Can we please not peddle this narcissistic stuff. It is not newsworthy, it is not interesting and it only lowers us all the lowest common denominator of celebrity cultism- I'd prefer to spend my time watching Big Brother to be honest.
1) My stint as Guest Editor starts this week
2) Strictly Come Dancing begins this week
3) I like Strictly
1+2+3 = A strictly thread.
Shouldn't we have something on AV instead to lighten the mood?
I've written quite the magnum opus on electoral reform for this Sunday on electoral reform.
I'm planning to do several AV related threads once the Labour leadership result is known and we have the full breakdowns known.
On the subject of the Labour leadership. I've not received any emails from candidates since the 20th.
a tragedy on the scale of the sinking of the Titanic (caused by arms smuggled by the US in preparation for WW1)
Lusitania.....you'll give conspiracy theorists a bad name!
I know! I wanted the Titanic involved somehow, so merged the Lusy's conspiracy theory with the Titanic ...
One of the best (in a completely barking way) Titanic movie is the one the Nazis made - one of their most expensive - (and biggest hit in occupied Europe) but never shown in Germany - 'British capitalists drive new liner across Atlantic to capture Blue Riband (couldn't remotely) to save company despite best efforts of heroic (and ahistorical) German Officer' - gorgeously B&W photography - unfortunately the director "committed suicide" in the care of the Gestapo half way through.....
I've never seen it, but the story's a classic.
I had to study them for an MA (there are probably over 50 Titanic movies....the first released within weeks of the sinking - so don't give me that 'things were so much more respectful then' guff - a dimes a dime) - whatever you do DONT watch the first British effort 'Atlantic' - thats 90 minutes of my life I want back. 'A Night to Remember' is the best - Cameron's 1997 (arguably more anti-British than the Nazis) is good, then for fun the Nazi Titanic and the Barbra Stanwyck 1950s one is good too
We all know deferred gratification. Right. I think TSE's AV thread(s)- must be the ultimate in deferred gratification- something that we all want now, now, now-- but TSE has been teasing, taunting and tantalising us all with the prospect of the bounties to come. Only Harry Hayfield's local election analysis comes anywhere close to such excitement...
Can we please not peddle this narcissistic stuff. It is not newsworthy, it is not interesting and it only lowers us all the lowest common denominator of celebrity cultism- I'd prefer to spend my time watching Big Brother to be honest.
1) My stint as Guest Editor starts this week
2) Strictly Come Dancing begins this week
3) I like Strictly
1+2+3 = A strictly thread.
Shouldn't we have something on AV instead to lighten the mood?
I've written quite the magnum opus on electoral reform for this Sunday on electoral reform.
I'm planning to do several AV related threads once the Labour leadership result is known and we have the full voting breakdowns,
When the Scottish parliament was created in 1999, Scotland spent a higher share of its budget on health and education than England. In government, the SNP has allowed spending in these areas to decline as a proportion of overall expenditure while increasing the money that goes on culture, transport, economic development and free personal care for the elderly. This shift is something Scots can ill-afford.
So not only a better health service but better value for money!
I'm sure the SNP will campaign on that!
Pity they'll struggle with the facts....
To some extent, the facts are irrelevant. perception is what matters and the public appear to believe the SHS is doing a very fine job. Now, I would say the facts support this, not meaningless political waffle you love to recite but the reality that people face.
While I can't actually recall the last time I went to a doctor or A&E, my own experience with my braces is excellent and I'm looking forward to my jaw surgery. It's good to have a quality health care service I can rely on.
The UK as a whole wants a nuclear weapons system, with 31% wanting a less powerful one than Trident, 25% replacing Trident and 25% giving up Trident completely
What's wrong with what we have ? It can still finish off humanity.
Michael Portillo, ex-Defence Secretary, put it in This Week that the defence establishment wanted 4 x Trident's just as a bargaining tool !
This really is the worst myth of the UK's so called "deterrent".
In truth the UK lacks enough nuclear firepower to completely obliterate Moscow Oblast (which, if focused in this way would mean zero impact on Russian military capabiility), at worst, the UK could give the Russians a bloody nose, history says Russia will always take a bloody nose if it gets what it wants.
England's nuclear deterrent isn't aimed against Russia, Dair.
It's aimed at our twin traditional enemies - France & Scotland.
Then you will have to choose. Because you don't have enough warheads to kill off both.
Ha Ha Ha , tax exile tries to pretend the FT could actually print anything sensible about SNP. As likely as you doing the right thing rather than hiding in a tax haven. How can you embarrass yourself by pontificating about the UK and Scotland in particular when you avoid paying tax.
Still haven't explained what you are 'paying for', have you?
So unlike the Nats to play 'the man, not the ball'.....
I pay so that people less fortunate than me have some money, I don't avoid paying tax. At least gives me the right to have an opinion on the UK and how it is run, unlike those who do not contribute.
Still haven't answered the question - what are you paying for Guernsey?
Hint - its 'nothing'.......
Wrong again......
Oh, and since you are an expert in my tax affairs, the basic rate of tax in Guernsey is the same as the UK and the personal allowance lower.....
When the Scottish parliament was created in 1999, Scotland spent a higher share of its budget on health and education than England. In government, the SNP has allowed spending in these areas to decline as a proportion of overall expenditure while increasing the money that goes on culture, transport, economic development and free personal care for the elderly. This shift is something Scots can ill-afford.
The UK as a whole wants a nuclear weapons system, with 31% wanting a less powerful one than Trident, 25% replacing Trident and 25% giving up Trident completely
What's wrong with what we have ? It can still finish off humanity.
Michael Portillo, ex-Defence Secretary, put it in This Week that the defence establishment wanted 4 x Trident's just as a bargaining tool !
In truth the UK lacks enough nuclear firepower to completely obliterate Moscow Oblast
Who ever said it needed to?
Its always been a 'weapon of appalling revenge'
And that has been sufficient.
Except it isn't because the "revenge" would be perfectly acceptable to Russia (going by history), you have at most 14 missiles with a small number of warheads per missile (max 220 but never that many in operation).
The capability of the UK "deterrent" is grossly exaggerated and absolutely within Russian acceptable losses.
The UK as a whole wants a nuclear weapons system, with 31% wanting a less powerful one than Trident, 25% replacing Trident and 25% giving up Trident completely
What's wrong with what we have ? It can still finish off humanity.
Michael Portillo, ex-Defence Secretary, put it in This Week that the defence establishment wanted 4 x Trident's just as a bargaining tool !
This really is the worst myth of the UK's so called "deterrent".
In truth the UK lacks enough nuclear firepower to completely obliterate Moscow Oblast (which, if focused in this way would mean zero impact on Russian military capabiility), at worst, the UK could give the Russians a bloody nose, history says Russia will always take a bloody nose if it gets what it wants.
England's nuclear deterrent isn't aimed against Russia, Dair.
It's aimed at our twin traditional enemies - France & Scotland.
Then you will have to choose. Because you don't have enough warheads to kill off both.
Well, my personal choice would be France, because I like Scotland.
However you seem to be doing your best to make me change my mind.
Ha Ha Ha , tax exile tries to pretend the FT could actually print anything sensible about SNP. As likely as you doing the right thing rather than hiding in a tax haven. How can you embarrass yourself by pontificating about the UK and Scotland in particular when you avoid paying tax.
Still haven't explained what you are 'paying for', have you?
So unlike the Nats to play 'the man, not the ball'.....
I pay so that people less fortunate than me have some money, I don't avoid paying tax. At least gives me the right to have an opinion on the UK and how it is run, unlike those who do not contribute.
Still haven't answered the question - what are you paying for Guernsey?
Hint - its 'nothing'.......
Wrong again......
Oh, and since you are an expert in my tax affairs, the basic rate of tax in Guernsey is the same as the UK and the personal allowance lower.....
The UK as a whole wants a nuclear weapons system, with 31% wanting a less powerful one than Trident, 25% replacing Trident and 25% giving up Trident completely
What's wrong with what we have ? It can still finish off humanity.
Michael Portillo, ex-Defence Secretary, put it in This Week that the defence establishment wanted 4 x Trident's just as a bargaining tool !
In truth the UK lacks enough nuclear firepower to completely obliterate Moscow Oblast
Who ever said it needed to?
Its always been a 'weapon of appalling revenge'
And that has been sufficient.
