising any right of suffrage or other parliamentary or municipal franchise whatever (Forfeiture Act 1870, s. 2).

    There is nothing to stop Huhne's return to the House of Commons were an electorate mad enough to vote for him.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Dream on lads.. even a pincer movement would need some of that elusive element called policies..stop treating the electorate as fools.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Charles said:

    O/t very interesting article on YouGov front page FT life & arts. Can't link as about to fly to Canada. Title "It's the first time we've been wrong" if someone wants to google

    This one on 5th June?
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/a35dfec4-0aae-11e5-a8e8-00144feabdc0.html
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited June 2015
    RD Osborne takes over from Cameron but has failed to meet his deficit target and Labour gets a better leader and the economy slows down, so the Tories lose seats to Labour, Farron gets Labour tactical votes winning back some Tory-LD marginals for the LDs and EUref produces a narrow In vote with several Tory Out voters voting UKIP to keep the 'anti EU' flame alive, leading to some UKIP gains from the Tories in Essex and the Kent coast. It is not completely impossible.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    HYUFD You are still making the same basic mistake that got your butt whipped last time. You and your ilk are tactic obsessed..unless the policies excite the public then you will deservedly lose again... get the polices lined up and then do the clever tactics stuff..and do not rely on other groups doing what you dream about.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11657690/Nuclear-missiles-could-be-sited-again-on-British-soil-in-new-Cold-War-with-Russia.html?WT.mc_id=e_DM23220&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_FPM_New&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_FPM_New_2015_06_07&utm_campaign=DM23220

    Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond says there are 'worrying signs' about the increased activity of Russian forces and the UK would consider the pros and cons of taking US intermediate-range weapons

    Are the Tories going mad with power?
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 733
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL Wrong, seats like Eastbourne, Lewes, St Ives, Bath and Twickenham would all go back to the LDs if most Labour voters voted tactically for the LD candidate, even if the Tory vote stayed the same

    Remember that the LD incumbent personal vote is gone from these constituencies, and the new Tories have 5 years to build up their own personal votes. We need to add perhaps 10 percentage points to the Tory majorities over the LDs according to antifrank's analysis.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    edited June 2015
    Sean_F said:

    EPG said:

    It seems very very foolish to assume that every election in the future will look like 2015. One day the Conservative Party will win 200 seats again. The question is what the rest of the House of Commons will look like at that time.

    I would be surprised to see the Conservatives reduced to 200 seats again in my lifetime, unless they were eclipsed by a party other than Labour,
    Yet it's happened 3 times in all our lifetimes (assuming there is nobody under-18 reading a website nominally about betting). It is usually best to assume that this time is not different. Parties change to win, it just typically takes more than five years.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653

    Mr. K, TTIP could be fertile ground, as lots on the left seem deeply suspicious of it. If UKIP an encourage leftwingers to bang on about the evils of it, that would help the Out campaign.

    I thought OUT was meant to be about an Outward-Looking, Trading Nation, etc. etc. clichés about Britain from the mid-1800s.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,871
    MikeK said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11657690/Nuclear-missiles-could-be-sited-again-on-British-soil-in-new-Cold-War-with-Russia.html?WT.mc_id=e_DM23220&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_FPM_New&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_FPM_New_2015_06_07&utm_campaign=DM23220

    Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond says there are 'worrying signs' about the increased activity of Russian forces and the UK would consider the pros and cons of taking US intermediate-range weapons

    Are the Tories going mad with power?

    Like all of Cameron's inner circle, Hammond is totally in Americas pocket - a situation that grows increasingly dangerous for the country.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,653
    Fun fact. Cameron's Conservatives in 2015 won five percentage points more than Hague's Conservatives in 2001.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    RD I did not get my butt whipped actually, on eve of poll I predicted the Tories would comfortably be largest party as SeanT will attest. I also am not a Labour voter, I am just pointing out that in 5 years with Cameron gone voters may think it is time to change, you may not like to think about it at the moment, but then Tories in June 1992 would probably never have forecast the 1997 nightmare either. I am not saying it is certain, just not impossible
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    MikeK said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11657690/Nuclear-missiles-could-be-sited-again-on-British-soil-in-new-Cold-War-with-Russia.html?WT.mc_id=e_DM23220&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_FPM_New&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_FPM_New_2015_06_07&utm_campaign=DM23220

    Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond says there are 'worrying signs' about the increased activity of Russian forces and the UK would consider the pros and cons of taking US intermediate-range weapons

    Are the Tories going mad with power?

