Does Corbo even have any cheerleaders left on pb now?
It is excellent that Labour's vote has stabilised at 29%.A public debate on Trident is much needed fire services are to be cut by a further 20%,flood prevention and defences need investment Socialism is the language of priorites.Which is the greater threat to national security,fire cuts,cuts to GP services and cuts to flood defences,or Trident?
Donald J. Trump ?@realDonaldTrump 40m40 minutes ago Greatly dishonest of @TedCruz to file a financial disclosure form & not list his lending banks- then pretend he is going to clean up Wall St
And it's still going on.
So much for the idea that Cruz might be Trump's running mate! At least he is moving slowly on from where his opponent was born, onto what he says and who funds his campaign.
Whatever one may think about the Donald, he's at least his own man and isn't beholden to large campaign donors. That fact seems to be catching the imagination of Americans.
Early on Trump was matey with Carson, then he turned his guns on Uncle Ben and wiped him out in a couple of days. He's now repeating the process with the evangelical Cubano-Canuck Cruz. Ted is dead.
Does Corbo even have any cheerleaders left on pb now?
It is excellent that Labour's vote has stabilised at 29%.A public debate on Trident is much needed fire services are to be cut by a further 20%,flood prevention and defences need investment Socialism is the language of priorites.Which is the greater threat to national security,fire cuts,cuts to GP services and cuts to flood defences,or Trident?
As Corbyn will lose on Trident where is the money coming from. O of course the magic money tree
The pound is tanking. Good for manufacturing exports though. Loses 12 cents in two months. With the oil price being what it is, this is the best time for a devaluation.
Does Corbo even have any cheerleaders left on pb now?
It is excellent that Labour's vote has stabilised at 29%.A public debate on Trident is much needed fire services are to be cut by a further 20%,flood prevention and defences need investment Socialism is the language of priorites.Which is the greater threat to national security,fire cuts,cuts to GP services and cuts to flood defences,or Trident?
As Corbyn will lose on Trident where is the money coming from. O of course the magic money tree
On the evidence of today's 'speeches' from Corbyn, his priorities aren't the fire brigade or GP services, it is all about the trains.
Corbyn doesn't have priorities that matter. He has never had to make a difficult decision that has any real world effect.
Does Corbo even have any cheerleaders left on pb now?
It is excellent that Labour's vote has stabilised at 29%.A public debate on Trident is much needed fire services are to be cut by a further 20%,flood prevention and defences need investment Socialism is the language of priorites.Which is the greater threat to national security,fire cuts,cuts to GP services and cuts to flood defences,or Trident?
As Corbyn will lose on Trident where is the money coming from. O of course the magic money tree
On the evidence of today's 'speeches' from Corbyn, his priorities aren't the fire brigade or GP services, it is all about the trains.
Corbyn doesn't have priorities that matter. He has never had to make a difficult decision that has any real world effect.
And decimating the pension funds of millions of ordinary workers. He hasn't got a clue
Is that all that Cameron`s great renegotiation ploy consists of?
It seems to me that Cameron is the most feeble prime minister we have had since Neville Chamberlain.
So feeble, he's driven Labour insane and wiped out the Lib Dems. Just imagine what he would have achieved if he wasn't feeble.
Rubbish, Mr Eagles! Labour did it all by themselves.
As for the Lib Dems, Cameron was so feeble that the people at the top of the Lib Dems actually trusted him! From the beginning, Cameron was a broken reed. What the Tories had to do was import a rottweiler from abroad and give him a knighthood. Crosby won the last election for the Tories (albeit with under 25% of the registered voters). Cameron just dithered around, pretending to be a Lib Dem.
Why do we have to assume that staying nuclear has to be with Trident ? And, 4 of them.
I think that if you want one boat constantly on patrol, then you need one boat on patrol, another making its way to and from patrol, one / two in maintenance and/or training. So 4 is the minimum if you want constant at-sea deterrence (and I've forgotten the correct term for this. Again).
As for other delivery mechanisms: the V-bomber fleet (and the US version) were massively expensive, both in terms of money and lives. They are also very vulnerable to first strikes, which is why the US had constant air patrols with the consequent accidents and incidents.
Before you decide on a weapons system, you need to decide on its mission. You won't get away from the requirement for four Trident boats without changing the mission.
That's where the discussion should be: the mission, not the weapons.
Does Corbo even have any cheerleaders left on pb now?
It is excellent that Labour's vote has stabilised at 29%.A public debate on Trident is much needed fire services are to be cut by a further 20%,flood prevention and defences need investment Socialism is the language of priorites.Which is the greater threat to national security,fire cuts,cuts to GP services and cuts to flood defences,or Trident?
The Fire services, should be cut by a lot more than 20%, in the last 10 years the number of fires has gone down by aprox 50% and the number of people killed by 2/3s.
Does Corbo even have any cheerleaders left on pb now?
It is excellent that Labour's vote has stabilised at 29%.A public debate on Trident is much needed fire services are to be cut by a further 20%,flood prevention and defences need investment Socialism is the language of priorites.Which is the greater threat to national security,fire cuts,cuts to GP services and cuts to flood defences,or Trident?
The Fire services, should be cut by a lot more than 20%, in the last 10 years the number of fires has gone down by aprox 50% and the number of people killed by 2/3s.
Is that all that Cameron`s great renegotiation ploy consists of?
It seems to me that Cameron is the most feeble prime minister we have had since Neville Chamberlain.
So feeble, he's driven Labour insane and wiped out the Lib Dems. Just imagine what he would have achieved if he wasn't feeble.
Rubbish, Mr Eagles! Labour did it all by themselves.
As for the Lib Dems, Cameron was so feeble that the people at the top of the Lib Dems actually trusted him! From the beginning, Cameron was a broken reed. What the Tories had to do was import a rottweiler from abroad and give him a knighthood. Crosby won the last election for the Tories (albeit with under 25% of the registered voters). Cameron just dithered around, pretending to be a Lib Dem.
If that were the case why didn't people vote for the real thing?
Look, Cameron has his flaws, and I was among those who voted LD, but the idea Cameron is self evidently terrible loser who, to see you explain it, contributed pretty much nothing to his own victory, relying instead on the people being idiots (which is your implication in that Crosby must have tricked the people into voting Cameron, and that they only voted Cameron for acting like a LD, despite LDs being on the ballot), is pretty absurd.
I actually think there is something in the point that Cameron's apparent comfort in coalition made some people, particularly in the SW, think he was more acceptable to vote for than previous Tories, but you don't get as big a lead in the votes as he did purely on the opposition being crap and through tricks (and yes, I know it wasn't so big a lead given how small a parliamentary majority it is, but is still a lot more votes)
Why do we have to assume that staying nuclear has to be with Trident ? And, 4 of them.