Except it isn't because the "revenge" would be perfectly acceptable to Russia (going by history), you have at most 14 missiles with a small number of warheads per missile (max 220 but never that many in operation).
The capability of the UK "deterrent" is grossly exaggerated and absolutely within Russian acceptable losses.
It's part of an interconnected deterrent. While we could give Russia an incredibly bloody nose (I dispute that they'd find it acceptable) that is magnified by out allies ability to eliminate Russia altogether if they nuked us.
The UK as a whole wants a nuclear weapons system, with 31% wanting a less powerful one than Trident, 25% replacing Trident and 25% giving up Trident completely
What's wrong with what we have ? It can still finish off humanity.
Michael Portillo, ex-Defence Secretary, put it in This Week that the defence establishment wanted 4 x Trident's just as a bargaining tool !
This really is the worst myth of the UK's so called "deterrent".
In truth the UK lacks enough nuclear firepower to completely obliterate Moscow Oblast (which, if focused in this way would mean zero impact on Russian military capabiility), at worst, the UK could give the Russians a bloody nose, history says Russia will always take a bloody nose if it gets what it wants.
England's nuclear deterrent isn't aimed against Russia, Dair.
It's aimed at our twin traditional enemies - France & Scotland.
Then you will have to choose. Because you don't have enough warheads to kill off both.
Well, my personal choice would be France, because I like Scotland.
However you seem to be doing your best to make me change my mind.
I think you're misunderestimating
i) How easy it would be for Les Rosbifs to wipe out Les Grenouilles with conventional weapons like a catapult or a walking towards them in a threatening manner
ii) Nuclear attacks on Scotland would improve some parts of Scotland
Justin, The Hosbach Conference in 1937 had already given the senior German leaders a plan to start aggressive wars in the East, if Britain and France could be kept out of the matter. Goering was present. It is perfectly true that Goering did not want war with Britain and France when the decision was taken to invade Poland (after the anexation of Czechslovakia) but Goering and the German Military and Political heirarchy knew that they intended to wage an aggressive war against Poland and hoped to keep the West out of it, a plot that might have succeeded. Chamberlain had had enough at Munich and finally saw the Nazis for what they were.
I am not sure what this has with the Iraq war in 2003, though?
The German military and most senior Nazis were utterly appalled by the Hossbach Conference in November 1937. It caused Von Neurath - then Foreign Minister - to suffer several heart attacks. Goering, Goebbels et al certainly did not want war - but they were in no position to stop it. Ribbentrop ,in contrast, was actively encouraging Hitler. Reference to Iraq in 2003 arose from my suggestion that Blair and Bush were firmly committed to war in a way that Goering and the other Nuremburg defendants - Ribbentrop excepted - were not. Goering genuinely did wish to avoid war in 1939 - Blair and Bush did not in 2003 and consequently they would be more guilty than the Nazi defendants under the'Planning for Aggressive War' indictment as presented at Nuremburg.
The UK as a whole wants a nuclear weapons system, with 31% wanting a less powerful one than Trident, 25% replacing Trident and 25% giving up Trident completely
What's wrong with what we have ? It can still finish off humanity.
Michael Portillo, ex-Defence Secretary, put it in This Week that the defence establishment wanted 4 x Trident's just as a bargaining tool !
In truth the UK lacks enough nuclear firepower to completely obliterate Moscow Oblast
Who ever said it needed to?
Its always been a 'weapon of appalling revenge'
And that has been sufficient.
Except it isn't because the "revenge" would be perfectly acceptable to Russia (going by history), you have at most 14 missiles with a small number of warheads per missile (max 220 but never that many in operation).
The capability of the UK "deterrent" is grossly exaggerated and absolutely within Russian acceptable losses.
It's part of an interconnected deterrent. While we could give Russia an incredibly bloody nose (I dispute that they'd find it acceptable) that is magnified by out allies ability to eliminate Russia altogether if they nuked us.
So it is not, remotely, Independent?
Out of interest, how did you perceive Osborne's continued repitition of the four stock phrases of "keeping britain safe", "uncertain and dangerous world", "threat to our future security" and "ultimate insurance policy".
Every question he was asked - same four stock phrases.
Personally I find that sort of thing insulting (like the Ed Miliband youtube with his stock phrases highlighted when he repeated them five times each. Everything he says about Trident is a lie, Osborne thinks people are muppets.
Ha Ha Ha , tax exile tries to pretend the FT could actually print anything sensible about SNP. As likely as you doing the right thing rather than hiding in a tax haven. How can you embarrass yourself by pontificating about the UK and Scotland in particular when you avoid paying tax.
Still haven't explained what you are 'paying for', have you?
So unlike the Nats to play 'the man, not the ball'.....
I pay so that people less fortunate than me have some money, I don't avoid paying tax. At least gives me the right to have an opinion on the UK and how it is run, unlike those who do not contribute.
Still haven't answered the question - what are you paying for Guernsey?
Hint - its 'nothing'.......
Wrong again......
Oh, and since you are an expert in my tax affairs, the basic rate of tax in Guernsey is the same as the UK and the personal allowance lower.....
Cameron in The Times is really socking it to Labour
Highlights include
Why we’re the true party of working people
The recovery is steaming ahead and our One Nation mission is restoring the link between hard work and reward
and
Look at today’s Labour leadership candidates. All of them are in a race to the left, vowing to borrow, tax and spend more — all the things that failed in the last century and were rejected at the last election. Listening to some of the anti-Nato, anti-American, profoundly anti-business and anti-enterprise debates is like Groundhog Day. Labour aren’t learning.
They’re slaves to a failed dogma that has always left working people paying the price. One of their most disturbing tendencies is their obedience to left-wing union leaders — the people who are behind the Tube strikes that have wreaked chaos in the capital this summer.
Ha Ha Ha , tax exile tries to pretend the FT could actually print anything sensible about SNP. As likely as you doing the right thing rather than hiding in a tax haven. How can you embarrass yourself by pontificating about the UK and Scotland in particular when you avoid paying tax.
Still haven't explained what you are 'paying for', have you?
So unlike the Nats to play 'the man, not the ball'.....
I pay so that people less fortunate than me have some money, I don't avoid paying tax. At least gives me the right to have an opinion on the UK and how it is run, unlike those who do not contribute.
Still haven't answered the question - what are you paying for Guernsey?
Hint - its 'nothing'.......
Wrong again......
Oh, and since you are an expert in my tax affairs, the basic rate of tax in Guernsey is the same as the UK and the personal allowance lower.....
Lot of beards going on with the ISIS karaoke pictures.
Are these guys really just Islamic hipsters?
I need to to have a word with the Friends about infiltrating IS. Get your spies to have seriously long beards, clearly its a status thing. Longer the beard, the more respect you get.
People only say Isis are bearded hipsters to make them look bad
Ha Ha Ha , tax exile tries to pretend the FT could actually print anything sensible about SNP. As likely as you doing the right thing rather than hiding in a tax haven. How can you embarrass yourself by pontificating about the UK and Scotland in particular when you avoid paying tax.
Still haven't explained what you are 'paying for', have you?
So unlike the Nats to play 'the man, not the ball'.....
I pay so that people less fortunate than me have some money, I don't avoid paying tax. At least gives me the right to have an opinion on the UK and how it is run, unlike those who do not contribute.
Still haven't answered the question - what are you paying for Guernsey?
Hint - its 'nothing'.......
Wrong again......
Oh, and since you are an expert in my tax affairs, the basic rate of tax in Guernsey is the same as the UK and the personal allowance lower.....
But what do you know......nothing.....
I note you show lower only:)
Written by someone on over £90,000 a year......
a smidgen high, but you get better weather
Congratulations on your success...
How much are you sending to Guernsey?
Seriously?
You're engaging this again?
Which part of 'ordered to surrender' you don't understand?
i) How easy it would be for Les Rosbifs to wipe out Les Grenouilles with conventional weapons like a catapult or a walking towards them in a threatening manner
ii) Nuclear attacks on Scotland would improve some parts of Scotland
Hmmmm....you make some good points, TSE.
I suppose the ideal situation would be if the Germans invaded France again.
Then we could kill two birds with one (nuclear) stone.
Ha Ha Ha , tax exile tries to pretend the FT could actually print anything sensible about SNP. As likely as you doing the right thing rather than hiding in a tax haven. How can you embarrass yourself by pontificating about the UK and Scotland in particular when you avoid paying tax.
Still haven't explained what you are 'paying for', have you?