    Two questions:

    Do you think there are worrying signs of increased Russian activity? It's certainly being reported more frequently, but presumably (I hope!) Hammond has better access to information than what I get told

    Do you think we should reject, as a matter of principal, siting nuclear missiles in the UK. If not, then surely we should consider it.

    Perhaps he is just giving a straight answer to a straight question?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    NeilVW Incumbency vote counts for 1,00 votes at most, as all those LD incumbent MPs who lost their seats in May will attest
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    LuckyGuy1983 Unless the Russians invade Alaska I would suggest we have more to worry about Putin than the US, given present defence cuts the Russian army could probably invade half of Europe without too much opposition at the moment before NATO got its act together and launched a response
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    Turkey's ruling AK party may lose parliamentary majority, projections suggest, with two-thirds of votes counted
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,871
    Charles said:

    MikeK said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11657690/Nuclear-missiles-could-be-sited-again-on-British-soil-in-new-Cold-War-with-Russia.html?WT.mc_id=e_DM23220&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_FPM_New&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_FPM_New_2015_06_07&utm_campaign=DM23220

    Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond says there are 'worrying signs' about the increased activity of Russian forces and the UK would consider the pros and cons of taking US intermediate-range weapons

    Are the Tories going mad with power?

    Two questions:

    Do you think there are worrying signs of increased Russian activity? It's certainly being reported more frequently, but presumably (I hope!) Hammond has better access to information than what I get told

    Do you think we should reject, as a matter of principal, siting nuclear missiles in the UK. If not, then surely we should consider it.

    Perhaps he is just giving a straight answer to a straight question?
    Two answers:

    1. I am sure there are 'worrying signs' of increased Russian activity - and there are more, and more worrying signs of NATO (read American) activity, but these are not mentioned. Both Ukraine and the rebels have broken the Minsk agreements, but we only hear about the rebels, and their supposed control by Russia. It is the omission of key balancing facts that is the difference between news and propaganda.

    2. You really think that after hundreds of years as a sovereign nation we should site weapons of mass destruction of a foreign power on our soil, due to the escalation of a conflict we did not create and has nothing to do with our national interest? Of course it should not be considered - I find the fact that you would do so bizarre.



  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865

    HYUFD said:

    Flightpathl If Osborne does fail to meet his deficit target AGAIN, because of his own decisions not the eurozone crisis, and that leads to higher interest rates and a credit downgrade the Tory press will come down as hard on him and Cameron as it did on Major and Lamont after Black Wednesday

    one day you might give an impression you know what you are talking about. As David Smith has regularly pointed out in his economics column in the Sunday Times, the government planned to eliminate the structural deficit. The OBR found this to be bigger than expected. Rather than cripple the economy by more cuts just to meet the target, Osborne carried on cutting at the same rate and allowed the regulators to deal with the consequences of the euro crisis. If you were able you could have followed this from Osborne's own speeches. The govt are continuing to cut its spending at a sustainable rate. This is the issue that is important. Already after only a few weeks we are seeing all the howls from the lefties about this.

    Before HUFyD criticises the Tories chancellor it should be remembered that for most of the last Parliament Balls denied there ever was a structural deficit ...... But then did by saying he never denied there was one.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,871
    edited June 2015
    HYUFD said:

    LuckyGuy1983 Unless the Russians invade Alaska I would suggest we have more to worry about Putin than the US, given present defence cuts the Russian army could probably invade half of Europe without too much opposition at the moment before NATO got its act together and launched a response

    This is an utterly ridiculous hypothetical argument. I thought Kippers were meant to be tinfoil hat wearers, but when it comes to Russia realpolitik seems to abandon most here and the batshit tendency completely takes over. Putin to invade the UK? Um, why exactly? Russia's defence doctrine hasn't changed. It has always sought a buffer of dependent states between itself and NATO, and recent events have shown it to be a sensible precaution. When has Russia recently flown halfway across the world to drop bombs on another country? They deal with their own backyard only - something that we would do well to take note of.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited June 2015
    HYFUD Your basic principle is wrong and going in the wrong direction... drop the tactics... get the policies... voters will follow polices and usually ignore or resent clever tactics. Without the Policies then Labour will still be dead in the water....regardless of how many years Cameron and co are around. Labour flew in the clever tactical boys from the States... they soon left because Labour had nothing to sell.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,303

    They deal with their own backyard only - something that we would do well to take note of.