I think that if you want one boat constantly on patrol, then you need one boat on patrol, another making its way to and from patrol, one / two in maintenance and/or training. So 4 is the minimum if you want constant at-sea deterrence (and I've forgotten the correct term for this. Again).
As for other delivery mechanisms: the V-bomber fleet (and the US version) were massively expensive, both in terms of money and lives. They are also very vulnerable to first strikes, which is why the US had constant air patrols with the consequent accidents and incidents.
Before you decide on a weapons system, you need to decide on its mission. You won't get away from the requirement for four Trident boats without changing the mission.
That's where the discussion should be: the mission, not the weapons.
"minute army". Do we need any more than Coldstream Guards ? That's what the tourists come to see anyway. Plus a battalion to carry sandbags in a flood.
Does Corbo even have any cheerleaders left on pb now?
It is excellent that Labour's vote has stabilised at 29%.A public debate on Trident is much needed fire services are to be cut by a further 20%,flood prevention and defences need investment Socialism is the language of priorites.Which is the greater threat to national security,fire cuts,cuts to GP services and cuts to flood defences,or Trident?
The Fire services, should be cut by a lot more than 20%, in the last 10 years the number of fires has gone down by aprox 50% and the number of people killed by 2/3s.
The only reason stopping the Labour party from splitting is that they (backbenchers) think the Corbyn project will fail miserably and then it'll be back to business as usual. If they really thought that Corbyn and his absurd group of London centric yokels would stay, they would jump ship.
Does Corbo even have any cheerleaders left on pb now?
It is excellent that Labour's vote has stabilised at 29%.A public debate on Trident is much needed fire services are to be cut by a further 20%,flood prevention and defences need investment Socialism is the language of priorites.Which is the greater threat to national security,fire cuts,cuts to GP services and cuts to flood defences,or Trident?
The Fire services, should be cut by a lot more than 20%, in the last 10 years the number of fires has gone down by aprox 50% and the number of people killed by 2/3s.
The fire service nowadays does a great deal more than deal with fires. You'd might want them around if you had a car crash, for instance.
Perhaps they should be renamed the 'Rescue service'; it's a more fitting title.
Is that all that Cameron`s great renegotiation ploy consists of?
It seems to me that Cameron is the most feeble prime minister we have had since Neville Chamberlain.
So feeble, he's driven Labour insane and wiped out the Lib Dems. Just imagine what he would have achieved if he wasn't feeble.
Rubbish, Mr Eagles! Labour did it all by themselves.
As for the Lib Dems, Cameron was so feeble that the people at the top of the Lib Dems actually trusted him! From the beginning, Cameron was a broken reed. What the Tories had to do was import a rottweiler from abroad and give him a knighthood. Crosby won the last election for the Tories (albeit with under 25% of the registered voters). Cameron just dithered around, pretending to be a Lib Dem.
I see you're still as bitter as ever about the GE and Cameron's triumph. However you sound like tonight you may have just had that extra glass of vino too many
Is that all that Cameron`s great renegotiation ploy consists of?
It seems to me that Cameron is the most feeble prime minister we have had since Neville Chamberlain.
So feeble, he's driven Labour insane and wiped out the Lib Dems. Just imagine what he would have achieved if he wasn't feeble.
Rubbish, Mr Eagles! Labour did it all by themselves.
As for the Lib Dems, Cameron was so feeble that the people at the top of the Lib Dems actually trusted him! From the beginning, Cameron was a broken reed. What the Tories had to do was import a rottweiler from abroad and give him a knighthood. Crosby won the last election for the Tories (albeit with under 25% of the registered voters). Cameron just dithered around, pretending to be a Lib Dem.
If that were the case why didn't people vote for the real thing?
Look, Cameron has his flaws, and I was among those who voted LD, but the idea Cameron is self evidently terrible loser who, to see you explain it, contributed pretty much nothing to his own victory, relying instead on the people being idiots (which is your implication in that Crosby must have tricked the people into voting Cameron, and that they only voted Cameron for acting like a LD, despite LDs being on the ballot), is pretty absurd.
I actually think there is something in the point that Cameron's apparent comfort in coalition made some people, particularly in the SW, think he was more acceptable to vote for than previous Tories, but you don't get as big a lead in the votes as he did purely on the opposition being crap and through tricks (and yes, I know it wasn't so big a lead given how small a parliamentary majority it is, but is still a lot more votes)
Cameron commands the centre ground, like Blair. No one can deny that.
"An SNP politician has been suspended by the party after allegedly sending hateful text messages to a Muslim colleague.Dundee City councillor Craig Melville, an aide to SNP deputy leader Stewart Hosie, is alleged to have sent a number of texts to an unnamed woman within the party, shorty after the terror attacks in Paris.
According to the Daily Record newspaper, one text read: "It's not personal I just ******* hate your religion and I'll do all in I'm life do defeat your filth." (sic)
Another reportedly said: "And in your favour we live in an uneducated left lift loopy left wing society who is more interested in claiming benefits and being ignorant to the threat of your horrible disease which is a make believe **** in the sky. (sic)
Is that all that Cameron`s great renegotiation ploy consists of?
It seems to me that Cameron is the most feeble prime minister we have had since Neville Chamberlain.
So feeble, he's driven Labour insane and wiped out the Lib Dems. Just imagine what he would have achieved if he wasn't feeble.
Rubbish, Mr Eagles! Labour did it all by themselves.
As for the Lib Dems, Cameron was so feeble that the people at the top of the Lib Dems actually trusted him! From the beginning, Cameron was a broken reed. What the Tories had to do was import a rottweiler from abroad and give him a knighthood. Crosby won the last election for the Tories (albeit with under 25% of the registered voters). Cameron just dithered around, pretending to be a Lib Dem.
If that were the case why didn't people vote for the real thing?
Look, Cameron has his flaws, and I was among those who voted LD, but the idea Cameron is self evidently terrible loser who, to see you explain it, contributed pretty much nothing to his own victory, relying instead on the people being idiots (which is your implication in that Crosby must have tricked the people into voting Cameron, and that they only voted Cameron for acting like a LD, despite LDs being on the ballot), is pretty absurd.
I actually think there is something in the point that Cameron's apparent comfort in coalition made some people, particularly in the SW, think he was more acceptable to vote for than previous Tories, but you don't get as big a lead in the votes as he did purely on the opposition being crap and through tricks (and yes, I know it wasn't so big a lead given how small a parliamentary majority it is, but is still a lot more votes)
Cameron commands the centre ground, like Blair. No one can deny that.
And he will consolidate it over the rest of his Premiership effectively locking labour out of the centre ground indefinately
I think that is much the same for the Old Bill. It is virtually impossible to nick a car or anything of note for that matter. Any public order offence will be spotted by CCTV. DNA evidence stops most serial rapists or murderers in their tracks.