So unlike the Nats to play 'the man, not the ball'.....
I pay so that people less fortunate than me have some money, I don't avoid paying tax. At least gives me the right to have an opinion on the UK and how it is run, unlike those who do not contribute.
Still haven't answered the question - what are you paying for Guernsey?
Hint - its 'nothing'.......
Wrong again......
Oh, and since you are an expert in my tax affairs, the basic rate of tax in Guernsey is the same as the UK and the personal allowance lower.....
But what do you know......nothing.....
I note you show lower only:)
Written by someone on over £90,000 a year......
a smidgen high, but you get better weather
Congratulations on your success...
How much are you sending to Guernsey?
Also, they sold part of their sovereign territory to a private individual (well two). Although that suggests it might be a fun place for a holiday if you have a few quid to throw at the local girls.
... As head of the Luftwaffe he was intimately involved
But you miss the point - he did not wish to go to war!
? Are you serious? (I mean your dimwitted death camp remark just shows you up - thats not your joke) You are trying to justify your barmy war crime obsession by suggesting Goering did not help plan the invasion of Poland? .... But Goering along with Army Chief Keitel as one example was indicted on charges of ''Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War''. And found guilty. and “the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.” - and found Guilty. Goering said ''I must take 100 percent responsibility. I even overruled objections by the Fuehrer and brought everything to its final development''
And of course the invasion of Iraq was not a war of aggression or conquest or territorial gain. It was a war to remove a dictator who had broken international treaties and replace him with a freely elected government. A war not to eliminate democracy but to create it. You are a grade 1 dummo bozo.
The decision to go to war in 1939 was taken by Hitler with the active encouragement of Ribbentrop. There is no evidence that the other senior Nazis wanted a war. Goering made clear his opposition and worked to avoid it in the Summer of 1939. Even Goebbels was appalled by the idea. None of this is to deny that once the war got underway they went along with it - but had there been no Hitler there would have been no war at that time. Keitel was a military guy who simply did as he was told - in the same way that senior British commanders followed Blair's orders in 2003 despite having serious misgivings about the attack being lawful. As for the idea that the Iraq war was about removing Saddam , that contradicts what Blair said at the time when he expressly denied seeking regime change . It was about WDM and when they failed to appear he thought of something else.
You brought up the comparison with planning for war and the issue of Nazi war crimes and Goering helped plan the war which was a war of aggressive acquisition deemed illegal. As did Keitel. Despite what you said many defendants at Nuremberg were indicted with and found guilty of planning an illegal war. There is no comparison with Iraq which was subject to a ceasefire after its own illegal war of acquisition and was bombing its own civilians with poison gas. When asked at a news conference when standing next to Blair, Bush said 'regime change'. Spouting off about Bush and Blair being 'war criminals' is massively thick of both you and Comrade Corbyn.
When the Scottish parliament was created in 1999, Scotland spent a higher share of its budget on health and education than England. In government, the SNP has allowed spending in these areas to decline as a proportion of overall expenditure while increasing the money that goes on culture, transport, economic development and free personal care for the elderly. This shift is something Scots can ill-afford.
So not only a better health service but better value for money!
I'm sure the SNP will campaign on that!
Pity they'll struggle with the facts....
To some extent, the facts are irrelevant. perception is what matters and the public appear to believe the SHS is doing a very fine job. Now, I would say the facts support this, not meaningless political waffle you love to recite but the reality that people face.
While I can't actually recall the last time I went to a doctor or A&E, my own experience with my braces is excellent and I'm looking forward to my jaw surgery. It's good to have a quality health care service I can rely on.
The more I think about it, the more I think Progress is right about something - that Labour's candidate selection should also be opened up to registered supporters. This would increase engagement and motivation, reduce the disconnect between Labour voters and the parliamentary party, as well as hopefully improve the quality of candidates and open it up beyond special advisers.
It's becoming increasingly apparent there there's a problem with the current method of selection leading to low-quality candidates.
Ha Ha Ha , tax exile tries to pretend the FT could actually print anything sensible about SNP. As likely as you doing the right thing rather than hiding in a tax haven. How can you embarrass yourself by pontificating about the UK and Scotland in particular when you avoid paying tax.
Still haven't explained what you are 'paying for', have you?
So unlike the Nats to play 'the man, not the ball'.....
I pay so that people less fortunate than me have some money, I don't avoid paying tax. At least gives me the right to have an opinion on the UK and how it is run, unlike those who do not contribute.
Still haven't answered the question - what are you paying for Guernsey?
Hint - its 'nothing'.......
Wrong again......
Oh, and since you are an expert in my tax affairs, the basic rate of tax in Guernsey is the same as the UK and the personal allowance lower.....
But what do you know......nothing.....
I note you show lower only:)
Written by someone on over £90,000 a year......
a smidgen high, but you get better weather
Congratulations on your success...
How much are you sending to Guernsey?
Also, they sold part of their sovereign territory to a private individual (well two). Although that suggests it might be a fun place for a holiday if you have a few quid to throw at the local girls.
Is being against having nuclear missiles really that awful?
How does Trident solve the immigration crisis?
It gives Pakistan something to think about and India and China and North Korea oh and Russia. Surely you realise we can't leave everything to the French socialists.
Weren't the Nazis ordered to do lots of things.... I don't think taking orders is much of an excuse.
Guernsey and Jersey are really quite atrocious places where tax exiles accumulate en masse and the locals are remnants of inbred, intergenerational, inter familial breeding.
Very pretty for a weekend, but any longer and you would want to blow your brains out. And I know...
Ha Ha Ha , tax exile tries to pretend the FT could actually print anything sensible about SNP. As likely as you doing the right thing rather than hiding in a tax haven. How can you embarrass yourself by pontificating about the UK and Scotland in particular when you avoid paying tax.
Still haven't explained what you are 'paying for', have you?
So unlike the Nats to play 'the man, not the ball'.....
I pay so that people less fortunate than me have some money, I don't avoid paying tax. At least gives me the right to have an opinion on the UK and how it is run, unlike those who do not contribute.
Still haven't answered the question - what are you paying for Guernsey?
Hint - its 'nothing'.......
Wrong again......
Oh, and since you are an expert in my tax affairs, the basic rate of tax in Guernsey is the same as the UK and the personal allowance lower.....
But what do you know......nothing.....
I note you show lower only:)
Written by someone on over £90,000 a year......
a smidgen high, but you get better weather
Congratulations on your success...
How much are you sending to Guernsey?
Seriously?
You're engaging this again?
Which part of 'ordered to surrender' you don't understand?
Guernsey and Jersey are really quite atrocious places where tax exiles accumulate en masse and the locals are remnants of inbred, intergenerational, inter familial breeding.
Ha Ha Ha , tax exile tries to pretend the FT could actually print anything sensible about SNP. As likely as you doing the right thing rather than hiding in a tax haven. How can you embarrass yourself by pontificating about the UK and Scotland in particular when you avoid paying tax.
Still haven't explained what you are 'paying for', have you?
So unlike the Nats to play 'the man, not the ball'.....
I pay so that people less fortunate than me have some money, I don't avoid paying tax. At least gives me the right to have an opinion on the UK and how it is run, unlike those who do not contribute.
Still haven't answered the question - what are you paying for Guernsey?
Hint - its 'nothing'.......
Wrong again......
Oh, and since you are an expert in my tax affairs, the basic rate of tax in Guernsey is the same as the UK and the personal allowance lower.....
But what do you know......nothing.....
I note you show lower only:)
Written by someone on over £90,000 a year......
a smidgen high, but you get better weather
Congratulations on your success...
How much are you sending to Guernsey?
Seriously?
You're engaging this again?
Which part of 'ordered to surrender' you don't understand?
Care to quote some stats to back up your assertions?
Out of interest, how did you perceive Osborne's continued repitition of the four stock phrases of "keeping britain safe", "uncertain and dangerous world", "threat to our future security" and "ultimate insurance policy".
Every question he was asked - same four stock phrases.
Personally I find that sort of thing insulting (like the Ed Miliband youtube with his stock phrases highlighted when he repeated them five times each. Everything he says about Trident is a lie, Osborne thinks people are muppets.
Maybe they are,
All this is rather academic, as the Americans would not let us use it in a million years. Anyone who thinks that a country that exercises its world power in the way the US does would knowingly manufacture a weapon of that magnitude and give it to a foreign power to use with impunity with no fail-safe mechanism, kill switch etc., is bonkers, simply bonkers.
