Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Leader ratings side by side: How JC’s doing against DC gene

SystemSystem Posts: 12,293
edited 2016 25 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Leader ratings side by side: How JC’s doing against DC generally & with party supporters

The next general election, of course is unlikely to be between Corbyn’s LAB and Cameron’s CON. The latter has made his exit intentions partially clear though we don’t know whether it’ll be before the election or afterwards.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,362
    New thread so soon?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,641
    Naught but Counter-Revolutionary Propaganda!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,747
    I get the feeling the corpse of Sir Edward Heath would win a majority against Corbyn.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,754
    To vote for England, text 51657
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,362
    The IPSOS-MORI results looks like some Tories and Nats are well satisfied with the job Corbyn is doing as Leader.

    If you are delighted with the way he is trashing Labour, vote "satisfied"........
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,747
    He flipping reviewed that ?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,362

    I get the feeling the corpse of Sir Edward Heath would win a majority against Corbyn.

    We'll be alright as long as the Tories don't think Liam Fox would win a majority against Corbyn....
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,449
    I Ipsos are showing why polling companies need to move to "favourable" ratings rather than satisfaction ratings. Too many Tories happy with Corybn trashing the party for that decentish rating mean any thing.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,754
    edited 2016 25

    He flipping reviewed that ?

    England's batsmen are dispersed well through the side, playing at 1, 4, 6, 7 and possibly 8.

    So we're really only one down with two night watchmen gone.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    My £3 remains a South Sea Bubble investment cashed out at the top of the market.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    "the chart above can only be interpreted as bad news for Corbyn."

    However, this won’t stop some trying to argue otherwise. – All part of the fun on PB.Com :lol:
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,362
    Would it be possible to see a side-by-side Corbyn-Miliband comparison at this stage in their leadership??
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    FPT re sandpit's bet on the "unknown" third favourite.

    Remember the punters who got 50/1 for the unknown Russian athlete Tatyana Dorovskikh in the 1991 World Championships -- before the bookies realised she was the Olympic gold-medallist who'd just got married.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822

    "the chart above can only be interpreted as bad news for Corbyn."

    However, this won’t stop some trying to argue otherwise. – All part of the fun on PB.Com :lol:

    Let's see, how about:

    Corbyn on 33% with Ipsos MORI is almost level with Cameron's 35% with ComRes
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822

    Would it be possible to see a side-by-side Corbyn-Miliband comparison at this stage in their leadership??

    That would be cruel
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,362

    Would it be possible to see a side-by-side Corbyn-Miliband comparison at this stage in their leadership??

    That would be cruel
    Richard, surely "informative" was the word you were looking for?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,747

    Would it be possible to see a side-by-side Corbyn-Miliband comparison at this stage in their leadership??

    I'll do that on Sunday.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,641
    The "OK Class", designed by First Sea Lady, Emily Thornberry, in 2021, approved by the Supreme Leader, Jeremy Corbyn and Chancellor of the Extraordinaire, John McDonnell:

    HMS OK
    HMS Alright
    HMS Average
    HMS Not Bad
    HMS So-So
    HMS Adequate
    HMS Normal
    HMS Satisfactory
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    FTPT

    Wouldn't Ireland's tax deals with multinationals unravel I they were out of the EU?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822

    Would it be possible to see a side-by-side Corbyn-Miliband comparison at this stage in their leadership??

    That would be cruel
    Richard, surely "informative" was the word you were looking for?
    That as well!
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Brilliant

    Politico Daily
    People thought @Ed_Miliband was a "dork" & "had the appeal of a potato" yet #BeckettReport called him "courageous" https://t.co/3P7SCRCMvG
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,641

    Brilliant

    Politico Daily
    People thought @Ed_Miliband was a "dork" & "had the appeal of a potato" yet #BeckettReport called him "courageous" https://t.co/3P7SCRCMvG

    Abby T also called him "courageous" :)
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/milifan-prime-minister-ed-miliband
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Jeb Bush is endorsed by his mother. The shocks just keep on coming.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    FPT
    Wanderer said:

    FWIW I see support for Trident is down to 51%. 29% like Corbyn's "subs but not nukes" idea and 20% want to scrap Trident altogether. Caution: there is usually a "pick the middle option" bias at work in any poll with 3 opinions. It confirms the impression that opinion on the issue isn't now especially entrenched - a lot of people would struggle to say what Trident is (the subs? the nukes? both?) and it's not a typical breakfast table issue. The downside is that people who don't feel that strongly also won't want it to dominate Labour debate.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Can you think of a more stupid idea ever floated by the leader of a major party than "subs but not nukes?" I really can't. I expect you're right that most people don't get the implications, don't realise that the submarines in question are designed for a specialised role and so forth. But Corbyn does, doesn't he?
    As something of a Corbynista, I have to say that the "nuclear missile subs with no nuclear missiles" was a proper jumping-the-shark moment, absolutely magnificently barmy.

    The fact that it is surprisingly well-supported in opinion polls indicates one of two things - the "pick the middle" bias that Nick P mentions is alive and well, or alternatively, Churchill's "best argument against democracy" (despite widespread access to the internet - the greatest repository of knowledge and transmitter of information in the history of humankind - it seems the "average voter" is as poorly informed as ever).
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,641

    FPT

    Wanderer said:

    FWIW I see support for Trident is down to 51%. 29% like Corbyn's "subs but not nukes" idea and 20% want to scrap Trident altogether. Caution: there is usually a "pick the middle option" bias at work in any poll with 3 opinions. It confirms the impression that opinion on the issue isn't now especially entrenched - a lot of people would struggle to say what Trident is (the subs? the nukes? both?) and it's not a typical breakfast table issue. The downside is that people who don't feel that strongly also won't want it to dominate Labour debate.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Can you think of a more stupid idea ever floated by the leader of a major party than "subs but not nukes?" I really can't. I expect you're right that most people don't get the implications, don't realise that the submarines in question are designed for a specialised role and so forth. But Corbyn does, doesn't he?
    As something of a Corbynista, I have to say that the "nuclear missile subs with no nuclear missiles" was a proper jumping-the-shark moment, absolutely magnificently barmy.