It is little wonder that they spend countless amount of resources in operation Yew Tree chasing down people who committed offences half a century ago. It is impossible for anyone to get away with anything today.
Does Corbo even have any cheerleaders left on pb now?
It is excellent that Labour's vote has stabilised at 29%.A public debate on Trident is much needed fire services are to be cut by a further 20%,flood prevention and defences need investment Socialism is the language of priorites.Which is the greater threat to national security,fire cuts,cuts to GP services and cuts to flood defences,or Trident?
The Fire services, should be cut by a lot more than 20%, in the last 10 years the number of fires has gone down by aprox 50% and the number of people killed by 2/3s.
The only reason stopping the Labour party from splitting is that they (backbenchers) think the Corbyn project will fail miserably and then it'll be back to business as usual. If they really thought that Corbyn and his absurd group of London centric yokels would stay, they would jump ship.
Does Corbo even have any cheerleaders left on pb now?
It is excellent that Labour's vote has stabilised at 29%.A public debate on Trident is much needed fire services are to be cut by a further 20%,flood prevention and defences need investment Socialism is the language of priorites.Which is the greater threat to national security,fire cuts,cuts to GP services and cuts to flood defences,or Trident?
The Fire services, should be cut by a lot more than 20%, in the last 10 years the number of fires has gone down by aprox 50% and the number of people killed by 2/3s.
Why do the Tories not believe in global warming ? There is a warm dividend !!!
The main reason there has been a drop in the number of fires is because of the number of people who has stopped smocking, or at least, cut down/smock in the garden. as well as an increase in the reliabliaty of electricle and gas appliances. this combined with the increase in the number of houses with fire/smock detecters has resulted in an even bigger reduction in the number of deaths, all good stuff! I realy don't think the amount of rainfall would have a significant impact on the number of buildings that catch fire, nor do I think that there has been any significant change in the amount of rain, when averaged over a year.
While a bad result for Labour seems near certain, albeit with likely alleviation in the form of a London win, the LibDems might also be heading for yet another dredful result.
Don't forget UKIP, they were on around 3% in 2012, they will do a lot better than that in 2016, which could lead to all sorts of odd results in May.
It's going to be fun watching Labour's expectations management running up to the local elections. The 2012 local elections were at the peak of Labour's popularity in the last Parliament. Depending on which polls one believes, there's been around a 9 point swing Lab-Con since then, as well as a huge increase in the UKIP vote.
You are assuming they will have a media management team that can do things as clever as expectation management. They haven't shown anything close to that since Corbyn and Milne took over.
Labour won 2,100 seats in 2012 so if it loses 500-600 that would be 1,500 councillors for socialism!
They didn't lose that many in 2008 when they where 20 points behind the Tories. I would expect a partial reversal of the gains of 2012, on the order of 200, mostly in rural areas already under Tory control. Although my guess is that Labour will suffer mass loses in Redditch which is the Tory capital.
The Conservatives lost 405 seats 2012, when they had a NEV deficit of 7%, against a lead in 2008 - as you say - of 20%. As the Lib Dems lost 336 seats, few will have gone Con-LD so most will have been Labour gains.
It's probably not smoothly distributed but a Con lead of 6% would be midway between those two outcomes so losses of c.200 would be ballpark. On top of which, there are then the gains that UKIP might make. If the elections were tomorrow, I'd reckon on perhaps 250 Lab losses.
Might I ask which wards the Wakefield Conservatives are targeting this year
As for the Lib Dems, Cameron was so feeble that the people at the top of the Lib Dems actually trusted him! From the beginning, Cameron was a broken reed. What the Tories had to do was import a rottweiler from abroad and give him a knighthood. Crosby won the last election for the Tories (albeit with under 25% of the registered voters). Cameron just dithered around, pretending to be a Lib Dem.
I see you're still as bitter as ever about the GE and Cameron's triumph. However you sound like tonight you may have just had that extra glass of vino too many
Not in the least, Mr Felix. I have only now just opened the bottle.....
I think that is much the same for the Old Bill. It is virtually impossible to nick a car or anything of note for that matter. Any public order offence will be spotted by CCTV. DNA evidence stops most serial rapists or murderers in their tracks.
It is little wonder that they spend countless amount of resources in operation Yew Tree chasing down people who committed offences half a century ago. It is impossible for anyone to get away with anything today.
Does Corbo even have any cheerleaders left on pb now?
It is excellent that Labour's vote has stabilised at 29%.A public debate on Trident is much needed fire services are to be cut by a further 20%,flood prevention and defences need investment Socialism is the language of priorites.Which is the greater threat to national security,fire cuts,cuts to GP services and cuts to flood defences,or Trident?
The Fire services, should be cut by a lot more than 20%, in the last 10 years the number of fires has gone down by aprox 50% and the number of people killed by 2/3s.
"Virtually impossible to nick a car"
69,547 cars were stolen in 2014. A 48-year low, but it's certainly very possible.
As for the role of the police: someone needs to gather evidence. Without a DNA database, DNA is useless until you have suspects, and is unavailable for many crimes.
"It is impossible for anyone to get away with anything today."
How do we know? The best criminals are the ones no-one knows anything about ...
46 per cent for parenting classes is the real Britain, not the free-trading libertarian paradise that you might imagine from comments here Thank god for the European Court of Human Rights which would overreach to protect parents who wanted to avoid government-ordered reeducation
Labour and Corbyn's numbers are dire. 'Unelectable' doesn't do them justice: Labour are heading for a 1930s result if he stays the distance. It's not going to get better.
Corbyn would accept a 1930s result if he gets a 1940s majority for some like-minded successor
Don't forget UKIP, they were on around 3% in 2012, they will do a lot better than that in 2016, which could lead to all sorts of odd results in May.
It's going to be fun watching Labour's expectations management running up to the local elections. The 2012 local elections were at the peak of Labour's popularity in the last Parliament. Depending on which polls one believes, there's been around a 9 point swing Lab-Con since then, as well as a huge increase in the UKIP vote.
You are assuming they will have a media management team that can do things as clever as expectation management. They haven't shown anything close to that since Corbyn and Milne took over.
Labour won 2,100 seats in 2012 so if it loses 500-600 that would be 1,500 councillors for socialism!
They didn't lose that many in 2008 when they where 20 points behind the Tories. I would expect a partial reversal of the gains of 2012, on the order of 200, mostly in rural areas already under Tory control. Although my guess is that Labour will suffer mass loses in Redditch which is the Tory capital.
The Conservatives lost 405 seats 2012, when they had a NEV deficit of 7%, against a lead in 2008 - as you say - of 20%. As the Lib Dems lost 336 seats, few will have gone Con-LD so most will have been Labour gains.