What we have is a US asset on our soil that we pay for. I'm not particularly bothered by it being there as it happens - I don't think it makes us a particular target, because I don't think anyone takes it seriously as a deterrent. But I do bitterly resent us paying for it.
“I like the way it works – I like the sense of values surrounding it … I like the concept that the Islamic Human Rights Commission represents all that’s best in Islam concerning the rights of individuals to free expression, to peaceful assembly and the rights of individuals within a society.”
Let's guess who said this. Well, easy question really. Our very own Jezbollah.
The Islamic Human Rights Commission is infamous for having given an Islamophobe of the Year award to the murdered Charlie Hebdo cartoonists some two months after that tragedy.
Still, we have Corbyn to tell us about its values and the rights of individuals to free expression.
When the Scottish parliament was created in 1999, Scotland spent a higher share of its budget on health and education than England. In government, the SNP has allowed spending in these areas to decline as a proportion of overall expenditure while increasing the money that goes on culture, transport, economic development and free personal care for the elderly. This shift is something Scots can ill-afford.
So not only a better health service but better value for money!
I'm sure the SNP will campaign on that!
Pity they'll struggle with the facts....
To some extent, the facts are irrelevant. perception is what matters and the public appear to believe the SHS is doing a very fine job. Now, I would say the facts support this, not meaningless political waffle you love to recite but the reality that people face.
While I can't actually recall the last time I went to a doctor or A&E, my own experience with my braces is excellent and I'm looking forward to my jaw surgery. It's good to have a quality health care service I can rely on.
“I like the way it works – I like the sense of values surrounding it … I like the concept that the Islamic Human Rights Commission represents all that’s best in Islam concerning the rights of individuals to free expression, to peaceful assembly and the rights of individuals within a society.”
Let's guess who said this. Well, easy question really. Our very own Jezbollah.
The Islamic Human Rights Commission is infamous for having given an Islamophobe of the Year award to the murdered Charlie Hebdo cartoonists some two months after that tragedy.
Still, we have Corbyn to tell us about its values and the rights of individuals to free expression.
God, it gets worse... Mind you, Mr Corbyn did criticise the BBC and other panelists for sharing a platform with Nick Griffin of the BNP at the Question Time event in 2010. I don't think he used the term "friend" either!
I lived there (Guernsey and Jersey).. the locals speak with that ridiculous Australian accent that grates your spine and the tax exiles make the pbCOM Tories appear to be genteel, ranging from dumb witted anachronistic Tories, to the most obscene South Africans.
The Chanel Islands....a hell on earth. Really, a place where anyone with any sense would not want to spend any time. If I had to stay there permanently, I would try and hide in a lorries under tyre to escape.
Unless of course you want to go and live in the Isle of Man
Guernsey and Jersey are really quite atrocious places where tax exiles accumulate en masse and the locals are remnants of inbred, intergenerational, inter familial breeding.
Ha Ha Ha , tax exile tries to pretend the FT could actually print anything sensible about SNP. As likely as you doing the right thing rather than hiding in a tax haven. How can you embarrass yourself by pontificating about the UK and Scotland in particular when you avoid paying tax.
Still haven't explained what you are 'paying for', have you?
So unlike the Nats to play 'the man, not the ball'.....
I pay so that people less fortunate than me have some money, I don't avoid paying tax. At least gives me the right to have an opinion on the UK and how it is run, unlike those who do not contribute.
Still haven't answered the question - what are you paying for Guernsey?
Hint - its 'nothing'.......
Wrong again......
Oh, and since you are an expert in my tax affairs, the basic rate of tax in Guernsey is the same as the UK and the personal allowance lower.....
But what do you know......nothing.....
I note you show lower only:)
Written by someone on over £90,000 a year......
a smidgen high, but you get better weather
Congratulations on your success...
How much are you sending to Guernsey?
Seriously?
You're engaging this again?
Which part of 'ordered to surrender' you don't understand?
Care to quote some stats to back up your assertions?
“I like the way it works – I like the sense of values surrounding it … I like the concept that the Islamic Human Rights Commission represents all that’s best in Islam concerning the rights of individuals to free expression, to peaceful assembly and the rights of individuals within a society.”
Let's guess who said this. Well, easy question really. Our very own Jezbollah.
The Islamic Human Rights Commission is infamous for having given an Islamophobe of the Year award to the murdered Charlie Hebdo cartoonists some two months after that tragedy.
Still, we have Corbyn to tell us about its values and the rights of individuals to free expression.
Mind you, Mr Corbyn did criticise the BBC and other panelists for sharing a platform with Nick Griffin of the BNP at the Question Time event in 2010. I don't think he used the term "friend" either!
Well of course - if the British people were to hear Mr Griffin and his cohorts, they would swarm in their millions to support the BNP, as the public are very confused and easily led, and apparently just waiting for a chance to see Mr Griffin on a mainstream programme in order to be led down a dark path. That's why Griffin and the BNP have had such amazing influence every since.
And while I am ranting... why do we have Australians now commentating on cricket with that appalling accent ? I escaped Shane Warne for Radio 5, and there you find that terrible accent. It's like someone scraping a black board. If you like it, go to the Channel Islands because all the local inbreds speak with it.
I lived there (Guernsey and Jersey).. the locals speak with that ridiculous Australian accent that grates your spine and the tax exiles make the pbCOM Tories appear to be genteel, ranging from dumb witted anachronistic Tories, to the most obscene South Africans.
The Chanel Islands....a hell on earth. Really, a place where anyone with any sense would not want to spend any time. If I had to stay there permanently, I would try and hide in a lorries under tyre to escape.
Unless of course you want to go and live in the Isle of Man
Guernsey and Jersey are really quite atrocious places where tax exiles accumulate en masse and the locals are remnants of inbred, intergenerational, inter familial breeding.
Ha Ha Ha , tax exile tries to pretend the FT could actually print anything sensible about SNP. As likely as you doing the right thing rather than hiding in a tax haven. How can you embarrass yourself by pontificating about the UK and Scotland in particular when you avoid paying tax.
Still haven't explained what you are 'paying for', have you?
So unlike the Nats to play 'the man, not the ball'.....
Written by someone on over £90,000 a year......
a smidgen high, but you get better weather
Congratulations on your success...
How much are you sending to Guernsey?
Seriously?
You're engaging this again?
Which part of 'ordered to surrender' you don't understand?
Care to quote some stats to back up your assertions?
The decision to go to war in 1939 was taken by Hitler with the active encouragement of Ribbentrop. There is no evidence that the other senior Nazis wanted a war. Goering made clear his opposition and worked to avoid it in the Summer of 1939. Even Goebbels was appalled by the idea. None of this is to deny that once the war got underway they went along with it - but had there been no Hitler there would have been no war at that time. Keitel was a military guy who simply did as he was told - in the same way that senior British commanders followed Blair's orders in 2003 despite having serious misgivings about the attack being lawful. As for the idea that the Iraq war was about removing Saddam , that contradicts what Blair said at the time when he expressly denied seeking regime change . It was about WDM and when they failed to appear he thought of something else.
You brought up the comparison with planning for war and the issue of Nazi war crimes and Goering helped plan the war which was a war of aggressive acquisition deemed illegal. As did Keitel. Despite what you said many defendants at Nuremberg were indicted with and found guilty of planning an illegal war. There is no comparison with Iraq which was subject to a ceasefire after its own illegal war of acquisition and was bombing its own civilians with poison gas. When asked at a news conference when standing next to Blair, Bush said 'regime change'. Spouting off about Bush and Blair being 'war criminals' is massively thick of both you and Comrade Corbyn.
I attach no great significance to the verdicts reached at Nuremburg - it was a political trial of the victors and the judges well knew what was expected of them in the climate of the time. Many have criticised the convictions of Jodl -Streicher - Frick - and some even Keitel. The Nazis -vile though they were - did not execute Daladier, Reynaud . Moreover, had the criteria used at Nuremburg been applied to Allied Military Commanders several should have been indicted. I am not suggesting that the defendants did not have a lot to answer for in respect of the other indictments relating to the Holocaust - treatment of Prisoners of War and Foreign Workers etc -but I do not believe that Keitel or Goering had any say at all as to whether Poland - or latter the USSR - was to be attacked. Blair repeated on many occasions that he was not seeking regime change in Iraq. I never believed him - but it is what he said.