    The fact that it is surprisingly well-supported in opinion polls indicates one of two things - the "pick the middle" bias that Nick P mentions is alive and well, or alternatively, Churchill's "best argument against democracy" (despite widespread access to the internet - the greatest repository of knowledge and transmitter of information in the history of humankind - it seems the "average voter" is as poorly informed as ever).
    Thankfully, Churchill never said the "average voter" quote...
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited 2016 25

    FPT

    Wanderer said:

    FWIW I see support for Trident is down to 51%. 29% like Corbyn's "subs but not nukes" idea and 20% want to scrap Trident altogether. Caution: there is usually a "pick the middle option" bias at work in any poll with 3 opinions. It confirms the impression that opinion on the issue isn't now especially entrenched - a lot of people would struggle to say what Trident is (the subs? the nukes? both?) and it's not a typical breakfast table issue. The downside is that people who don't feel that strongly also won't want it to dominate Labour debate.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Can you think of a more stupid idea ever floated by the leader of a major party than "subs but not nukes?" I really can't. I expect you're right that most people don't get the implications, don't realise that the submarines in question are designed for a specialised role and so forth. But Corbyn does, doesn't he?
    As something of a Corbynista, I have to say that the "nuclear missile subs with no nuclear missiles" was a proper jumping-the-shark moment, absolutely magnificently barmy.

    The fact that it is surprisingly well-supported in opinion polls indicates one of two things - the "pick the middle" bias that Nick P mentions is alive and well, or alternatively, Churchill's "best argument against democracy" (despite widespread access to the internet - the greatest repository of knowledge and transmitter of information in the history of humankind - it seems the "average voter" is as poorly informed as ever).
    20% or more of the electorate are mindless lefty drones with trust funds or metalwork in their nostrils who would give favourable polling to having their own genitals shrivelled with a blowtorch as long as it was comrade Jez proposing it. The thing is that as GEs get near people start paying a bit more attention and the actual Labour vote shrinks back from pre-GE polling levels to the moonbat hardcore - the otherwise sensible but somewhat lefty inclined having taken a good look at Gordo / Miliblob / Corbyn / whoever and going 'eeeeew!'.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,754
    Tim_B said:

    Jeb Bush is endorsed by his mother. The shocks just keep on coming.

    I can't believe he is still 9-1 for the nomination.

    You could probably lay your mortgage on that.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,246

    FPT

    Wanderer said:

    FWIW I see support for Trident is down to 51%. 29% like Corbyn's "subs but not nukes" idea and 20% want to scrap Trident altogether. Caution: there is usually a "pick the middle option" bias at work in any poll with 3 opinions. It confirms the impression that opinion on the issue isn't now especially entrenched - a lot of people would struggle to say what Trident is (the subs? the nukes? both?) and it's not a typical breakfast table issue. The downside is that people who don't feel that strongly also won't want it to dominate Labour debate.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Can you think of a more stupid idea ever floated by the leader of a major party than "subs but not nukes?" I really can't. I expect you're right that most people don't get the implications, don't realise that the submarines in question are designed for a specialised role and so forth. But Corbyn does, doesn't he?
    As something of a Corbynista, I have to say that the "nuclear missile subs with no nuclear missiles" was a proper jumping-the-shark moment, absolutely magnificently barmy.

    The fact that it is surprisingly well-supported in opinion polls indicates one of two things - the "pick the middle" bias that Nick P mentions is alive and well, or alternatively, Churchill's "best argument against democracy" (despite widespread access to the internet - the greatest repository of knowledge and transmitter of information in the history of humankind - it seems the "average voter" is as poorly informed as ever).
    My comment about the Trident missiles on the last thread - which some may have misinterpreted - was about why the US and Lockheed should continue the pooling arrangement for the missiles if we are not planning to carry them on the submarines.

    The whole idea of the Japanese option is ridiculous IMO. But some will believe that is is cheaper and safer ...
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @bbclaurak: Enda Kenny confirms on record, crucial draft of EU deal will be circulated next week, fortnight ahead of summit
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,281

    Brilliant

    Politico Daily
    People thought @Ed_Miliband was a "dork" & "had the appeal of a potato" yet #BeckettReport called him "courageous" https://t.co/3P7SCRCMvG

    Wonder who wrote that then.......
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,029

    Brilliant

    Politico Daily
    People thought @Ed_Miliband was a "dork" & "had the appeal of a potato" yet #BeckettReport called him "courageous" https://t.co/3P7SCRCMvG

    Maybe that was a compliment: potatoes are one of the most popular vegetables.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    National elections scheduled to take place in 2016. https://t.co/J4TLo8uF7A https://t.co/2vnz3qbgKy
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,029
    Tim_B said:

    Jeb Bush is endorsed by his mother. The shocks just keep on coming.

    That's nice. Have either of the presidents in his family formally endorsed him yet?
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    :smiley:

    Tim_B said:

    Jeb Bush is endorsed by his mother. The shocks just keep on coming.

    That's nice. Have either of the presidents in his family formally endorsed him yet?
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited 2016 25
    The eyes of a potato, or Diane Abbott. Tricky choice.

    Brilliant

    Politico Daily
    People thought @Ed_Miliband was a "dork" & "had the appeal of a potato" yet #BeckettReport called him "courageous" https://t.co/3P7SCRCMvG

    Maybe that was a compliment: potatoes are one of the most popular vegetables.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    When is Jeb Bush most likely to suspend his campaign?
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Mori's phone sample is derived from a list of local council offices and jobcentres.

    Massive over-sampling of the public sector.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    #BeckettReport called him "courageous" – Probably the least appropriate adj to describe Ed.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,754
    edited 2016 25
    AndyJS said:

    When is Jeb Bush most likely to suspend his campaign?

    Dunno, I'll happily go top price 10-1 for any regular punter who wants to back him here up to £100/£1000 though.

    His odds are a wonder of the modern world.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,641

    #BeckettReport called him "courageous" – Probably the least appropriate adj to describe Ed.

    "Bravery" and "integrity"
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/milifan-prime-minister-ed-miliband
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,419
    edited 2016 25

    FPT

    Wanderer said:

    FWIW I see support for Trident is down to 51%. 29% like Corbyn's "subs but not nukes" idea and 20% want to scrap Trident altogether. Caution: there is usually a "pick the middle option" bias at work in any poll with 3 opinions. It confirms the impression that opinion on the issue isn't now especially entrenched - a lot of people would struggle to say what Trident is (the subs? the nukes? both?) and it's not a typical breakfast table issue. The downside is that people who don't feel that strongly also won't want it to dominate Labour debate.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Can you think of a more stupid idea ever floated by the leader of a major party than "subs but not nukes?" I really can't. I expect you're right that most people don't get the implications, don't realise that the submarines in question are designed for a specialised role and so forth. But Corbyn does, doesn't he?
    As something of a Corbynista, I have to say that the "nuclear missile subs with no nuclear missiles" was a proper jumping-the-shark moment, absolutely magnificently barmy.