It's probably not smoothly distributed but a Con lead of 6% would be midway between those two outcomes so losses of c.200 would be ballpark. On top of which, there are then the gains that UKIP might make. If the elections were tomorrow, I'd reckon on perhaps 250 Lab losses.
Might I ask which wards the Wakefield Conservatives are targeting this year
46 per cent for parenting classes is the real Britain, not the free-trading libertarian paradise that you might imagine from comments here Thank god for the European Court of Human Rights which would overreach to protect parents who wanted to avoid government-ordered reeducation
I know nothing about the policy, although if it was presented to me like in the table, just the name of the idea, I'd be inclined to be against it. Sounds like overreach.
As for the Lib Dems, Cameron was so feeble that the people at the top of the Lib Dems actually trusted him! From the beginning, Cameron was a broken reed. What the Tories had to do was import a rottweiler from abroad and give him a knighthood. Crosby won the last election for the Tories (albeit with under 25% of the registered voters). Cameron just dithered around, pretending to be a Lib Dem.
I see you're still as bitter as ever about the GE and Cameron's triumph. However you sound like tonight you may have just had that extra glass of vino too many
Not in the least, Mr Felix. I have only now just opened the bottle.....
David Cameron’s campaign to keep Britain in the EU receives a boost today from the Independent on Sunday Poll, which finds that the central demand of his renegotiation is supported by a huge majority.
The poll, carried out by ComRes, finds that 84 per cent of voters support the Prime Minister’s plan to require people who come to the UK from the EU to pay taxes for four years before they can claim tax credits and other benefits. It also finds substantial backing for EU citizens being free to work in other EU countries, supported by 49 per cent and opposed by 29 per cent.
It seems odd that this is presented as "a boost to keep Britain in the EU". Even if they support that policy when asked, it doesn't necessarily follow that they would then vote to stay in if the policy is passed.
I think that is much the same for the Old Bill. It is virtually impossible to nick a car or anything of note for that matter. Any public order offence will be spotted by CCTV. DNA evidence stops most serial rapists or murderers in their tracks.
It is little wonder that they spend countless amount of resources in operation Yew Tree chasing down people who committed offences half a century ago. It is impossible for anyone to get away with anything today.
Does Corbo even have any cheerleaders left on pb now?
It is excellent that Labour's vote has stabilised at 29%.A public debate on Trident is much needed fire services are to be cut by a further 20%,flood prevention and defences need investment Socialism is the language of priorites.Which is the greater threat to national security,fire cuts,cuts to GP services and cuts to flood defences,or Trident?
The Fire services, should be cut by a lot more than 20%, in the last 10 years the number of fires has gone down by aprox 50% and the number of people killed by 2/3s.
"Virtually impossible to nick a car"
69,547 cars were stolen in 2014. A 48-year low, but it's certainly very possible.
As for the role of the police: someone needs to gather evidence. Without a DNA database, DNA is useless until you have suspects, and is unavailable for many crimes.
"It is impossible for anyone to get away with anything today."
How do we know? The best criminals are the ones no-one knows anything about ...
But, the amount of crime is falling! therefor I agree with Tyson, we can and therefore should cut spending in this area.
Labour and Corbyn's numbers are dire. 'Unelectable' doesn't do them justice: Labour are heading for a 1930s result if he stays the distance. It's not going to get better.
Corbyn would accept a 1930s result if he gets a 1940s majority for some like-minded successor
But that will never happen. Anyone will the same mind-set as Corbyn will just generate the same poor results. The UK electorate is never going to give power to people like that.
"An SNP politician has been suspended by the party after allegedly sending hateful text messages to a Muslim colleague.Dundee City councillor Craig Melville, an aide to SNP deputy leader Stewart Hosie, is alleged to have sent a number of texts to an unnamed woman within the party, shorty after the terror attacks in Paris.
According to the Daily Record newspaper, one text read: "It's not personal I just ******* hate your religion and I'll do all in I'm life do defeat your filth." (sic)
Another reportedly said: "And in your favour we live in an uneducated left lift loopy left wing society who is more interested in claiming benefits and being ignorant to the threat of your horrible disease which is a make believe **** in the sky. (sic)
If that were the case why didn't people vote for the real thing?
Look, Cameron has his flaws, and I was among those who voted LD, but the idea Cameron is self evidently terrible loser who, to see you explain it, contributed pretty much nothing to his own victory, relying instead on the people being idiots (which is your implication in that Crosby must have tricked the people into voting Cameron, and that they only voted Cameron for acting like a LD, despite LDs being on the ballot), is pretty absurd.
I actually think there is something in the point that Cameron's apparent comfort in coalition made some people, particularly in the SW, think he was more acceptable to vote for than previous Tories, but you don't get as big a lead in the votes as he did purely on the opposition being crap and through tricks (and yes, I know it wasn't so big a lead given how small a parliamentary majority it is, but is still a lot more votes)
According to the opinion polls, we were going to end up with a Parliament with no overall majority. So a lot of people voted for one of the Coalition partners, without taking too much time to decide which. And since Cameron spent the whole election campaign taking possession of the policies that the Lib Dems had brought to the Coalition Government, that was what they voted for.
The Tories are now busy putting into reverse many of these successful and popular Lib Dem policies. Can anybody point out to me when in the election cammpaign the Tories promised to do this?
And no, Mr Kle4, Cameron did not get a big lead in the votes. 36% of the votes cast is by no means a big lead.
As I see it, Cameron can succeed only by pretending to be what he is not. I see him as unprincipled, out of his depth, a poor negotiator and I dislike him very much.
I think that the Com Res poll results tonight are stunning. The Labour leader has been defined in the space of four months.The PM dominates the centre ground of politics. Surely the strong public support for freedom of movement to work and the 4 year bar on benefits for EU migrants is a clear signal that if the PM comes back with a package of reforms and a recommendation to stay in Europe he is likely to prevail. As to the 8 per cent who think that the Labour party is united I imagine that the same 8 per cent would say that they believe Aston Villa will win the Premiership.
I wonder whether this story will make the national media in Germany.
The headline and the detail don't quite match.
In no way am I seeking to diminish the attack on the women, being pelted with chips from a gravel bed is not the same as being stoned in the sense being created by the headline.
It should not have happened and it was still an unprovoked attack of a very nasty nature. But gravel is very different to stones. And the reporting is designed to create impact rather than reporting the reality of the events.
It seems odd that this is presented as "a boost to keep Britain in the EU". Even if they support that policy when asked, it doesn't necessarily follow that they would then vote to stay in if the policy is passed.