    How did their backyard get so big?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,871
    saddened said:

    MikeK said:

    UKIP Deputy Leader accuses the ECJ of facilitating "shady back room deals"

    Published Jun 05, 2015
    The European Court of Justice yesterday (04/06/2015) ruled in favour of the Commission's right to protect the confidentiality of trade documents, including important documents on TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Pact) such as offers by the EU on tariffs, services, investment and procurement .

    UKIP MEP and Deputy Leader Paul Nuttall said, "The Commission last November promised to make all of the negotiating texts publicly available, for them to go back on this promise so quickly stinks of dishonesty. It is clear the last thing that the Commission want is this information to be made public as TTIP simply isn't in our national interest. UKIP was the only major UK party to oppose TTIP in a Committee vote on Wednesday and this move simply justifies that decision further."

    "This judgement is simply facilitating shady back room deals between unelected bureaucrats and transnational corporate fat cats. I call upon the Commission to stay true to their word and make all of the documents available publicly. This level of deceit and dishonestly simply won't be tolerated by the British people and quite frankly they deserve better."

    Who cares what UKIP think. They are an irrelevance. One MP, what a joke party. Remind me how many did you predict?
    Very telling that you completely fail to engage with the detail of the story and go for a limp attempt at trolling.

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,871

    They deal with their own backyard only - something that we would do well to take note of.

    How did their backyard get so big?
    Big is quite a subjective term. I would call this big:

    PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.
    KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.
    IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
    VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered bombs to use against seige.
    GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
    EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.
    LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Army & Marine occupation against rebels.
    IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
    CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles.
    PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
    VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
    CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
    GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
    LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.
    CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union.
    IRAQ 1963 Command operation CIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service.
    PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.
    INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
    DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Army & Marines land during election campaign.
    GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.
    DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles African Americans, 43 killed.
    UNITED STATES l968 Troops After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
    CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
    OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.


  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,871
    LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
    SOUTH DAKOTA l973 Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.
    MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.
    CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
    CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gassing of captured ship Mayagüez, 28 troops die when copter shot down.
    ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
    IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.
    LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
    EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
    NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
    LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions. 241 Marines killed when Shi'a rebel bombs barracks.
    GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.
    HONDURAS l983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.
    IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
    LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple Qaddafi gov't.
    BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.
    IRAN l987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war, defending reflagged tankers and shooting down civilian jet.
    LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.
    VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
    PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.
    PANAMA 1989 (-?) Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
    LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war.
    SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
    IRAQ 1990-91 Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
    KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.
    IRAQ 1991-2003 Bombing, naval No-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south; constant air strikes and naval-enforced economic sanctions
    LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.
    SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
    YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
    BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865

    HYUFD You are still making the same basic mistake that got your butt whipped last time. You and your ilk are tactic obsessed..unless the policies excite the public then you will deservedly lose again... get the polices lined up and then do the clever tactics stuff..and do not rely on other groups doing what you dream about.

    HYUFD You are still making the same basic mistake that got your butt whipped last time. You and your ilk are tactic obsessed..unless the policies excite the public then you will deservedly lose again... get the polices lined up and then do the clever tactics stuff..and do not rely on other groups doing what you dream about.

    Comes to something when to get back into power Labours only hope is for a disaster to hit the country or the British people. . Mind you makes a change from them being actually in power and being responsible for that disaster.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,871
    HAITI 1994 Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
    ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Troops at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
    LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
    ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
    SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
    AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
    IRAQ 1998 Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
    YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.
    YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole, docked in Aden, bombed.
    MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels.
    UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC
    AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency. More than 30,000 U.S. troops and numerous private security contractors carry our occupation.
    YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
    PHILIPPINES 2002-? Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into combat missions in Sulu Archipelago, west of Mindanao.
    COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,871
    IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. More than 250,000 U.S. personnel participate in invasion. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies. More than 160,000 troops and numerous private contractors carry out occupation and build large permanent bases.
    LIBERIA 2003 Troops Brief involvement in peacekeeping force as rebels drove out leader.
    HAITI 2004-05 Troops, naval Marines & Army land after right-wing rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by Washington.
    PAKISTAN 2005-? Missiles, bombing, covert operation CIA missile and air strikes and Special Forces raids on alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban refuge villages kill multiple civilians. Drone attacks also on Pakistani Mehsud network.
    SOMALIA 2006-? Missiles, naval, troops, command operation Special Forces advise Ethiopian invasion that topples Islamist government; AC-130 strikes, Cruise missile attacks and helicopter raids against Islamist rebels; naval blockade against "pirates" and insurgents.
    SYRIA 2008 Troops Special Forces in helicopter raid 5 miles from Iraq kill 8 Syrian civilians
    YEMEN 2009-? Missiles, command operation Cruise missile attack on Al Qaeda kills 49 civilians; Yemeni military assaults on rebels
    LIBYA 2011-? Bombing, missiles, command operation NATO coordinates air strikes and missile attacks against Qaddafi government during uprising by rebel army.