    The fact that it is surprisingly well-supported in opinion polls indicates one of two things - the "pick the middle" bias that Nick P mentions is alive and well, or alternatively, Churchill's "best argument against democracy" (despite widespread access to the internet - the greatest repository of knowledge and transmitter of information in the history of humankind - it seems the "average voter" is as poorly informed as ever).
    Interesting R4 Week in Westminster segment caught whilst ferrying the kids around - Trident without warheads was seriously considered as the option for the LDs to bring forward within the coalition (3 subs ended as their position iirc), exactly as Labour are considering now - on the broadcast, an LD peer was arguing for the option, Kevan Jones the resigned defence minister against.

    The argument for was of no imminent threat of a strike and a proven ability to deploy, and the comparison was made to empty US launch capabilities in Eastern Europe. So, I figure this critically depends on how exactly you put the nuclear capability on standby - do you sit the nukes ready to go in dockside silos at Faslane (I would guess not Corbyn's preferred option), or do you keep the manufacturing or assembling capability ready to go for years?

    Would any of these be fast enough to respond to an escalation in tensions? Indeed could the process of re-arming Trident subs DURING an escalation in tensions itself be more dangerous than keeping the missiles on-board? Any which way, it is a fudge I cannot bring myself to like, but the context that the shark had already been jumped was enlightening.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976

    #BeckettReport called him "courageous" – Probably the least appropriate adj to describe Ed.

    "Bravery" and "integrity"
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/milifan-prime-minister-ed-miliband
    Ma Beckett is as deluded as Abby Tomlinson,- but without the excuse of immaturity.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Pulpstar said:

    He flipping reviewed that ?

    England's batsmen are dispersed well through the side, playing at 1, 4, 6, 7 and possibly 8.

    So we're really only one down with two night watchmen gone.
    Very good Mr Star.
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476

    #BeckettReport called him "courageous" – Probably the least appropriate adj to describe Ed.

    Is that in the Sir Humphrey sense of the word?
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    O/T RIP Cecil Parkinson.
    A great Hertsmere MP.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,029

    #BeckettReport called him "courageous" – Probably the least appropriate adj to describe Ed.

    I think that's slightly unfair. He might be more than a bit of a dork but he:

    - Took on his brother (and others) in a leadership election, and won. He didn't have to do that and knew the anguish it would cause those close to him in doing so. All the same, he believed in what he was doing and did it. And won.

    - Took on NewsCorp, in a way that Blair and Brown never would. Whether that was politically wise is another matter but it wasn't the act of the weak-hearted.

    - Took on big business elsewhere, from the energy sector to finance. Arguably, doing so was superficially popular and so an easy decision. Perhaps, but alternatively, he risked - and must have known he'd risk - his party's reputation on managing the economy if the reaction from CBI'tes was to loudly condemn him

    So no, "courageous" isn't the least appropriate adjective to describe Ed. I'd make a suggestion as to what is but it would require too much mind-bleach.

    I think his problem was not so much that he wasn't seen as a principled man, he was simply seen as weak and incapable.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838

    FPT

    Wanderer said:

    FWIW I see support for Trident is down to 51%. 29% like Corbyn's "subs but not nukes" idea and 20% want to scrap Trident altogether. Caution: there is usually a "pick the middle option" bias at work in any poll with 3 opinions. It confirms the impression that opinion on the issue isn't now especially entrenched - a lot of people would struggle to say what Trident is (the subs? the nukes? both?) and it's not a typical breakfast table issue. The downside is that people who don't feel that strongly also won't want it to dominate Labour debate.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Can you think of a more stupid idea ever floated by the leader of a major party than "subs but not nukes?" I really can't. I expect you're right that most people don't get the implications, don't realise that the submarines in question are designed for a specialised role and so forth. But Corbyn does, doesn't he?
    As something of a Corbynista, I have to say that the "nuclear missile subs with no nuclear missiles" was a proper jumping-the-shark moment, absolutely magnificently barmy.

    The fact that it is surprisingly well-supported in opinion polls indicates one of two things - the "pick the middle" bias that Nick P mentions is alive and well, or alternatively, Churchill's "best argument against democracy" (despite widespread access to the internet - the greatest repository of knowledge and transmitter of information in the history of humankind - it seems the "average voter" is as poorly informed as ever).
    It's not just about the specific question of Trident but what it suggests about Corbyn's thinking in general. How about a compromise on Heathrow: we'll build a third runway but not use it. Let's build HS2 but not run trains on it.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,029

    #BeckettReport called him "courageous" – Probably the least appropriate adj to describe Ed.

    "Bravery" and "integrity"
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/milifan-prime-minister-ed-miliband
    Ma Beckett is as deluded as Abby Tomlinson,- but without the excuse of immaturity.
    Ma Beckett has always drifted with the wind.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,419
    Wanderer said:

    FPT

    Wanderer said:

    FWIW I see support for Trident is down to 51%. 29% like Corbyn's "subs but not nukes" idea and 20% want to scrap Trident altogether. Caution: there is usually a "pick the middle option" bias at work in any poll with 3 opinions. It confirms the impression that opinion on the issue isn't now especially entrenched - a lot of people would struggle to say what Trident is (the subs? the nukes? both?) and it's not a typical breakfast table issue. The downside is that people who don't feel that strongly also won't want it to dominate Labour debate.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Can you think of a more stupid idea ever floated by the leader of a major party than "subs but not nukes?" I really can't. I expect you're right that most people don't get the implications, don't realise that the submarines in question are designed for a specialised role and so forth. But Corbyn does, doesn't he?
    As something of a Corbynista, I have to say that the "nuclear missile subs with no nuclear missiles" was a proper jumping-the-shark moment, absolutely magnificently barmy.