I attach no great significance to the verdicts reached at Nuremburg - it was a political trial of the victors and the judges well knew what was expected of them in the climate of the time. Many have criticised the convictions of Jodl -Streicher - Frick - and some even Keitel. The Nazis -vile though they were - did not execute Daladier, Reynaud . Moreover, had the criteria used at Nuremburg been applied to Allied Military Commanders several should have been indicted. I am not suggesting that the defendants did not have a lot to answer for in respect of the other indictments relating to the Holocaust - treatment of Prisoners of War and Foreign Workers etc -but I do not believe that Keitel or Goering had any say at all as to whether Poland - or later the USSR - was to be attacked. Blair repeated on many occasions that he was not seeking regime change in Iraq. I never believed him - but it is what he said
Cameron in The Times is really socking it to Labour
Highlights include
Why we’re the true party of working people
The recovery is steaming ahead and our One Nation mission is restoring the link between hard work and reward
and
Look at today’s Labour leadership candidates. All of them are in a race to the left, vowing to borrow, tax and spend more — all the things that failed in the last century and were rejected at the last election. Listening to some of the anti-Nato, anti-American, profoundly anti-business and anti-enterprise debates is like Groundhog Day. Labour aren’t learning.
They’re slaves to a failed dogma that has always left working people paying the price. One of their most disturbing tendencies is their obedience to left-wing union leaders — the people who are behind the Tube strikes that have wreaked chaos in the capital this summer.
Compare and contrast with tomorrow's FT front page. That will have Tory backbenchers and members spitting into their cornflakes.
The UK as a whole wants a nuclear weapons system, with 31% wanting a less powerful one than Trident, 25% replacing Trident and 25% giving up Trident completely
What's wrong with what we have ? It can still finish off humanity.
Michael Portillo, ex-Defence Secretary, put it in This Week that the defence establishment wanted 4 x Trident's just as a bargaining tool !
In truth the UK lacks enough nuclear firepower to completely obliterate Moscow Oblast
Who ever said it needed to?
Its always been a 'weapon of appalling revenge'
And that has been sufficient.
Except it isn't because the "revenge" would be perfectly acceptable to Russia (going by history), you have at most 14 missiles with a small number of warheads per missile (max 220 but never that many in operation).
The capability of the UK "deterrent" is grossly exaggerated and absolutely within Russian acceptable losses.
You do know that nuclear weapons are not clean don't you. I'm also intrigued by the historical precedent you quote for Russia accepting huge attritional losses from nuclear attack (or even otherwise) as a price worth paying for aggression. I cannot think of an example but I'm sure you'll enlighten me. I do not think that they are revenge weapons but I do think they are a deterrent and will do so until I'm incapable of thought, because of nuclear war or otherwise. I also don't trust Putin and I would trust him less if we had no nuclear capacity.
Corbynite is once again releasing the inner thicko bigot in the lefty community. It's all quite howlingly hilarious seeing all these rip van winkle arguments being rehashed.
Meantime Corbyn is trying to prove you can fool all of the people all of the time by covertly going from scruffy to smart casual on the campaign trail. Has he shed his hat for ever as well?
Cameron in The Times is really socking it to Labour
Highlights include
Why we’re the true party of working people
The recovery is steaming ahead and our One Nation mission is restoring the link between hard work and reward
and
Look at today’s Labour leadership candidates. All of them are in a race to the left, vowing to borrow, tax and spend more — all the things that failed in the last century and were rejected at the last election. Listening to some of the anti-Nato, anti-American, profoundly anti-business and anti-enterprise debates is like Groundhog Day. Labour aren’t learning.
They’re slaves to a failed dogma that has always left working people paying the price. One of their most disturbing tendencies is their obedience to left-wing union leaders — the people who are behind the Tube strikes that have wreaked chaos in the capital this summer.
Compare and contrast with tomorrow's FT front page. That will have Tory backbenchers and members spitting into their cornflakes.
Just reading it now. I warned my fellow Tories they should be careful what they wish for with Corbyn as Labour leader.
Ha Ha Ha , tax exile tries to pretend the FT could actually print anything sensible about SNP. As likely as you doing the right thing rather than hiding in a tax haven. How can you embarrass yourself by pontificating about the UK and Scotland in particular when you avoid paying tax.
Still haven't explained what you are 'paying for', have you?
So unlike the Nats to play 'the man, not the ball'.....
I pay so that people less fortunate than me have some money, I don't avoid paying tax. At least gives me the right to have an opinion on the UK and how it is run, unlike those who do not contribute.
Still haven't answered the question - what are you paying for Guernsey?
Hint - its 'nothing'.......
Wrong again......
Oh, and since you are an expert in my tax affairs, the basic rate of tax in Guernsey is the same as the UK and the personal allowance lower.....
Is being against having nuclear missiles really that awful?
Britain's nukes are pretty irrelevant, as are France's. If the USA ever decided to quit NATO, we'd be f*cked.
Really? Who exactly is *not* deterred by the thought of an automatic retaliatory strike consisting of 128 modern nuclear warheads delivered by inter-continental ballistic missiles launched from a hidden SSBN submarine?
Our nuclear deterrent may not consist of the thousands of nukes that Russia or the US have in their arsenals, but then it doesn't have to be. It is a minimal credible deterrent.
How is Corbyn a "security risk"? Trident replacement is a shameful waste of money which we cannot afford. It cannot and never will be used. Are Germany, Spain, Ireland etc, etc all insecure countries because they don't blow billions on fantasy weapons when our conventional armed forces are run down almost to the point of uselessness.
I'm not sure about anyone else, but being opposed to the nuclear deterrent or being a peacenik are pretty small fry to the outright sympathy with terrorists Corbyn has already displayed. His hatred for the West is revealed by the fact he described Bin Laden's death in the same terms as the murder of 3,000 civilians on 9/11. His mild manners are merely a cover up for the fact that he is a very nasty man. Thankfully the British public are far more principled and decent than the online Jezlamists or the morally bankrupt Labour electorate, and will not let the man come near power.
I'm not sure about anyone else, but being opposed to the nuclear deterrent or being a peacenik are pretty small fry to the outright sympathy with terrorists Corbyn has already displayed. His hatred for the West is revealed by the fact he described Bin Laden's death in the same terms as the murder of 3,000 civilians on 9/11. His mild manners are merely a cover up for the fact that he is a very nasty man. Thankfully the British public are far more principled and decent than the online Jezlamists or the morally bankrupt Labour electorate, and will not let the man come near power.
Seems like a potentially popular move - yes it could be taken as an attack on the monarchy, but as it says Royal Prerogatives are really powers that are held by the government of the day day. I'm not in favour of abolishing the monarchy as Corbyn undoubtedly is, but it shouldn't be hard for it to be framed (to give a slight not to the thread header) as limiting executive power and nothing more, which I should think would find a decent audience.
Of course he's not a security risk.... but the UK has used its nuclear arsenal for many years to secure some kind of non existent vainglorious prestige.....
Someone at some point has to say enough is enough... but it is much better to come from a brave Tory who dares to speak the truth. The left will always get vilified.
How is Corbyn a "security risk"? Trident replacement is a shameful waste of money which we cannot afford. It cannot and never will be used. Are Germany, Spain, Ireland etc, etc all insecure countries because they don't blow billions on fantasy weapons when our conventional armed forces are run down almost to the point of uselessness.
The UK as a whole wants a nuclear weapons system, with 31% wanting a less powerful one than Trident, 25% replacing Trident and 25% giving up Trident completely
What's wrong with what we have ? It can still finish off humanity.
Michael Portillo, ex-Defence Secretary, put it in This Week that the defence establishment wanted 4 x Trident's just as a bargaining tool !
This really is the worst myth of the UK's so called "deterrent".
In truth the UK lacks enough nuclear firepower to completely obliterate Moscow Oblast (which, if focused in this way would mean zero impact on Russian military capabiility), at worst, the UK could give the Russians a bloody nose, history says Russia will always take a bloody nose if it gets what it wants.
England's nuclear deterrent isn't aimed against Russia, Dair.
It's aimed at our twin traditional enemies - France & Scotland.
Then you will have to choose. Because you don't have enough warheads to kill off both.
Then France it is. The Scots are very able at killing off themselves.
It just needs a few more deep fat fryers in the defence budget...
Another month end, another court-ordered Hillary Clinton email dump by State at 9pm. Reportedly 150 of the emails have redactions due to classified content. These dumps will happen until at least the end of January.