I suppose it could be a boost in this sense: if Cameron gets some kind of deal in that area and says "I've got a deal on the critical issue of migrant benefits" then it looks like that would get some kind of traction (as opposed to the public saying "Wtf? Migrant benefits? Are you insane? Who care about that?")
If that were the case why didn't people vote for the real thing?
Look, Cameron has his flaws, and I was among those who voted LD, but the idea Cameron is self evidently terrible loser who, to see you explain it, contributed pretty much nothing to his own victory, relying instead on the people being idiots (which is your implication in that Crosby must have tricked the people into voting Cameron, and that they only voted Cameron for acting like a LD, despite LDs being on the ballot), is pretty absurd.
I actually think there is something in the point that Cameron's apparent comfort in coalition made some people, particularly in the SW, think he was more acceptable to vote for than previous Tories, but you don't get as big a lead in the votes as he did purely on the opposition being crap and through tricks (and yes, I know it wasn't so big a lead given how small a parliamentary majority it is, but is still a lot more votes)
According to the opinion polls, we were going to end up with a Parliament with no overall majority. So a lot of people voted for one of the Coalition partners, without taking too much time to decide which. And since Cameron spent the whole election campaign taking possession of the policies that the Lib Dems had brought to the Coalition Government, that was what they voted for.
The Tories are now busy putting into reverse many of these successful and popular Lib Dem policies. Can anybody point out to me when in the election cammpaign the Tories promised to do this?
And no, Mr Kle4, Cameron did not get a big lead in the votes. 36% of the votes cast is by no means a big lead.
As I see it, Cameron can succeed only by pretending to be what he is not. I see him as unprincipled, out of his depth, a poor negotiator and I dislike him very much.
If the current poll is roughly right, the public don't share your analysis. They seem to retain their preference for the Conservatives over the Lib Dems.
If that were the case why didn't people vote for the real thing?
Look, Cameron has his flaws, and I was among those who voted LD, but the idea Cameron is self evidently terrible loser who, to see you explain it, contributed pretty much nothing to his own victory, relying instead on the people being idiots (which is your implication in that Crosby must have tricked the people into voting Cameron, and that they only voted Cameron for acting like a LD, despite LDs being on the ballot), is pretty absurd.
I actually think there is something in the point that Cameron's apparent comfort in coalition made some people, particularly in the SW, think he was more acceptable to vote for than previous Tories, but you don't get as big a lead in the votes as he did purely on the opposition being crap and through tricks (and yes, I know it wasn't so big a lead given how small a parliamentary majority it is, but is still a lot more votes)
According to the opinion polls, we were going to end up with a Parliament with no overall majority. So a lot of people voted for one of the Coalition partners, without taking too much time to decide which. And since Cameron spent the whole election campaign taking possession of the policies that the Lib Dems had brought to the Coalition Government, that was what they voted for.
Whose fault is it that the LDs disowned their part in the last government?
Why do we have to assume that staying nuclear has to be with Trident ? And, 4 of them.
I think that if you want one boat constantly on patrol, then you need one boat on patrol, another making its way to and from patrol, one / two in maintenance and/or training. So 4 is the minimum if you want constant at-sea deterrence (and I've forgotten the correct term for this. Again).
As for other delivery mechanisms: the V-bomber fleet (and the US version) were massively expensive, both in terms of money and lives. They are also very vulnerable to first strikes, which is why the US had constant air patrols with the consequent accidents and incidents.
Before you decide on a weapons system, you need to decide on its mission. You won't get away from the requirement for four Trident boats without changing the mission.
That's where the discussion should be: the mission, not the weapons.
The original reason that Polaris was 4 was - 1 on patrol, 1 on the way to/from patrol. 1 in training & 1 in refit.
The time to get on patrol was constrained by the need to go North - well inside the Arctic circle. This was so that Polaris could reach Russia.
Interestingly, the original estimate was 5 boats. This was due to the original basing plan being in Portsmouth. The boats going on patrol would have had to trundle up the West Coast at 3 Knots...
3-5 knots was the maximum speed the Polaris boats could go without running the pumps on the reactor (the nosiest piece of machinery on board).
When Trident came in some things changed - Trident could hit Moscow from Portsmouth (if you wanted to). The boats had a higher silent speed - 10-15knots before switching on the pumps.
When they downloaded to a reduced number of warheads after the Cold War - the range of the missiles has increased massively. Conservatively, with 5 warheads Trident can hit any point on the planet - from any other point..
The next generation subs will probably have a silent speed in the range of 20 knots - the Americans swapped the technology for natural convection reactors (which only use pumps at max power) for our work on ducted propellers (pumpjets).
So a next generation Trident sub would be able to hit anywhere on the planet. From anywhere.
It might be possible to drop down to 3 boats - given the above. The argument against that is maintaining the sub building schedule and keeping the skills.
Congratulations to our new ally Iran for their sensible choice: The Associated PressVerified account @AP 4h4 hours ago BREAKING: Iran Transport Minister: Deal signed to buy 114 Airbus planes as soon as sanctions are lifted.
BBC Breaking NewsVerified account @BBCBreaking 42m42 minutes ago Economic sanctions on Iran lifted, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini announces http://bbc.in/1Wie0kw
Why do we have to assume that staying nuclear has to be with Trident ? And, 4 of them.
All the nuclear powers went to submarine-launch as soon as they could because land-based weaponry was just too vulnerable. As the 50's advanced the USAF became more and more stressed by the pressure. By the end the pilots were sleeping in/near the planes, the planes had rockets attached for rapid launch and half the planes were in the air 24/7. Base commanders were stressed, airframes were aging rapidly, and they even started designing atomic-powered bombers. Things were just too much. As soon as it was demonstrated you could launch missiles from a sub, the armed forces said "fuck it", breathed out, and transferred the nukes to undetectable subs that can patrol for years.
The UK had even more incentive. The warning time from the Warsaw Pact Western border to the UK was only a few minutes, and the fuelling times for liquid-fuel land-based missiles were in the tens of minutes. You would have to have had ground crews working fuelling missiles in the full knowledge that most of them would burn to death before their task was complete. The RAF had V-bombers, but never in the numbers the US had and again, you would lose some on the ground. A nation with a history of sub building, a maritime tradition and little land area to hide would gravitate to sub-launch like a drowning man. If the UK is going to keep nukes, it's going to want to keep SLBMs
Congratulations to our new ally Iran for their sensible choice: The Associated PressVerified account @AP 4h4 hours ago BREAKING: Iran Transport Minister: Deal signed to buy 114 Airbus planes as soon as sanctions are lifted.
BBC Breaking NewsVerified account @BBCBreaking 42m42 minutes ago Economic sanctions on Iran lifted, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini announces http://bbc.in/1Wie0kw
They need to get rid of Hunt well before the Autumn. Even if the doctors' dispute is settled Hunt is toxic to any NHS worker. We know he's prepared to scheme and lie and play politics rather than work for the NHS.