    The fact that it is surprisingly well-supported in opinion polls indicates one of two things - the "pick the middle" bias that Nick P mentions is alive and well, or alternatively, Churchill's "best argument against democracy" (despite widespread access to the internet - the greatest repository of knowledge and transmitter of information in the history of humankind - it seems the "average voter" is as poorly informed as ever).
    It's not just about the specific question of Trident but what it suggests about Corbyn's thinking in general. How about a compromise on Heathrow: we'll build a third runway but not use it. Let's build HS2 but not run trains on it.
    We'll build Trident but not use it would suit me very well thank you very much - especially the not use it bit.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838

    Brilliant

    Politico Daily
    People thought @Ed_Miliband was a "dork" & "had the appeal of a potato" yet #BeckettReport called him "courageous" https://t.co/3P7SCRCMvG

    Maybe that was a compliment: potatoes are one of the most popular vegetables.
    Ed was as moreish as a fragrant bowl of garlic mash made with lashings of butter.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited 2016 25
    Pro_Rata said:

    FPT

    Wanderer said:

    Can you think of a more stupid idea ever floated by the leader of a major party than "subs but not nukes?" I really can't. I expect you're right that most people don't get the implications, don't realise that the submarines in question are designed for a specialised role and so forth. But Corbyn does, doesn't he?
    As something of a Corbynista, I have to say that the "nuclear missile subs with no nuclear missiles" was a proper jumping-the-shark moment, absolutely magnificently barmy.

    The fact that it is surprisingly well-supported in opinion polls indicates one of two things - the "pick the middle" bias that Nick P mentions is alive and well, or alternatively, Churchill's "best argument against democracy" (despite widespread access to the internet - the greatest repository of knowledge and transmitter of information in the history of humankind - it seems the "average voter" is as poorly informed as ever).
    Interesting R4 Week in Westminster segment caught whilst ferrying the kids around - Trident without warheads was seriously considered as the option for the LDs to bring forward within the coalition (3 subs ended as their position iirc), exactly as Labour are considering now - on the broadcast, an LD peer was arguing for the option, Kevan Jones the resigned defence minister against.

    The argument for was of no imminent threat of a strike and a proven ability to deploy, and the comparison was made to empty US launch capabilities in Eastern Europe. So, I figure this critically depends on how exactly you put the nuclear capability on standby - do you sit the nukes ready to go in dockside silos at Faslane (I would guess not Corbyn's preferred option), or do you keep the manufacturing or assembling capability ready to go for years?

    Would any of these be fast enough to respond to an escalation in tensions? Indeed could the process of re-arming Trident subs DURING an escalation in tensions itself be more dangerous than keeping the missiles on-board? Any which way, it is a fudge I cannot bring myself to like, but the context that the shark had already been jumped was enlightening.
    It's all bollocks. They're either armed or we don't have them.

    Re-arming during a crisis would end up escalating that very tension. And how do you train a crew to handle weapons, and practice the launch procedures if there are no missiles on the boat? They're not an inert object, having onboard systems that are constantly monitored, to ensure safety and reliability.

    The whole idea is a complete joke.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Pro_Rata said:

    Wanderer said:

    FPT

    Wanderer said:

    FWIW I see support for Trident is down to 51%. 29% like Corbyn's "subs but not nukes" idea and 20% want to scrap Trident altogether. Caution: there is usually a "pick the middle option" bias at work in any poll with 3 opinions. It confirms the impression that opinion on the issue isn't now especially entrenched - a lot of people would struggle to say what Trident is (the subs? the nukes? both?) and it's not a typical breakfast table issue. The downside is that people who don't feel that strongly also won't want it to dominate Labour debate.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Can you think of a more stupid idea ever floated by the leader of a major party than "subs but not nukes?" I really can't. I expect you're right that most people don't get the implications, don't realise that the submarines in question are designed for a specialised role and so forth. But Corbyn does, doesn't he?
    As something of a Corbynista, I have to say that the "nuclear missile subs with no nuclear missiles" was a proper jumping-the-shark moment, absolutely magnificently barmy.

    The fact that it is surprisingly well-supported in opinion polls indicates one of two things - the "pick the middle" bias that Nick P mentions is alive and well, or alternatively, Churchill's "best argument against democracy" (despite widespread access to the internet - the greatest repository of knowledge and transmitter of information in the history of humankind - it seems the "average voter" is as poorly informed as ever).
    It's not just about the specific question of Trident but what it suggests about Corbyn's thinking in general. How about a compromise on Heathrow: we'll build a third runway but not use it. Let's build HS2 but not run trains on it.
    We'll build Trident but not use it would suit me very well thank you very much - especially the not use it bit.
    Fair enough. Let's say that "using" Trident means maintaining a continuous at-sea deterrent, not taking out a few cities for the hell of it.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Wanderer said:

    Brilliant

    Politico Daily
    People thought @Ed_Miliband was a "dork" & "had the appeal of a potato" yet #BeckettReport called him "courageous" https://t.co/3P7SCRCMvG

    Maybe that was a compliment: potatoes are one of the most popular vegetables.
    Ed was as moreish as a fragrant bowl of garlic mash made with lashings of butter.
    He wouldn't take kindly to being described as New.

    As it turned out, he wasn't an Arran Victor either.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,164
    Wanderer said:

    FPT

    Wanderer said:

    FWIW I see support for Trident is down to 51%. 29% like Corbyn's "subs but not nukes" idea and 20% want to scrap Trident altogether. Caution: there is usually a "pick the middle option" bias at work in any poll with 3 opinions. It confirms the impression that opinion on the issue isn't now especially entrenched - a lot of people would struggle to say what Trident is (the subs? the nukes? both?) and it's not a typical breakfast table issue. The downside is that people who don't feel that strongly also won't want it to dominate Labour debate.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Can you think of a more stupid idea ever floated by the leader of a major party than "subs but not nukes?" I really can't. I expect you're right that most people don't get the implications, don't realise that the submarines in question are designed for a specialised role and so forth. But Corbyn does, doesn't he?
    As something of a Corbynista, I have to say that the "nuclear missile subs with no nuclear missiles" was a proper jumping-the-shark moment, absolutely magnificently barmy.