Interestingly, the unthinkable is happening, and there are leaks from the FBI investigation, which is broadening.
The steady drip drip of the story continues, her numbers are showing it, but of course if the FBI moves her numbers are irrelevant.
And while I am ranting... why do we have Australians now commentating on cricket with that appalling accent ?
It's all a matter of personal taste. I like the Aussie voices on TMS. I much prefer them to an affected upper class British accent - like Blofeld, for example.
Anyway, why all the ranting tonight? In my younger days, when I was a card-carrying lefty, they used to tell me that the left loved their fellow man. It was only the evil Tories who where such haters.
The idea that parliament should be able to stop a Prime Minister sacking one of his team is bonkers. It would make the country ungovernable.
He may not wish to hand all the prerogatives to parliament, one assumes. Involving them, as a requirement, in accrediting diplomats, declaring war and other areas might be more where he is looking at.
Would they were that glamorous....meanwhile, care to suggest how much you pay for them? - malcolm has either run away or is enjoying a well deserved feast on his (almost) £90,000/year
Cameron in The Times is really socking it to Labour
Highlights include
Why we’re the true party of working people
The recovery is steaming ahead and our One Nation mission is restoring the link between hard work and reward
and
Look at today’s Labour leadership candidates. All of them are in a race to the left, vowing to borrow, tax and spend more — all the things that failed in the last century and were rejected at the last election. Listening to some of the anti-Nato, anti-American, profoundly anti-business and anti-enterprise debates is like Groundhog Day. Labour aren’t learning.
They’re slaves to a failed dogma that has always left working people paying the price. One of their most disturbing tendencies is their obedience to left-wing union leaders — the people who are behind the Tube strikes that have wreaked chaos in the capital this summer.
Compare and contrast with tomorrow's FT front page. That will have Tory backbenchers and members spitting into their cornflakes.
Just reading it now. I warned my fellow Tories they should be careful what they wish for with Corbyn as Labour leader.
I hope to God this is still just playing with expectations. If the leaks are true, he will have given up on CAP reform, given up on limiting free movement, given up on treaty change and given up on the social chapter. And his government has already abandoned the opt out of policing and justice. What the hell is left? I guess double majority for non-Euro members, a red card system or a formal veto on financial regulations.
I attach no great significance to the verdicts reached at Nuremburg - it was a political trial of the victors and the judges well knew what was expected of them in the climate of the time. Many have criticised the convictions of Jodl -Streicher - Frick - and some even Keitel. The Nazis -vile though they were - did not execute Daladier, Reynaud . Moreover, had the criteria used at Nuremburg been applied to Allied Military Commanders several should have been indicted. I am not suggesting that the defendants did not have a lot to answer for in respect of the other indictments relating to the Holocaust - treatment of Prisoners of War and Foreign Workers etc -but I do not believe that Keitel or Goering had any say at all as to whether Poland - or later the USSR - was to be attacked. Blair repeated on many occasions that he was not seeking regime change in Iraq. I never believed him - but it is what he said
No Justin, the Nuremburg trials were not perfect, no doubt (Certainly Jodl, as a relatively subordinate staff officer should not have been hanged. He was rehabilitated after the war). However, they were a genuine attempt by the four Powers,, inculding the Soviet Union, to have a fair trial. Three defendants were aquitted and others were sentenced to terms of imprisonment.
Your analogy with Allied commanders in WW2 does not really stand up. None of the main defendants were convicted of crimes involved in actually fighting the war. The London Blitz, for example was not considered a war crime and nor was unrestricted submarine warfare.
The main points were the planning of an aggresive war against countries that had posed no threat to Germany or any other country. The other major issue, the war crimes and murder of civilians, slave labourers and indeed the Holocaust, were uniquely evil and punished accordingly, although as i have said earlier, many terrible war criminals escaped the full rigour of the law.
We have spoken of Goering. As you say, he did not want war against England or France in 1939, but was fully aware of the invasion of Poland and was convicted of all four counts at Nuremburg, including Crimes against Peace and the waging of aggresive war.
I really do not think that the invasion of Poland in 1939 was equivalent to the Iraq War in 2003.
Cameron in The Times is really socking it to Labour
Highlights include
Why we’re the true party of working people
The recovery is steaming ahead and our One Nation mission is restoring the link between hard work and reward
and
Look at today’s Labour leadership candidates. All of them are in a race to the left, vowing to borrow, tax and spend more — all the things that failed in the last century and were rejected at the last election. Listening to some of the anti-Nato, anti-American, profoundly anti-business and anti-enterprise debates is like Groundhog Day. Labour aren’t learning.
They’re slaves to a failed dogma that has always left working people paying the price. One of their most disturbing tendencies is their obedience to left-wing union leaders — the people who are behind the Tube strikes that have wreaked chaos in the capital this summer.
Compare and contrast with tomorrow's FT front page. That will have Tory backbenchers and members spitting into their cornflakes.
Just reading it now. I warned my fellow Tories they should be careful what they wish for with Corbyn as Labour leader.
I am pretty sure Dave factored left support for a Yes into his referendum calculations. JC changes that. It is 100% certain he will oppose the deal Dave gets, whatever concessions are made on workers' rights. Europe is the one area where JC can do direct damage to Dave - especially as Dave has less of a stake in a Tory victory in 2020.
Anyone, with any sense of anything would surely think that a hereditary, undemocratic tradition to decide your head of state is bonkers, beyond bonkers. It's bad enough enough with this latest batch of Lord's appointees-- but someone just by virtue of being the product of a shag is given this role, in England, in 2015......
When the Scottish parliament was created in 1999, Scotland spent a higher share of its budget on health and education than England. In government, the SNP has allowed spending in these areas to decline as a proportion of overall expenditure while increasing the money that goes on culture, transport, economic development and free personal care for the elderly. This shift is something Scots can ill-afford.
So not only a better health service but better value for money!
I'm sure the SNP will campaign on that!
Pity they'll struggle with the facts....
To some extent, the facts are irrelevant. perception is what matters and the public appear to believe the SHS is doing a very fine job. Now, I would say the facts support this, not meaningless political waffle you love to recite but the reality that people face.
While I can't actually recall the last time I went to a doctor or A&E, my own experience with my braces is excellent and I'm looking forward to my jaw surgery. It's good to have a quality health care service I can rely on.
Is this plastic surgery you're referencing?
No, it's corrective.
You actually said to someone's face what you say on here?
Cameron in The Times is really socking it to Labour
Highlights include
Why we’re the true party of working people
The recovery is steaming ahead and our One Nation mission is restoring the link between hard work and reward
and
Look at today’s Labour leadership candidates. All of them are in a race to the left, vowing to borrow, tax and spend more — all the things that failed in the last century and were rejected at the last election. Listening to some of the anti-Nato, anti-American, profoundly anti-business and anti-enterprise debates is like Groundhog Day. Labour aren’t learning.
They’re slaves to a failed dogma that has always left working people paying the price. One of their most disturbing tendencies is their obedience to left-wing union leaders — the people who are behind the Tube strikes that have wreaked chaos in the capital this summer.
Compare and contrast with tomorrow's FT front page. That will have Tory backbenchers and members spitting into their cornflakes.
Whats this got to do with Corbyn? Would any labour leader be different? In any event all that happens with headlines like this is that people just put their own spin on it. I suggest we wait and see what the result is in regard to 'a more flexible EU economy'. We can all then agree to like it or otherwise. But you should know (will you admit it?) that even if we left the EU we would be tied to labour rules and movement of labour from within the EEA or as part of any so called trade deal. Which is why, as I endlessly repeat, I shrug my shoulders over the whole issue.
Anyone, with any sense of anything would surely think that a hereditary, undemocratic tradition to decide your head of state is bonkers, beyond bonkers. It's bad enough enough with this latest batch of Lord's appointees-- but someone just by virtue of being the product of a shag is given this role, in England, in 2015......
How is Corbyn a "security risk"? Trident replacement is a shameful waste of money which we cannot afford. It cannot and never will be used. Are Germany, Spain, Ireland etc, etc all insecure countries because they don't blow billions on fantasy weapons when our conventional armed forces are run down almost to the point of uselessness.
You clearly do not understand the purpose of a deterrent.