And no, Mr Kle4, Cameron did not get a big lead in the votes. 36% of the votes cast is by no means a big lead.
Yes he did. I happen to want to change the voting system to make it harder to win a majority on 36% of the vote, but his party got millions more votes than the next lot, that was the extent of my point and it is a fact. Fair or not, and whether it is a 'good' lead or not, he got millions more votes, and more votes is a lead. I don't even understand being obstinate on that point. For heaven's sake, I took extra care to clarify that it wasn't sobig a lead, given the small parliamentary majority, but that it was a big lead in votes cast (two million more I believe, as it seems to have slipped your mind)
And I would also point out that '36% of the votes cast is by no means a big lead' doesn't actually comment on the lead at all, just how many votes the Tories got, which is not the same thing at all. So I presume you misunderstood the point. According to the opinion polls, we were going to end up with a Parliament with no overall majority. So a lot of people voted for one of the Coalition partners, without taking too much time to decide which. And since Cameron spent the whole election campaign taking possession of the policies that the Lib Dems had brought to the Coalition Government, that was what they voted for.
So people like LD policies, but not the LDs, and Cameron was able to own those policies because apparently there was no one to prevent him doing that. Like, say, a LD party which could say 'Hey, those were our ideas, if you want more of them, you should vote LD'? I seem to remember seeing and hearing people saying that, but I guess not.
I must say, I hope the remaining LDs are not sharing your bitter analysis which relies upon the public being stupid and easily duped. I think the absence of a strong third party (which operates nationally, which rules out the SNP) is a bad thing, and I think they will find it hard to insult their way back to support.
If that were the case why didn't people vote for the real thing?
Look, Cameron has his flaws, and I was among those who voted LD, but the idea Cameron is self evidently terrible loser who, to see you explain it, contributed pretty much nothing to his own victory, relying instead on the people being idiots (which is your implication in that Crosby must have tricked the people into voting Cameron, and that they only voted Cameron for acting like a LD, despite LDs being on the ballot), is pretty absurd.
I actually think there is something in the point that Cameron's apparent comfort in coalition made some people, particularly in the SW, think he was more acceptable to vote for than previous Tories, but you don't get as big a lead in the votes as he did purely on the opposition being crap and through tricks (and yes, I know it wasn't so big a lead given how small a parliamentary majority it is, but is still a lot more votes)
According to the opinion polls, we were going to end up with a Parliament with no overall majority. So a lot of people voted for one of the Coalition partners, without taking too much time to decide which. And since Cameron spent the whole election campaign taking possession of the policies that the Lib Dems had brought to the Coalition Government, that was what they voted for.
The Tories are now busy putting into reverse many of these successful and popular Lib Dem policies. Can anybody point out to me when in the election cammpaign the Tories promised to do this?
And no, Mr Kle4, Cameron did not get a big lead in the votes. 36% of the votes cast is by no means a big lead.
As I see it, Cameron can succeed only by pretending to be what he is not. I see him as unprincipled, out of his depth, a poor negotiator and I dislike him very much.
For a weekend ComRes poll this is nothing new and tends to suggest that other pollsters will be showing a much smaller Tory lead.
ComRes will tell you they were the most accurate pollster at the General Election.
Gold Standard and all that jazz.
But ICM will tell you their polls probably still underestimate the Tories and overestimate Lab
But other commentators have suggested that ComRes has overcompensated and that its assumptions re - DKs are not sound. For some reason the Daily Mail Comres poll tends to come up with figures much closer to the other pollsters. Back in November this Weekend poll gave the Tories a 15% lead - Con 42 - Lab 27.
That maybe so, and I've discussed it with ComRes, but this is Corbyn's honeymoon, the Tories are being shite, yet his leader ratings are awful with each passing month, and the Tories might only be 5% ahead.
None of this is good news for Labour nor Corbyn.
Honeymoons are rather a thing of the past nowadays as most relationships are consummated well in advance of the Wedding Day! But to be serious - and as a non-Corbyn supporter - I don't think he has had a honeymoon in any sense that lasted beyond his Party Conference. I would point out,though, that 11% matches the lowest ComRes online poll lead to date. Doubtless the next week will give us useful meat from other pollsters to chew over!
So what has changed in five years? Ed enjoyed a honeymoon, he had a 4% lead over the Tories with ComRes in Jan 2011
I don't think that Ed's narrow defeat of his brother in 2010 caused anything like the divisions - apart from personal fraternal relationships -now being seen in Labour ranks.Ed also enjoyed the great bonus of left of centre LibDems having switched in big numbers to Labour following the formation of the Coalition.
Where are those left-of-centre Lib Dems now?
Mostly staying at home. It is a while til the next election though and they may get motivated again.
I think that the Com Res poll results tonight are stunning. The Labour leader has been defined in the space of four months.The PM dominates the centre ground of politics. Surely the strong public support for freedom of movement to work and the 4 year bar on benefits for EU migrants is a clear signal that if the PM comes back with a package of reforms and a recommendation to stay in Europe he is likely to prevail. As to the 8 per cent who think that the Labour party is united I imagine that the same 8 per cent would say that they believe Aston Villa will win the Premiership.
Why has the Tory lead dropped by 4% since November?
Congratulations to our new ally Iran for their sensible choice: The Associated PressVerified account @AP 4h4 hours ago BREAKING: Iran Transport Minister: Deal signed to buy 114 Airbus planes as soon as sanctions are lifted.
BBC Breaking NewsVerified account @BBCBreaking 42m42 minutes ago Economic sanctions on Iran lifted, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini announces http://bbc.in/1Wie0kw
Excellent news and lots more trade to follow
4000 jobs at Filton 6000 at Broughton
Broughton of course in Flintshire. Excellent news for the North West bordering on the Northern Powerhouse.
I think that the Com Res poll results tonight are stunning. The Labour leader has been defined in the space of four months.The PM dominates the centre ground of politics. Surely the strong public support for freedom of movement to work and the 4 year bar on benefits for EU migrants is a clear signal that if the PM comes back with a package of reforms and a recommendation to stay in Europe he is likely to prevail. As to the 8 per cent who think that the Labour party is united I imagine that the same 8 per cent would say that they believe Aston Villa will win the Premiership.
Why has the Tory lead dropped by 4% since November?
They have been pretty crappy recently, at least that's the general impression they give off.
They need to get rid of Hunt well before the Autumn. Even if the doctors' dispute is settled Hunt is toxic to any NHS worker. We know he's prepared to scheme and lie and play politics rather than work for the NHS.