    The fact that it is surprisingly well-supported in opinion polls indicates one of two things - the "pick the middle" bias that Nick P mentions is alive and well, or alternatively, Churchill's "best argument against democracy" (despite widespread access to the internet - the greatest repository of knowledge and transmitter of information in the history of humankind - it seems the "average voter" is as poorly informed as ever).
    It's not just about the specific question of Trident but what it suggests about Corbyn's thinking in general. How about a compromise on Heathrow: we'll build a third runway but not use it. Let's build HS2 but not run trains on it.
    Indeed. Corbo is going wonderfully at confounding the expectations of those non-tribal supporters, or possible Labour voters, willing to give him a chance.

    The fervent Corbynistas on my fb are now much less overtly positive. They're still more negative about the government than they ever were under EdM. To a laughable extent, in fact. One pal today honestly, genuinely posted the article about the Cardiff wristbands and compared it to the Nazis. When I questioned him he replied with an emotional rant that questioned how I 'can't see the parallels'.

    The longer people like this are associated with advocating the current Labour leadership, the worse the brand value of Labour will fall.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,754
    Wanderer said:

    Brilliant

    Politico Daily
    People thought @Ed_Miliband was a "dork" & "had the appeal of a potato" yet #BeckettReport called him "courageous" https://t.co/3P7SCRCMvG

    Maybe that was a compliment: potatoes are one of the most popular vegetables.
    Ed was as moreish as a fragrant bowl of garlic mash made with lashings of butter.
    Looks good to me:

    http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/5139/garlic-mash-potato-bake
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,164

    Wanderer said:

    Brilliant

    Politico Daily
    People thought @Ed_Miliband was a "dork" & "had the appeal of a potato" yet #BeckettReport called him "courageous" https://t.co/3P7SCRCMvG

    Maybe that was a compliment: potatoes are one of the most popular vegetables.
    Ed was as moreish as a fragrant bowl of garlic mash made with lashings of butter.
    He wouldn't take kindly to being described as New.

    As it turned out, he wasn't an Arran Victor either.
    Top tayto punnage!
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Pulpstar said:

    Wanderer said:

    Brilliant

    Politico Daily
    People thought @Ed_Miliband was a "dork" & "had the appeal of a potato" yet #BeckettReport called him "courageous" https://t.co/3P7SCRCMvG

    Maybe that was a compliment: potatoes are one of the most popular vegetables.
    Ed was as moreish as a fragrant bowl of garlic mash made with lashings of butter.
    Looks good to me:

    http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/5139/garlic-mash-potato-bake
    I'm quite peckish, if that wasn't obvious.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Pro_Rata said:

    Wanderer said:

    FPT

    Wanderer said:

    FWIW I see support for Trident is down to 51%. 29% like Corbyn's "subs but not nukes" idea and 20% want to scrap Trident altogether. Caution: there is usually a "pick the middle option" bias at work in any poll with 3 opinions. It confirms the impression that opinion on the issue isn't now especially entrenched - a lot of people would struggle to say what Trident is (the subs? the nukes? both?) and it's not a typical breakfast table issue. The downside is that people who don't feel that strongly also won't want it to dominate Labour debate.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Can you think of a more stupid idea ever floated by the leader of a major party than "subs but not nukes?" I really can't. I expect you're right that most people don't get the implications, don't realise that the submarines in question are designed for a specialised role and so forth. But Corbyn does, doesn't he?
    As something of a Corbynista, I have to say that the "nuclear missile subs with no nuclear missiles" was a proper jumping-the-shark moment, absolutely magnificently barmy.

    The fact that it is surprisingly well-supported in opinion polls indicates one of two things - the "pick the middle" bias that Nick P mentions is alive and well, or alternatively, Churchill's "best argument against democracy" (despite widespread access to the internet - the greatest repository of knowledge and transmitter of information in the history of humankind - it seems the "average voter" is as poorly informed as ever).
    It's not just about the specific question of Trident but what it suggests about Corbyn's thinking in general. How about a compromise on Heathrow: we'll build a third runway but not use it. Let's build HS2 but not run trains on it.
    We'll build Trident but not use it would suit me very well thank you very much - especially the not use it bit.
    I think having CASD but not having to use it in anger would suit just about everyone.

    I rather think though that Corbyn's, "have the subs but don't arm" them was purely political without even giving a nod to any arguments about defence. The unions want the subs built - jobs, unionised jobs in Cumbria. Corbyn doesn't like weapons. So build the subs and give them no weapons and both sides are happy.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,303
    I'm starting to think that the Conservative strategy has to be based on the assumption that Corbyn will be replaced by someone competent before the election.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822

    I rather think though that Corbyn's, "have the subs but don't arm" them was purely political without even giving a nod to any arguments about defence. The unions want the subs built - jobs, unionised jobs in Cumbria. Corbyn doesn't like weapons. So build the subs and give them no weapons and both sides are happy.

    Yes, it's brilliant. In a couple of sentences he managed to:

    - Reinforce the perception that Labour are a danger to national security
    - Reinforce the perception that Labour are in thrall to the unions
    - Reinforce the perception that Labour think wasteful spending is a good idea
    - Reinforce the perception that Labour are hopelessly divided
    - Look a complete twerp.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838

    Pro_Rata said:

    Wanderer said:

    FPT

    Wanderer said:

    FWIW I see support for Trident is down to 51%. 29% like Corbyn's "subs but not nukes" idea and 20% want to scrap Trident altogether. Caution: there is usually a "pick the middle option" bias at work in any poll with 3 opinions. It confirms the impression that opinion on the issue isn't now especially entrenched - a lot of people would struggle to say what Trident is (the subs? the nukes? both?) and it's not a typical breakfast table issue. The downside is that people who don't feel that strongly also won't want it to dominate Labour debate.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Can you think of a more stupid idea ever floated by the leader of a major party than "subs but not nukes?" I really can't. I expect you're right that most people don't get the implications, don't realise that the submarines in question are designed for a specialised role and so forth. But Corbyn does, doesn't he?
    As something of a Corbynista, I have to say that the "nuclear missile subs with no nuclear missiles" was a proper jumping-the-shark moment, absolutely magnificently barmy.

    The fact that it is surprisingly well-supported in opinion polls indicates one of two things - the "pick the middle" bias that Nick P mentions is alive and well, or alternatively, Churchill's "best argument against democracy" (despite widespread access to the internet - the greatest repository of knowledge and transmitter of information in the history of humankind - it seems the "average voter" is as poorly informed as ever).
    It's not just about the specific question of Trident but what it suggests about Corbyn's thinking in general. How about a compromise on Heathrow: we'll build a third runway but not use it. Let's build HS2 but not run trains on it.
    We'll build Trident but not use it would suit me very well thank you very much - especially the not use it bit.
    I think having CASD but not having to use it in anger would suit just about everyone.