    Now that's what I'd call a big back yard. It's also what I'd call worrying activity. But y'know, it's friendly Uncle Sam, so nothing to see here, move along...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited June 2015
    RD Depends on what policies you are talking about, certainly Labour needs to accept spending cuts for now and tougher immigration policies and tax cuts for those on low and middle incomes, but they could keep, for example, their commitment to a 50% top tax rate at least until a surplus is achieved, which polls show is popular with voters. They also do not need to embrace things like greater use of private contractors in the NHS or a vast expansion of free schools, for which polls show little support. Indeed, if Labour promised to renationalise the railways and the gas and electricity industries even many Tories would back them.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    HYFUD Great.. if those are the policies Labour are going to run with then get them out there..nice to see some at last...lets see how the electorate view them.
    Then they can think about some tactics..
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    RD Indeed, I would also add Labour can keep its more prudent approach to international interventions, why not go for broke and steal the Tories clothes and promise to fund defence by ending the overseas aid ringfence too. It can also be socially liberal while emphasising a bit more responsibility. Basically, if I were Labour leader I would not simply be seeking to simply rehash Blairism which turns off its core and Scotland, nor would I want more of Miliband's watered down north London Marxism which turns off floating voters and the white working class but policies which can appeal to all the UK and all its potential voters and those who are naturally left of centre
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    LuckyGuy1983 So you would be happy for Russia to move on from Ukraine and reoccupy the Baltic states and most of Eastern Europe then?
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited June 2015
    Well in case you missed it there is an election in Turkey today and here are the live results:
    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/election/default.html

    It seems that Erdogan has lost his majority for the first time since 2002.
    A coalition now between the islamists and the extreme nationalists is on cards now, which would make Turkey's relationship with the West even more unstable.
    The Middle East is about to become even more messier.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @JosiasJessop OT If you like train documentaries - Tough Trains on Travel Channel is a great series.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    Moses There were no real disasters prior to 1964 or 1997 (Black Wednesday excluded) 2 of the last times Labour won power from opposition, I was just sketching a worst case perfect storm scenario hitting the Tories
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,871
    HYUFD said:

    LuckyGuy1983 So you would be happy for Russia to move on from Ukraine and reoccupy the Baltic states and most of Eastern Europe then?

    No, but I don't accept the assumption that that is their intention.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509

    To all the SNP supporters on here that live in Scotland and are looking for an alternative to writing on here 24/7. Why not look out for this lady?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3114246/My-perfect-man-hasn-t-turned-m-going-Air-hostess-sells-possessions-buy-camper-van-plans-Scotland-looking-love.html

    Not single I am afraid , think the wife would be against it.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509
    Rexel56 said:

    calum said:

    Car crash time. Surprised that Neil didn't ask Farron about his views on Carmichael, I think this could become a LibDem achilles heel as it does not appear to sit comfortably with "Liberal" values, which these guys constantly spout forth on. Interestingly it appears that the LibDems have not yet decided if they will pick up Carmichaels legal bill:

    http://www.thenational.scot/news/lib-dems-undecided-if-they-will-pick-up-legal-bill-for-carmichaels-frenchgate-leaked-memo-court-case.3793

    The Scottish Office aren't going to help either:

    " Two LibDem media officers spent most of yesterday afternoon trying to find the answer, and last night a spokesman said no decision had been made. “We would expect a decision in the next few days and then it will be made public. But we have no further comment at the moment,” he said. The Scotland Office in Edinburgh, once Carmichael’s workplace, said the costs were nothing to do with them and a spokesman for the House of Commons media office said: “We are not aware of any assistance that could be provided to Mr Carmichael.”