While I agree with your some of your comments the Health Secretary's first duty is patients well being and to take on vested interests within the NHS in the wider good
Congratulations to our new ally Iran for their sensible choice: The Associated PressVerified account @AP 4h4 hours ago BREAKING: Iran Transport Minister: Deal signed to buy 114 Airbus planes as soon as sanctions are lifted.
BBC Breaking NewsVerified account @BBCBreaking 42m42 minutes ago Economic sanctions on Iran lifted, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini announces http://bbc.in/1Wie0kw
Excellent news and lots more trade to follow
4000 jobs at Filton 6000 at Broughton
Broughton of course in Flintshire. Excellent news for the North West bordering on the Northern Powerhouse.
Yes my son in law is a senior engineer in Broughton
That does not sound right. Which seats would they win?
God only knows. A big problem is they have few areas they are even close now, and not even many second places from which to build from. They were actually surprisingly close in East Dunbartonshire, a couple of thousand out, maybe there? Twickenham?
They need to get rid of Hunt well before the Autumn. Even if the doctors' dispute is settled Hunt is toxic to any NHS worker. We know he's prepared to scheme and lie and play politics rather than work for the NHS.
It does seem strange that it is a common position of PB righties, that his euro-negotiation is a sham, yet believe that Hunts negotiations are meaningful.
I think that the Com Res poll results tonight are stunning. The Labour leader has been defined in the space of four months.The PM dominates the centre ground of politics. Surely the strong public support for freedom of movement to work and the 4 year bar on benefits for EU migrants is a clear signal that if the PM comes back with a package of reforms and a recommendation to stay in Europe he is likely to prevail. As to the 8 per cent who think that the Labour party is united I imagine that the same 8 per cent would say that they believe Aston Villa will win the Premiership.
Why has the Tory lead dropped by 4% since November?
Floods? Doctors? Conservative support is going to have ups and downs. I would have assumed Labour would get a lead at some point in the Parliament but I'm losing confidence in that.
He seems like a canny chap, Sadiq Khan. The impression I get just from what I pick up from the blogosphere (which admittedly is not much, but more than the average person uninterested in politics) is he is aware of the potential danger of losing voters by being too close to Corbyn, of people staying home, but seems careful enough not to annoy all those who do happen to like Corbyn, so should pick up enough of both to rely on Labour's general strength in the capital to win. As Ken increased his vote share in 2012, without the Boris factor or Khan undermining himself, he seems well placed.
Don't forget UKIP, they were on around 3% in 2012, they will do a lot better than that in 2016, which could lead to all sorts of odd results in May.
It's going to be fun watching Labour's expectations management running up to the local elections. The 2012 local elections were at the peak of Labour's popularity in the last Parliament. Depending on which polls one believes, there's been around a 9 point swing Lab-Con since then, as well as a huge increase in the UKIP vote.
You are assuming they will have a media management team that can do things as clever as expectation management. They haven't shown anything close to that since Corbyn and Milne took over.
While a bad result for Labour seems near certain, albeit with likely alleviation in the form of a London win, the LibDems might also be heading for yet another dredful result.
Don't forget UKIP, they were on around 3% in 2012, they will do a lot better than that in 2016, which could lead to all sorts of odd results in May.
It's going to be fun watching Labour's expectations management running up to the local elections. The 2012 local elections were at the peak of Labour's popularity in the last Parliament. Depending on which polls one believes, there's been around a 9 point swing Lab-Con since then, as well as a huge increase in the UKIP vote.
You are assuming they will have a media management team that can do things as clever as expectation management. They haven't shown anything close to that since Corbyn and Milne took over.
Labour won 2,100 seats in 2012 so if it loses 500-600 that would be 1,500 councillors for socialism!
Labour are only defending around 1200 seats this year . the 2100 seats won in 2012 includes Scotland , Wales and a few councils where there are no elections this year . Their losses are therefore likely to be 150-200
I think that the Com Res poll results tonight are stunning. The Labour leader has been defined in the space of four months.The PM dominates the centre ground of politics. Surely the strong public support for freedom of movement to work and the 4 year bar on benefits for EU migrants is a clear signal that if the PM comes back with a package of reforms and a recommendation to stay in Europe he is likely to prevail. As to the 8 per cent who think that the Labour party is united I imagine that the same 8 per cent would say that they believe Aston Villa will win the Premiership.
Why has the Tory lead dropped by 4% since November?
Good news if true, though I look forward to explanations on how despite that we still didn't meet any of our deficit targets again this time next year. I'm guessing.
I think that the Com Res poll results tonight are stunning. The Labour leader has been defined in the space of four months.The PM dominates the centre ground of politics. Surely the strong public support for freedom of movement to work and the 4 year bar on benefits for EU migrants is a clear signal that if the PM comes back with a package of reforms and a recommendation to stay in Europe he is likely to prevail. As to the 8 per cent who think that the Labour party is united I imagine that the same 8 per cent would say that they believe Aston Villa will win the Premiership.
Why has the Tory lead dropped by 4% since November?
They need to get rid of Hunt well before the Autumn. Even if the doctors' dispute is settled Hunt is toxic to any NHS worker. We know he's prepared to scheme and lie and play politics rather than work for the NHS.
It does seem strange that it is a common position of PB righties, that his euro-negotiation is a sham, yet believe that Hunts negotiations are meaningful.
Not sure you should have any faith in right wing dimwits. The hints coming out of the Euro negotiations seems quite positive. Associate membership seems to be the route in all but name, but I'm not sure about 'secret' plans that are all over the front page.
Comments
He's now repeating the process with the evangelical Cubano-Canuck Cruz. Ted is dead.
The pound is tanking. Good for manufacturing exports though. Loses 12 cents in two months.
With the oil price being what it is, this is the best time for a devaluation.
Corbyn doesn't have priorities that matter. He has never had to make a difficult decision that has any real world effect.
As for the Lib Dems, Cameron was so feeble that the people at the top of the Lib Dems actually trusted him! From the beginning, Cameron was a broken reed. What the Tories had to do was import a rottweiler from abroad and give him a knighthood. Crosby won the last election for the Tories (albeit with under 25% of the registered voters). Cameron just dithered around, pretending to be a Lib Dem.
As for other delivery mechanisms: the V-bomber fleet (and the US version) were massively expensive, both in terms of money and lives. They are also very vulnerable to first strikes, which is why the US had constant air patrols with the consequent accidents and incidents.
Before you decide on a weapons system, you need to decide on its mission. You won't get away from the requirement for four Trident boats without changing the mission.
That's where the discussion should be: the mission, not the weapons.
Why do the Tories not believe in global warming ? There is a warm dividend !!!
Look, Cameron has his flaws, and I was among those who voted LD, but the idea Cameron is self evidently terrible loser who, to see you explain it, contributed pretty much nothing to his own victory, relying instead on the people being idiots (which is your implication in that Crosby must have tricked the people into voting Cameron, and that they only voted Cameron for acting like a LD, despite LDs being on the ballot), is pretty absurd.