    I rather think though that Corbyn's, "have the subs but don't arm" them was purely political without even giving a nod to any arguments about defence. The unions want the subs built - jobs, unionised jobs in Cumbria. Corbyn doesn't like weapons. So build the subs and give them no weapons and both sides are happy.
    Thing is, the crews would still have the dangerous job of cruising around underwater for no purpose. Better to build the subs and immediately scrap them.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,164

    I'm starting to think that the Conservative strategy has to be based on the assumption that Corbyn will be replaced by someone competent before the election.

    Of course it does - or at least the assumption of the possibility. Not least because he is in his late 60s and it would be foolish to ignore the possibility.

    But, if you wargame the alternatives, it is unlikely to be a Blairite until hard left wing politics is rightly put back into its box after an electoral thumping.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838

    I rather think though that Corbyn's, "have the subs but don't arm" them was purely political without even giving a nod to any arguments about defence. The unions want the subs built - jobs, unionised jobs in Cumbria. Corbyn doesn't like weapons. So build the subs and give them no weapons and both sides are happy.

    Yes, it's brilliant. In a couple of sentences he managed to:

    - Reinforce the perception that Labour are a danger to national security
    - Reinforce the perception that Labour are in thrall to the unions
    - Reinforce the perception that Labour think wasteful spending is a good idea
    - Reinforce the perception that Labour are hopelessly divided
    - Look a complete twerp.
    Apart from that it was a success?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,598
    Pro_Rata said:



    Would any of these be fast enough to respond to an escalation in tensions? Indeed could the process of re-arming Trident subs DURING an escalation in tensions itself be more dangerous than keeping the missiles on-board? Any which way, it is a fudge I cannot bring myself to like, but the context that the shark had already been jumped was enlightening.

    I think posts here are over-analysing it. What the poll IMO reflects is that half the population like having a nuclear deterrent, a fifth dislike it, and the remainder feel a bit uneasy about either having it (expensive, maybe escalates tension) or scrapping it (give up something for nothing, hmm) and are in the market for a compromise. The assumption that the overwhelming majority of the population are gung-ho Trident fans seems to be false.

    Whether a reasonable compromise exists is a separate question - another that I've seen knocking around would be "proactive multilateralism", where we offer to give up our nukes in exchange for some other countries scaling theirs back by similar numbers. That is possibly achievable (Russia and the US have both scaled back already) and avoids the "don't give up something for nothing" criticism while arguably making the world a bit safer, but of course won't satisfy anyone who wants us to have Trident so long as there's another nuke anywhere on the planet.

    Personally I've come to feel that the emergence of Trump et al means we shouldn't rule out Britain at some point having someone in charge with an itchy nuclear trigger finger. The theory that only foreign countries will ever be dangerous to world peace (none of us actually want a nuclear war even if we "win") is not necessarily sound.
  • LondonBobLondonBob Posts: 467
    http://nypost.com/2016/01/24/hillarys-team-copied-intel-off-top-secret-server-to-email/

    Another deliberate leak designed by the leaker(s) to block Obama's ability to suppress the FBI investigation, as well as DOJ action against Clinton and her immediate personal staff. This article, and the implied threat of more such leaks, effectively shuts out the possibility of a POTUS intervention in the investigation.

    It will be surprising if there are not indictments.

    Political juggernaut 'creepy' Joe Biden waits in the wings. I see no threat for Trump from him.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy07yHAgM4E

    Although potentially he could attain the double crown of being both the dumbest VP and President in US history.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2mzbuRgnI4
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,303
    Mortimer said:

    I'm starting to think that the Conservative strategy has to be based on the assumption that Corbyn will be replaced by someone competent before the election.

    Of course it does - or at least the assumption of the possibility. Not least because he is in his late 60s and it would be foolish to ignore the possibility.

    But, if you wargame the alternatives, it is unlikely to be a Blairite until hard left wing politics is rightly put back into its box after an electoral thumping.
    What are the chances they could pull the Michael Howard trick if Corbyn were not available for some reason?

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,130
    I was looking at Ed's wiki page. I wondered what he was up to now. Reading through it though one thing caught my attention - How on earth did he get elected to JCR President in his first year?

    Ed's legacy is being undermined and in some cases demolished by Corbyn. No wonder Ed is lukewarm.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Mortimer said:

    I'm starting to think that the Conservative strategy has to be based on the assumption that Corbyn will be replaced by someone competent before the election.

    Of course it does - or at least the assumption of the possibility. Not least because he is in his late 60s and it would be foolish to ignore the possibility.

    But, if you wargame the alternatives, it is unlikely to be a Blairite until hard left wing politics is rightly put back into its box after an electoral thumping.
    Yes, plus there's also the near-certainty that the mere process of replacing Corbyn would unleash another round of civil war, with no guarantee of someone competent ending up as leader. You can't just parachute competence into an organisation which is in chaos.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,754

    I rather think though that Corbyn's, "have the subs but don't arm" them was purely political without even giving a nod to any arguments about defence. The unions want the subs built - jobs, unionised jobs in Cumbria. Corbyn doesn't like weapons. So build the subs and give them no weapons and both sides are happy.

    Yes, it's brilliant. In a couple of sentences he managed to:

    - Reinforce the perception that Labour are a danger to national security
    - Reinforce the perception that Labour are in thrall to the unions
    - Reinforce the perception that Labour think wasteful spending is a good idea
    - Reinforce the perception that Labour are hopelessly divided
    - Look a complete twerp.
    There is a 6th point I think.

    He also manages to make the commitment against nukes look half hearted.

    As if he's waiting for the Conservatives to come back in and arm the subs he's built, like he half believes in them. But not quite.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    I'm starting to think that the Conservative strategy has to be based on the assumption that Corbyn will be replaced by someone competent before the election.