Cameron in The Times is really socking it to Labour
Highlights include
Why we’re the true party of working people
The recovery is steaming ahead and our One Nation mission is restoring the link between hard work and reward
and
Look at today’s Labour leadership candidates. All of them are in a race to the left, vowing to borrow, tax and spend more — all the things that failed in the last century and were rejected at the last election. Listening to some of the anti-Nato, anti-American, profoundly anti-business and anti-enterprise debates is like Groundhog Day. Labour aren’t learning.
They’re slaves to a failed dogma that has always left working people paying the price. One of their most disturbing tendencies is their obedience to left-wing union leaders — the people who are behind the Tube strikes that have wreaked chaos in the capital this summer.
Compare and contrast with tomorrow's FT front page. That will have Tory backbenchers and members spitting into their cornflakes.
Whats this got to do with Corbyn? Would any labour leader be different? In any event all that happens with headlines like this is that people just put their own spin on it. I suggest we wait and see what the result is in regard to 'a more flexible EU economy'. We can all then agree to like it or otherwise. But you should know (will you admit it?) that even if we left the EU we would be tied to labour rules and movement of labour from within the EEA or as part of any so called trade deal. Which is why, as I endlessly repeat, I shrug my shoulders over the whole issue.
Please tell us more about George Osborne being the official Deputy Prime Minister
Its not the Queen's (or Head of State's powers) powers he wants weakened, he wants new powers for people other than the Queen who hands her perogative to the PM to deal with as he sees fit. The PM of course is subject to parliament and re election.
No, no, and thrice no. Henry Blofeld is a delight. He keeps me going every year. I would pay my license fee just for him alone.
My lefty principles go kind of out the window when I hear that Australian voice. I had an Australian girlfriend (physically very, very nice and very open minded)....well 2 nights of unabashed stuff.... but that accent. I couldn't cope with it.
And while I am ranting... why do we have Australians now commentating on cricket with that appalling accent ?
It's all a matter of personal taste. I like the Aussie voices on TMS. I much prefer them to an affected upper class British accent - like Blofeld, for example.
Anyway, why all the ranting tonight? In my younger days, when I was a card-carrying lefty, they used to tell me that the left loved their fellow man. It was only the evil Tories who where such haters.
I'm wondering whether we should renew Trident just so that we can nuke ISIS. Just like the Taliban in Afghanistan, they know their religious beliefs are on such flimsy grounds that they can not bear to have evidence of other belief systems about to suggest there is an alternative.
I find myself wishing Mohammed had never left Arabia. What barbarians these people are.
Cameron in The Times is really socking it to Labour
Highlights include
Why we’re the true party of working people
The recovery is steaming ahead and our One Nation mission is restoring the link between hard work and reward
and
Look at today’s Labour leadership candidates. All of them are in a race to the left, vowing to borrow, tax and spend more — all the things that failed in the last century and were rejected at the last election. Listening to some of the anti-Nato, anti-American, profoundly anti-business and anti-enterprise debates is like Groundhog Day. Labour aren’t learning.
They’re slaves to a failed dogma that has always left working people paying the price. One of their most disturbing tendencies is their obedience to left-wing union leaders — the people who are behind the Tube strikes that have wreaked chaos in the capital this summer.
Compare and contrast with tomorrow's FT front page. That will have Tory backbenchers and members spitting into their cornflakes.
Just reading it now. I warned my fellow Tories they should be careful what they wish for with Corbyn as Labour leader.
I hope to God this is still just playing with expectations. If the leaks are true, he will have given up on CAP reform, given up on limiting free movement, given up on treaty change and given up on the social chapter. And his government has already abandoned the opt out of policing and justice. What the hell is left? I guess double majority for non-Euro members, a red card system or a formal veto on financial regulations.
He won without Ukip and with the Blue Lib Dems, so he effectively owes the eurosceptics nothing.
I'm wondering whether we should renew Trident just so that we can nuke ISIS. Just like the Taliban in Afghanistan, they know their religious beliefs are on such flimsy grounds that they can not bear to have evidence of other belief systems about to suggest there is an alternative.
I find myself wishing Mohammed had never left Arabia. What barbarians these people are.
The Muslims looked after Palmyra for over a thousand years?
One may as well blame Christians for the fascists.
Out of interest, how did you perceive Osborne's continued repitition of the four stock phrases of "keeping britain safe", "uncertain and dangerous world", "threat to our future security" and "ultimate insurance policy".
Every question he was asked - same four stock phrases.
Personally I find that sort of thing insulting (like the Ed Miliband youtube with his stock phrases highlighted when he repeated them five times each. Everything he says about Trident is a lie, Osborne thinks people are muppets.
Maybe they are,
All this is rather academic, as the Americans would not let us use it in a million years. Anyone who thinks that a country that exercises its world power in the way the US does would knowingly manufacture a weapon of that magnitude and give it to a foreign power to use with impunity with no fail-safe mechanism, kill switch etc., is bonkers, simply bonkers.
What we have is a US asset on our soil that we pay for. I'm not particularly bothered by it being there as it happens - I don't think it makes us a particular target, because I don't think anyone takes it seriously as a deterrent. But I do bitterly resent us paying for it.
How many more times. This is a lie. The entire chain of command for trident is within British control. At no point is it necessary to gain permission from the USA. This lie is repeated and repeated and repeated. It is not true now and it never has been true.
I will repeat the command and control of the trident nuclear weapons are within the British government. The US plays no part in the firing process.
Whether we would ever fire a nuclear weapon without first discussing the issue with the US is another matter.
I doubt that this has much to do with Mohammed, god bless his cotton socks. Didn't the Nazis often resort to a christian pretext to commit their atrocities?
I must admit, that I find the wanton destruction of these magnificent antiquities quite appalling. It hits the same emotional chord in me as say, the badger cull, or fox hunting- the senseless killing of wildlife.
I'm wondering whether we should renew Trident just so that we can nuke ISIS. Just like the Taliban in Afghanistan, they know their religious beliefs are on such flimsy grounds that they can not bear to have evidence of other belief systems about to suggest there is an alternative.
I find myself wishing Mohammed had never left Arabia. What barbarians these people are.
Its not the Queen's (or Head of State's powers) powers he wants weakened, he wants new powers for people other than the Queen who hands her perogative to the PM to deal with as he sees fit. The PM of course is subject to parliament and re election.
Oops, it wasn't AndyJS, it was MikeL (I think!), that predicted the press would bang on about these sort of things. Was just pointing out that his prediction was right...
Cameron in The Times is really socking it to Labour
Highlights include
Why we’re the true party of working people
The recovery is steaming ahead and our One Nation mission is restoring the link between hard work and reward
and
Look at today’s Labour leadership candidates. All of them are in a race to the left, vowing to borrow, tax and spend more — all the things that failed in the last century and were rejected at the last election. Listening to some of the anti-Nato, anti-American, profoundly anti-business and anti-enterprise debates is like Groundhog Day. Labour aren’t learning.
They’re slaves to a failed dogma that has always left working people paying the price. One of their most disturbing tendencies is their obedience to left-wing union leaders — the people who are behind the Tube strikes that have wreaked chaos in the capital this summer.
Compare and contrast with tomorrow's FT front page. That will have Tory backbenchers and members spitting into their cornflakes.
Just reading it now. I warned my fellow Tories they should be careful what they wish for with Corbyn as Labour leader.
I hope to God this is still just playing with expectations. If the leaks are true, he will have given up on CAP reform, given up on limiting free movement, given up on treaty change and given up on the social chapter. And his government has already abandoned the opt out of policing and justice. What the hell is left? I guess double majority for non-Euro members, a red card system or a formal veto on financial regulations.
He won without Ukip and with the Blue Lib Dems, so he effectively owes the eurosceptics nothing.
This could be completely switched around: he won with Blue Ukippers and without the Lib Dems, so he effectively owes the pro-Europeans nothing.
In fact my version is much closer to the truth as he only limited losses to UKIP by promising an EU reformation. If you poll people that voted Conservative in 2015, the vast majority will be eurosceptic.
... I'm also intrigued by the historical precedent you quote for Russia accepting huge attritional losses from nuclear attack (or even otherwise) as a price worth paying for aggression. ...
Comments
While I can't actually recall the last time I went to a doctor or A&E, my own experience with my braces is excellent and I'm looking forward to my jaw surgery. It's good to have a quality health care service I can rely on.
The capability of the UK "deterrent" is grossly exaggerated and absolutely within Russian acceptable losses.