    Carmichael dissembling about the timing of his being aware of that memo seems a very, very, very minor lapse in the great scheme of political rough and tumble. From a safe distance here in North Yorkshire, one wonders that his true 'crimes' were (I) embarrassing the SNP leader and (ii) winning.
    Lying to try and keep his seat , and as a government minister, you seem to have very few principles or morals.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    HYUFD said:

    RD Depends on what policies you are talking about, certainly Labour needs to accept spending cuts for now and tougher immigration policies and tax cuts for those on low and middle incomes, but they could keep, for example, their commitment to a 50% top tax rate at least until a surplus is achieved, which polls show is popular with voters. They also do not need to embrace things like greater use of private contractors in the NHS or a vast expansion of free schools, for which polls show little support. Indeed, if Labour promised to renationalise the railways and the gas and electricity industries even many Tories would back them.

    But people expect/demand improvement in the services we get, either public or private. On individual issues you will find people disgruntled by railway prices/energy prices, and they might tell an opinion pollster that they should be renationalised.

    But that isnt the same as voting in a government that will go ahead and do that. At this election Miliband was the most left wing leader Labour has had since Foot (relative to the current centre ground), those areas that he proposed mild price meddling totally fell apart. One to events, energy prices, and the other to a total disbelief that a government could realistically control rents.

    The marketplace is king. You either, as Ton Blair did, accept the market place and use the proceeds from the wealth it creates to help those it fails, or you continue to stay in opposition.

    (PS. Railway privatisation and water privatisation in England are quite possibly the most successful government policies since the creation of the NHS)
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509

    Mr. tpfkar, you've got a vote in the Farron/Lamb contest, I take it?

    Bad luck on the election result. On the plus side, if the SNP stumble you may be able to recover swiftly in Scotland.

    MD , after the lying and cheating the Libdems are finished in Scotland for a long time
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509

    Mr. K, perhaps. The SNP are riding at an unsustainably high level and, one way or another, their support will decline, at which points it's a question of which other parties benefit and to what degree.

    MD by then we will be independent
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509

    Both of the Lib Dem leadership frontrunners have now come a cropper when up against Andrew Neil - three weeks ago Norman Lamb ludicrously accused Labour of "bankrupting the country" and was called on this "absurd claim" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02rkw55 - from 02:40).

    Clearly both have their flaws but as a left-liberal I'd obviously prefer Farron over Lamb.

    Duel of the pygmies
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    edited June 2015
    HYUFD said:

    LuckyGuy1983 So you would be happy for Russia to move on from Ukraine and reoccupy the Baltic states and most of Eastern Europe then?

    Why did the Russian government not initially support the rebels in Eastern Ukraine and why did they support negotiations between the centre and the regions to resolve the dispute?

    Why did the Russian government force the rebels to halt in the Autumn of 2014 when they had the UAF on the run and the rebels very much wanted to advance?

    Why have the Russians consistently maintained the position that the rebels should only seek automny within the Ukraine and not offered them the opportunity to secede and then request reunification with Russia?

    I would recommend Richard Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine, our media have been less than honest.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    malcolmg said:

    Mr. K, perhaps. The SNP are riding at an unsustainably high level and, one way or another, their support will decline, at which points it's a question of which other parties benefit and to what degree.

    MD by then we will be independent
    Or bored of Tory governments produced by voting SNP all the time.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509
    Charles said:

    MikeK said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11657690/Nuclear-missiles-could-be-sited-again-on-British-soil-in-new-Cold-War-with-Russia.html?WT.mc_id=e_DM23220&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_FPM_New&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_FPM_New_2015_06_07&utm_campaign=DM23220

    Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond says there are 'worrying signs' about the increased activity of Russian forces and the UK would consider the pros and cons of taking US intermediate-range weapons

    Are the Tories going mad with power?

    Two questions:

    Do you think there are worrying signs of increased Russian activity? It's certainly being reported more frequently, but presumably (I hope!) Hammond has better access to information than what I get told

    Do you think we should reject, as a matter of principal, siting nuclear missiles in the UK. If not, then surely we should consider it.

    Perhaps he is just giving a straight answer to a straight question?
    Mental thinking , is it any wonder Russia is concerned when you have the loonies that run the US and UK always prodding them.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited June 2015
    I hesitate to mention George Osborne(genius) Copyright (tim).. But in the budget there is usually a contingency fund. I seem to recall Brown calling upon it for resources for our underfunded and poorly equipped troops during the Iraq war.

    Does anyone know if there still is a contingency fund and if so how much it is??
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,504
    Plato said:

    @JosiasJessop OT If you like train documentaries - Tough Trains on Travel Channel is a great series.