    One might have thought that would be the prudent course for the Conservative Party to steer, Mr. Teacher. To do otherwise would be like assuming the taxes generated during a boom were he new baseline and spending more than that anyway. Who but someone who is completely bonkers would do that?
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    FPT

    Wanderer said:

    FWIW I see support for Trident is down to 51%. 29% like Corbyn's "subs but not nukes" idea and 20% want to scrap Trident altogether. Caution: there is usually a "pick the middle option" bias at work in any poll with 3 opinions. It confirms the impression that opinion on the issue isn't now especially entrenched - a lot of people would struggle to say what Trident is (the subs? the nukes? both?) and it's not a typical breakfast table issue. The downside is that people who don't feel that strongly also won't want it to dominate Labour debate.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Can you think of a more stupid idea ever floated by the leader of a major party than "subs but not nukes?" I really can't. I expect you're right that most people don't get the implications, don't realise that the submarines in question are designed for a specialised role and so forth. But Corbyn does, doesn't he?
    As something of a Corbynista, I have to say that the "nuclear missile subs with no nuclear missiles" was a proper jumping-the-shark moment, absolutely magnificently barmy.

    The fact that it is surprisingly well-supported in opinion polls indicates one of two things - the "pick the middle" bias that Nick P mentions is alive and well, or alternatively, Churchill's "best argument against democracy" (despite widespread access to the internet - the greatest repository of knowledge and transmitter of information in the history of humankind - it seems the "average voter" is as poorly informed as ever).
    The vast majority of voters will always be poorly informed - they have more important things to do with their lives. This should be no mystery to the politigentsia, and if it is, it reflects worse on them than on the voters.

    Indeed, we are rarely informed for nearly all the decisions we take in life - we rely on patterns of behaviour and heuristics. It has served humanity well for most of its existence, but is, of course, 'not right' for democracy.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,029

    Pro_Rata said:



    Would any of these be fast enough to respond to an escalation in tensions? Indeed could the process of re-arming Trident subs DURING an escalation in tensions itself be more dangerous than keeping the missiles on-board? Any which way, it is a fudge I cannot bring myself to like, but the context that the shark had already been jumped was enlightening.

    I think posts here are over-analysing it. What the poll IMO reflects is that half the population like having a nuclear deterrent, a fifth dislike it, and the remainder feel a bit uneasy about either having it (expensive, maybe escalates tension) or scrapping it (give up something for nothing, hmm) and are in the market for a compromise. The assumption that the overwhelming majority of the population are gung-ho Trident fans seems to be false.

    Whether a reasonable compromise exists is a separate question - another that I've seen knocking around would be "proactive multilateralism", where we offer to give up our nukes in exchange for some other countries scaling theirs back by similar numbers. That is possibly achievable (Russia and the US have both scaled back already) and avoids the "don't give up something for nothing" criticism while arguably making the world a bit safer, but of course won't satisfy anyone who wants us to have Trident so long as there's another nuke anywhere on the planet.

    Personally I've come to feel that the emergence of Trump et al means we shouldn't rule out Britain at some point having someone in charge with an itchy nuclear trigger finger. The theory that only foreign countries will ever be dangerous to world peace (none of us actually want a nuclear war even if we "win") is not necessarily sound.
    We should be more worried about one of the other 200+ countries in the world having an itchy nuclear finger. We at least have some pretty hefty checks and balances to our system. North Korea doesn't and nor does Iran, not to mention regimes yet to exist.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,693
    Corbyn has once again forever lost the PB Tory vote with this Trident thing
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,246

    Pro_Rata said:



    Would any of these be fast enough to respond to an escalation in tensions? Indeed could the process of re-arming Trident subs DURING an escalation in tensions itself be more dangerous than keeping the missiles on-board? Any which way, it is a fudge I cannot bring myself to like, but the context that the shark had already been jumped was enlightening.

    I think posts here are over-analysing it. What the poll IMO reflects is that half the population like having a nuclear deterrent, a fifth dislike it, and the remainder feel a bit uneasy about either having it (expensive, maybe escalates tension) or scrapping it (give up something for nothing, hmm) and are in the market for a compromise. The assumption that the overwhelming majority of the population are gung-ho Trident fans seems to be false.

    Whether a reasonable compromise exists is a separate question - another that I've seen knocking around would be "proactive multilateralism", where we offer to give up our nukes in exchange for some other countries scaling theirs back by similar numbers. That is possibly achievable (Russia and the US have both scaled back already) and avoids the "don't give up something for nothing" criticism while arguably making the world a bit safer, but of course won't satisfy anyone who wants us to have Trident so long as there's another nuke anywhere on the planet.

    Personally I've come to feel that the emergence of Trump et al means we shouldn't rule out Britain at some point having someone in charge with an itchy nuclear trigger finger. The theory that only foreign countries will ever be dangerous to world peace (none of us actually want a nuclear war even if we "win") is not necessarily sound.
    We've scaled back our nukes as well:
    36. As a result of the SDR, the number of operationally available warheads was reduced by one third, from around 300 to under 200, whilst the number of warheads carried on each Trident submarine was reduced by half, from 96 to 48. As a result of these reductions, the Government estimated that the explosive power of the UK's nuclear deterrent would be 70% less than that of the operationally available warheads held during the 1970s.
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/98605.htm

    The WE.177C freefall bombs were withdrawn from the RN in 1992, and the RAF in 1998.

    AS for "scaling bakc by similar numbers": it wouldn't make a dent in (say) the Russian arsenal. Our nukes are under 2% of the world total.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    Pro_Rata said:



    Would any of these be fast enough to respond to an escalation in tensions? Indeed could the process of re-arming Trident subs DURING an escalation in tensions itself be more dangerous than keeping the missiles on-board? Any which way, it is a fudge I cannot bring myself to like, but the context that the shark had already been jumped was enlightening.

    I think posts here are over-analysing it. What the poll IMO reflects is that half the population like having a nuclear deterrent, a fifth dislike it, and the remainder feel a bit uneasy about either having it (expensive, maybe escalates tension) or scrapping it (give up something for nothing, hmm) and are in the market for a compromise. The assumption that the overwhelming majority of the population are gung-ho Trident fans seems to be false.

    Whether a reasonable compromise exists is a separate question - another that I've seen knocking around would be "proactive multilateralism", where we offer to give up our nukes in exchange for some other countries scaling theirs back by similar numbers. That is possibly achievable (Russia and the US have both scaled back already) and avoids the "don't give up something for nothing" criticism while arguably making the world a bit safer, but of course won't satisfy anyone who wants us to have Trident so long as there's another nuke anywhere on the planet.