I actually think there is something in the point that Cameron's apparent comfort in coalition made some people, particularly in the SW, think he was more acceptable to vote for than previous Tories, but you don't get as big a lead in the votes as he did purely on the opposition being crap and through tricks (and yes, I know it wasn't so big a lead given how small a parliamentary majority it is, but is still a lot more votes)
"minute army". Do we need any more than Coldstream Guards ? That's what the tourists come to see anyway. Plus a battalion to carry sandbags in a flood.
Perhaps they should be renamed the 'Rescue service'; it's a more fitting title.
It is little wonder that they spend countless amount of resources in operation Yew Tree chasing down people who committed offences half a century ago. It is impossible for anyone to get away with anything today.
Con 384
Lab 177
LD 10
UKIP 4
Boundary changes might push the Tories over 400.
An objective analysis comparing the results from 2012 and those of last year might give some guide though!
69,547 cars were stolen in 2014. A 48-year low, but it's certainly very possible.
As for the role of the police: someone needs to gather evidence. Without a DNA database, DNA is useless until you have suspects, and is unavailable for many crimes.
"It is impossible for anyone to get away with anything today."
How do we know? The best criminals are the ones no-one knows anything about ...
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4666888.ece
Thank god for the European Court of Human Rights which would overreach to protect parents who wanted to avoid government-ordered reeducation
Some of the comments and apologias from Europhiles on here certainly sound like battered wife syndrome
Did that cause surprise and do you have any explanation as to why ? Surely it can't all be down to an anti EdB factor ?
I wonder whether this story will make the national media in Germany.
The Tories are now busy putting into reverse many of these successful and popular Lib Dem policies. Can anybody point out to me when in the election cammpaign the Tories promised to do this?
And no, Mr Kle4, Cameron did not get a big lead in the votes. 36% of the votes cast is by no means a big lead.
As I see it, Cameron can succeed only by pretending to be what he is not. I see him as unprincipled, out of his depth, a poor negotiator and I dislike him very much.
As to the 8 per cent who think that the Labour party is united I imagine that the same 8 per cent would say that they believe Aston Villa will win the Premiership.
In no way am I seeking to diminish the attack on the women, being pelted with chips from a gravel bed is not the same as being stoned in the sense being created by the headline.
It should not have happened and it was still an unprovoked attack of a very nasty nature. But gravel is very different to stones. And the reporting is designed to create impact rather than reporting the reality of the events.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CY33ArEWYAAG0Na.jpg
The time to get on patrol was constrained by the need to go North - well inside the Arctic circle. This was so that Polaris could reach Russia.
Interestingly, the original estimate was 5 boats. This was due to the original basing plan being in Portsmouth. The boats going on patrol would have had to trundle up the West Coast at 3 Knots...
3-5 knots was the maximum speed the Polaris boats could go without running the pumps on the reactor (the nosiest piece of machinery on board).
When Trident came in some things changed - Trident could hit Moscow from Portsmouth (if you wanted to). The boats had a higher silent speed - 10-15knots before switching on the pumps.
When they downloaded to a reduced number of warheads after the Cold War - the range of the missiles has increased massively. Conservatively, with 5 warheads Trident can hit any point on the planet - from any other point..
The next generation subs will probably have a silent speed in the range of 20 knots - the Americans swapped the technology for natural convection reactors (which only use pumps at max power) for our work on ducted propellers (pumpjets).
So a next generation Trident sub would be able to hit anywhere on the planet. From anywhere.
It might be possible to drop down to 3 boats - given the above. The argument against that is maintaining the sub building schedule and keeping the skills.
The Associated PressVerified account @AP 4h4 hours ago
BREAKING: Iran Transport Minister: Deal signed to buy 114 Airbus planes as soon as sanctions are lifted.
BBC Breaking NewsVerified account @BBCBreaking 42m42 minutes ago
Economic sanctions on Iran lifted, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini announces http://bbc.in/1Wie0kw
The UK had even more incentive. The warning time from the Warsaw Pact Western border to the UK was only a few minutes, and the fuelling times for liquid-fuel land-based missiles were in the tens of minutes. You would have to have had ground crews working fuelling missiles in the full knowledge that most of them would burn to death before their task was complete. The RAF had V-bombers, but never in the numbers the US had and again, you would lose some on the ground. A nation with a history of sub building, a maritime tradition and little land area to hide would gravitate to sub-launch like a drowning man. If the UK is going to keep nukes, it's going to want to keep SLBMs
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1657326.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2016_01_16
It's more possible that Boris will lead Remain than Leave.
And no, Mr Kle4, Cameron did not get a big lead in the votes. 36% of the votes cast is by no means a big lead.
Yes he did. I happen to want to change the voting system to make it harder to win a majority on 36% of the vote, but his party got millions more votes than the next lot, that was the extent of my point and it is a fact. Fair or not, and whether it is a 'good' lead or not, he got millions more votes, and more votes is a lead. I don't even understand being obstinate on that point. For heaven's sake, I took extra care to clarify that it wasn't sobig a lead, given the small parliamentary majority, but that it was a big lead in votes cast (two million more I believe, as it seems to have slipped your mind)
And I would also point out that '36% of the votes cast is by no means a big lead' doesn't actually comment on the lead at all, just how many votes the Tories got, which is not the same thing at all. So I presume you misunderstood the point.
According to the opinion polls, we were going to end up with a Parliament with no overall majority. So a lot of people voted for one of the Coalition partners, without taking too much time to decide which. And since Cameron spent the whole election campaign taking possession of the policies that the Lib Dems had brought to the Coalition Government, that was what they voted for.
So people like LD policies, but not the LDs, and Cameron was able to own those policies because apparently there was no one to prevent him doing that. Like, say, a LD party which could say 'Hey, those were our ideas, if you want more of them, you should vote LD'? I seem to remember seeing and hearing people saying that, but I guess not.
I must say, I hope the remaining LDs are not sharing your bitter analysis which relies upon the public being stupid and easily duped. I think the absence of a strong third party (which operates nationally, which rules out the SNP) is a bad thing, and I think they will find it hard to insult their way back to support.
There should be a three line whip to support Trident as that is official Labour policy.
The last time LAB was in the lead in any poll was on the evening of May 6th 2015 - the day before the general election
Broughton of course in Flintshire. Excellent news for the North West bordering on the Northern Powerhouse.
https://twitter.com/DJack_Journo/status/688487258714980353
The hints coming out of the Euro negotiations seems quite positive. Associate membership seems to be the route in all but name, but I'm not sure about 'secret' plans that are all over the front page.