However you seem to be doing your best to make me change my mind.
i) How easy it would be for Les Rosbifs to wipe out Les Grenouilles with conventional weapons like a catapult or a walking towards them in a threatening manner
ii) Nuclear attacks on Scotland would improve some parts of Scotland
Reference to Iraq in 2003 arose from my suggestion that Blair and Bush were firmly committed to war in a way that Goering and the other Nuremburg defendants - Ribbentrop excepted - were not. Goering genuinely did wish to avoid war in 1939 - Blair and Bush did not in 2003 and consequently they would be more guilty than the Nazi defendants under the'Planning for Aggressive War' indictment as presented at Nuremburg.
Out of interest, how did you perceive Osborne's continued repitition of the four stock phrases of "keeping britain safe", "uncertain and dangerous world", "threat to our future security" and "ultimate insurance policy".
Every question he was asked - same four stock phrases.
Personally I find that sort of thing insulting (like the Ed Miliband youtube with his stock phrases highlighted when he repeated them five times each. Everything he says about Trident is a lie, Osborne thinks people are muppets.
Maybe they are,
How much are you sending to Guernsey?
Highlights include
Why we’re the true party of working people
The recovery is steaming ahead and our One Nation mission is restoring the link between hard work and reward
and
Look at today’s Labour leadership candidates. All of them are in a race to the left, vowing to borrow, tax and spend more — all the things that failed in the last century and were rejected at the last election. Listening to some of the anti-Nato, anti-American, profoundly anti-business and anti-enterprise debates is like Groundhog Day. Labour aren’t learning.
They’re slaves to a failed dogma that has always left working people paying the price. One of their most disturbing tendencies is their obedience to left-wing union leaders — the people who are behind the Tube strikes that have wreaked chaos in the capital this summer.
Tax exiled, inbred, collaborators- and that is the high mark of Guernsey achievements in the world.
You're engaging this again?
Which part of 'ordered to surrender' you don't understand?
I suppose the ideal situation would be if the Germans invaded France again.
Then we could kill two birds with one (nuclear) stone.
There is no comparison with Iraq which was subject to a ceasefire after its own illegal war of acquisition and was bombing its own civilians with poison gas. When asked at a news conference when standing next to Blair, Bush said 'regime change'. Spouting off about Bush and Blair being 'war criminals' is massively thick of both you and Comrade Corbyn.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNxCz2LWwAIjhsI.jpg
It's becoming increasingly apparent there there's a problem with the current method of selection leading to low-quality candidates.
Still, the FGW strike this weekend didn't stop me visiting Oxford on Saturday.
Surely you realise we can't leave everything to the French socialists.
Guernsey and Jersey are really quite atrocious places where tax exiles accumulate en masse and the locals are remnants of inbred, intergenerational, inter familial breeding.
Very pretty for a weekend, but any longer and you would want to blow your brains out. And I know...
What we have is a US asset on our soil that we pay for. I'm not particularly bothered by it being there as it happens - I don't think it makes us a particular target, because I don't think anyone takes it seriously as a deterrent. But I do bitterly resent us paying for it.
Let's guess who said this. Well, easy question really. Our very own Jezbollah.
The Islamic Human Rights Commission is infamous for having given an Islamophobe of the Year award to the murdered Charlie Hebdo cartoonists some two months after that tragedy.
Still, we have Corbyn to tell us about its values and the rights of individuals to free expression.
The cruellest is: "Is it in?"
It's almost as if we get plenty of opportunity to practice
The Chanel Islands....a hell on earth. Really, a place where anyone with any sense would not want to spend any time. If I had to stay there permanently, I would try and hide in a lorries under tyre to escape.
Unless of course you want to go and live in the Isle of Man Still haven't answered the question - what are you paying for Guernsey?
Hint - its 'nothing'.......
Wrong again......
Oh, and since you are an expert in my tax affairs, the basic rate of tax in Guernsey is the same as the UK and the personal allowance lower.....
But what do you know......nothing.....
I note you show lower only:)
Written by someone on over £90,000 a year......
a smidgen high, but you get better weather
Congratulations on your success...
How much are you sending to Guernsey?
Seriously?
You're engaging this again?
Which part of 'ordered to surrender' you don't understand?
Care to quote some stats to back up your assertions?
How much are you sending to Guernsey?
Seriously?
You're engaging this again?
Which part of 'ordered to surrender' you don't understand?
Care to quote some stats to back up your assertions?
I am not suggesting that the defendants did not have a lot to answer for in respect of the other indictments relating to the Holocaust - treatment of Prisoners of War and Foreign Workers etc -but I do not believe that Keitel or Goering had any say at all as to whether Poland - or later the USSR - was to be attacked.
Blair repeated on many occasions that he was not seeking regime change in Iraq. I never believed him - but it is what he said
Meantime Corbyn is trying to prove you can fool all of the people all of the time by covertly going from scruffy to smart casual on the campaign trail. Has he shed his hat for ever as well?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNw-qYcWcAEYbfj.jpg
Our nuclear deterrent may not consist of the thousands of nukes that Russia or the US have in their arsenals, but then it doesn't have to be. It is a minimal credible deterrent.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11835521/Jeremy-Corbyn-calls-for-Queens-powers-to-be-weakened.html
Is this his dead cat strategy in action though?
There I said it.
Someone at some point has to say enough is enough... but it is much better to come from a brave Tory who dares to speak the truth. The left will always get vilified.
It just needs a few more deep fat fryers in the defence budget...
Interestingly, the unthinkable is happening, and there are leaks from the FBI investigation, which is broadening.
The steady drip drip of the story continues, her numbers are showing it, but of course if the FBI moves her numbers are irrelevant.
Anyway, why all the ranting tonight? In my younger days, when I was a card-carrying lefty, they used to tell me that the left loved their fellow man. It was only the evil Tories who where such haters.
I'm more a split ticketer
Your analogy with Allied commanders in WW2 does not really stand up. None of the main defendants were convicted of crimes involved in actually fighting the war. The London Blitz, for example was not considered a war crime and nor was unrestricted submarine warfare.
The main points were the planning of an aggresive war against countries that had posed no threat to Germany or any other country. The other major issue, the war crimes and murder of civilians, slave labourers and indeed the Holocaust, were uniquely evil and punished accordingly, although as i have said earlier, many terrible war criminals escaped the full rigour of the law.
We have spoken of Goering. As you say, he did not want war against England or France in 1939, but was fully aware of the invasion of Poland and was convicted of all four counts at Nuremburg, including Crimes against Peace and the waging of aggresive war.
I really do not think that the invasion of Poland in 1939 was equivalent to the Iraq War in 2003.
Anyone, with any sense of anything would surely think that a hereditary, undemocratic tradition to decide your head of state is bonkers, beyond bonkers. It's bad enough enough with this latest batch of Lord's appointees-- but someone just by virtue of being the product of a shag is given this role, in England, in 2015......
Would any labour leader be different?
In any event all that happens with headlines like this is that people just put their own spin on it. I suggest we wait and see what the result is in regard to 'a more flexible EU economy'. We can all then agree to like it or otherwise.
But you should know (will you admit it?) that even if we left the EU we would be tied to labour rules and movement of labour from within the EEA or as part of any so called trade deal. Which is why, as I endlessly repeat, I shrug my shoulders over the whole issue.
I mean we're likely to have a believer of homoeopathy and Global warming as King soon, all because he married in to the right family.
UN confirms Palmyra temple destroyed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34111092
My lefty principles go kind of out the window when I hear that Australian voice. I had an Australian girlfriend (physically very, very nice and very open minded)....well 2 nights of unabashed stuff.... but that accent. I couldn't cope with it.
I find myself wishing Mohammed had never left Arabia. What barbarians these people are.
One may as well blame Christians for the fascists.
How many more times. This is a lie. The entire chain of command for trident is within British control. At no point is it necessary to gain permission from the USA. This lie is repeated and repeated and repeated. It is not true now and it never has been true.
I will repeat the command and control of the trident nuclear weapons are within the British government. The US plays no part in the firing process.
Whether we would ever fire a nuclear weapon without first discussing the issue with the US is another matter.
I must admit, that I find the wanton destruction of these magnificent antiquities quite appalling. It hits the same emotional chord in me as say, the badger cull, or fox hunting- the senseless killing of wildlife.
In fact my version is much closer to the truth as he only limited losses to UKIP by promising an EU reformation. If you poll people that voted Conservative in 2015, the vast majority will be eurosceptic.