    Thanks. I'll try to give that a look.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    LG1983/FalseFlag We would hope Russia has no desires to expandits territory, but Putin's vast Moscow military parades mean we cannot be complacent at all

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited June 2015
    Notme Voters are certainly not impressed by rising train fares and gas bills and of course Miliband did not propose to renationalise the railways anyway (a policy even Peter Hitchens supports) so we cannot know what voters would think of such a policy to renationalise key public utilities. Yes, privatisation brought some improvements but the voters are certainly not full of thanks
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    HYUFD said:

    LG1983/FalseFlag We would hope Russia has no desires to expandits territory, but Putin's vast Moscow military parades mean we cannot be complacent at all

    These have occurred every year and commemorate WWII, no different to Remembrance Sunday.

    The real issue is as the West have been negotiating in bad faith the Russians no longer trust what we say. We have made little effort to see Minsk I or Minsk II implemented.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    Wiggo a minute up.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    edited June 2015
    FalseFlag This year's Mayday Parade of thousands of troops, over a hundred warplanes, tanks and intercontinental ballistic missiles was a bit more than Remembrance Sunday
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32668511
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    The one about Bolivia is brilliant.

    Plato said:

    @JosiasJessop OT If you like train documentaries - Tough Trains on Travel Channel is a great series.

    Thanks. I'll try to give that a look.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,913
    LDs: I don't think Farron has put a foot wrong really. Somehow though people just don't want him.

    FIFA: Anyone who has ever written a letter on that letterhead would appear to be a criminal. This is a huge organisation though, and they have auditors. The auditors would seem to need locking up too.

    Labour: Their core belief is 'not Tory'. If you sat several Tory voters in a dark room and asked them their opinions on stuff they'd tell you. Labour voters would want to know what the Tories had chosen. This clearly isn't all the truth, but a part of it. Why Labour have to bang on about a set of ideas that were relevant 100 years ago, but are meaningless now baffles me entirely. I would vote Labour tomorrow if what they were about was everybody's interests. They're not though and they never have been (maybe Atlee). Oddly the Tories are about everyone's interest, but they get it ludicrously wrong. The Liberals are about the interests of all, even if they're not us. Ho hum. Somehow it sounds a little radical.
  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806
    FalseFlag said:

    HYUFD said:

    LG1983/FalseFlag We would hope Russia has no desires to expandits territory, but Putin's vast Moscow military parades mean we cannot be complacent at all

    These have occurred every year and commemorate WWII, no different to Remembrance Sunday.

    The real issue is as the West have been negotiating in bad faith the Russians no longer trust what we say. We have made little effort to see Minsk I or Minsk II implemented.
    We no longer trust what Putin says. We should judge him by his actions and his sabre-rattling.

  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    edited June 2015
    HYUFD said:

    FalseFlag This years' Mayday Parade of thousands of troops, over a hundred warplance and intercontinental ballistic missiles was a bit more than Remembrance Sunday
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32668511

    Standard for their Victory Day parade.

    Anyway Hammond's comments were very conciliatory reflecting our revised position of supporting Minsk II. Out of context quoting.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    HYUFD said:

    Notme Voters are certainly not impressed by rising train fares and gas bills and of course Miliband did not propose to renationalise the railways anyway (a policy even Peter Hitchens supports) so we cannot know what voters would think of such a policy to renationalise key public utilities. Yes, privatisation brought some improvements but the voters are certainly not full of thanks

    The only mistake made during (especially rail) privatisations has been omitting to preserve an example of what the service used to be like at the time. People don't appreciate that what they have is an unbelievably huge improvement over what I endured as a child in the UK.

    Anyone who complains even obliquely about the railways now should be forced to undergo re-education at a 1970's British Rail themed railway station complete with rolling stock and staff acting in character.

  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    False Flag Parading your weapons and soldiers is all a bit so what.. Look at my wi^^y ..its bigger than yours..Time the Soviets got over it...impresses no one, in fact it is almost as funny as the North Korean parades.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    FalseFlag This year's was their biggest for years, they unveiled a new tank, Chinese troops also marched alongside Russian and Kim Jong Un was invited, although in the end did not attend
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    FalseFlag said:

    HYUFD said:

    LG1983/FalseFlag We would hope Russia has no desires to expandits territory, but Putin's vast Moscow military parades mean we cannot be complacent at all

    These have occurred every year and commemorate WWII, no different to Remembrance Sunday.

    The real issue is as the West have been negotiating in bad faith the Russians no longer trust what we say. We have made little effort to see Minsk I or Minsk II implemented.
    "..no different"
    I don't recall parades of missiles and tanks past my local war memorial last November.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    MalcG Or FFA
Sign In or Register to comment.