    Personally I've come to feel that the emergence of Trump et al means we shouldn't rule out Britain at some point having someone in charge with an itchy nuclear trigger finger. The theory that only foreign countries will ever be dangerous to world peace (none of us actually want a nuclear war even if we "win") is not necessarily sound.
    You really think rational people, as opposed to the sub optimally challenged corbynistas, will be taken in by all that convoluted rubbish?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,641
    MTimT said:

    FPT

    Wanderer said:

    FWIW I see support for Trident is down to 51%. 29% like Corbyn's "subs but not nukes" idea and 20% want to scrap Trident altogether. Caution: there is usually a "pick the middle option" bias at work in any poll with 3 opinions. It confirms the impression that opinion on the issue isn't now especially entrenched - a lot of people would struggle to say what Trident is (the subs? the nukes? both?) and it's not a typical breakfast table issue. The downside is that people who don't feel that strongly also won't want it to dominate Labour debate.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Can you think of a more stupid idea ever floated by the leader of a major party than "subs but not nukes?" I really can't. I expect you're right that most people don't get the implications, don't realise that the submarines in question are designed for a specialised role and so forth. But Corbyn does, doesn't he?
    As something of a Corbynista, I have to say that the "nuclear missile subs with no nuclear missiles" was a proper jumping-the-shark moment, absolutely magnificently barmy.

    The fact that it is surprisingly well-supported in opinion polls indicates one of two things - the "pick the middle" bias that Nick P mentions is alive and well, or alternatively, Churchill's "best argument against democracy" (despite widespread access to the internet - the greatest repository of knowledge and transmitter of information in the history of humankind - it seems the "average voter" is as poorly informed as ever).
    The vast majority of voters will always be poorly informed - they have more important things to do with their lives. This should be no mystery to the politigentsia, and if it is, it reflects worse on them than on the voters.

    Indeed, we are rarely informed for nearly all the decisions we take in life - we rely on patterns of behaviour and heuristics. It has served humanity well for most of its existence, but is, of course, 'not right' for democracy.
    Fortunately, Churchill never actually said the "average voter" quote. It first appeared on Usenet as recently as 1999.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838

    Pro_Rata said:



    Would any of these be fast enough to respond to an escalation in tensions? Indeed could the process of re-arming Trident subs DURING an escalation in tensions itself be more dangerous than keeping the missiles on-board? Any which way, it is a fudge I cannot bring myself to like, but the context that the shark had already been jumped was enlightening.

    I think posts here are over-analysing it. What the poll IMO reflects is that half the population like having a nuclear deterrent, a fifth dislike it, and the remainder feel a bit uneasy about either having it (expensive, maybe escalates tension) or scrapping it (give up something for nothing, hmm) and are in the market for a compromise. The assumption that the overwhelming majority of the population are gung-ho Trident fans seems to be false.

    Whether a reasonable compromise exists is a separate question - another that I've seen knocking around would be "proactive multilateralism", where we offer to give up our nukes in exchange for some other countries scaling theirs back by similar numbers. That is possibly achievable (Russia and the US have both scaled back already) and avoids the "don't give up something for nothing" criticism while arguably making the world a bit safer, but of course won't satisfy anyone who wants us to have Trident so long as there's another nuke anywhere on the planet.

    Personally I've come to feel that the emergence of Trump et al means we shouldn't rule out Britain at some point having someone in charge with an itchy nuclear trigger finger. The theory that only foreign countries will ever be dangerous to world peace (none of us actually want a nuclear war even if we "win") is not necessarily sound.
    You really think rational people, as opposed to the sub optimally challenged corbynistas, will be taken in by all that convoluted rubbish?
    " sub optimally" - I see what you did there
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,164
    Omnium said:

    I was looking at Ed's wiki page. I wondered what he was up to now. Reading through it though one thing caught my attention - How on earth did he get elected to JCR President in his first year?

    Ed's legacy is being undermined and in some cases demolished by Corbyn. No wonder Ed is lukewarm.

    From my experience, only 2 people per year want to be. It is quite a lot of work, with little gain of power or respect. My 3 JCR presidents could be described as :

    1 - Nice carefree chap, was JCR pres when I arrived but no-one else seemed to care about politics.
    2- Lefty crusader, but not overly offensive JCR pres because she really wanted to be and her friends were happy to attend to vote for her.
    3 - Lovely sensible centrist friend of mine, one of the fairest people I know - now a crusading (human rights etc) barrister. I can't remember who opposed her, but IIRC even he knew he wouldn't have a chance.

    In short - it tells you nothing about EdM.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,303

    I'm starting to think that the Conservative strategy has to be based on the assumption that Corbyn will be replaced by someone competent before the election.

    One might have thought that would be the prudent course for the Conservative Party to steer, Mr. Teacher. To do otherwise would be like assuming the taxes generated during a boom were he new baseline and spending more than that anyway. Who but someone who is completely bonkers would do that?
    So is there a political equivalent of capital versus income?
  • LondonBobLondonBob Posts: 467

    Pro_Rata said:

    Wanderer said:

    FPT

    Wanderer said:

    FWIW I see support for Trident is down to 51%. 29% like Corbyn's "subs but not nukes" idea and 20% want to scrap Trident altogether. Caution: there is usually a "pick the middle option" bias at work in any poll with 3 opinions. It confirms the impression that opinion on the issue isn't now especially entrenched - a lot of people would struggle to say what Trident is (the subs? the nukes? both?) and it's not a typical breakfast table issue. The downside is that people who don't feel that strongly also won't want it to dominate Labour debate.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Can you think of a more stupid idea ever floated by the leader of a major party than "subs but not nukes?" I really can't. I expect you're right that most people don't get the implications, don't realise that the submarines in question are designed for a specialised role and so forth. But Corbyn does, doesn't he?
    As something of a Corbynista, I have to say that the "nuclear missile subs with no nuclear missiles" was a proper jumping-the-shark moment, absolutely magnificently barmy.
    It's not just about the specific question of Trident but what it suggests about Corbyn's thinking in general. How about a compromise on Heathrow: we'll build a third runway but not use it. Let's build HS2 but not run trains on it.
    We'll build Trident but not use it would suit me very well thank you very much - especially the not use it bit.
    I think having CASD but not having to use it in anger would suit just about everyone.

    I rather think though that Corbyn's, "have the subs but don't arm" them was purely political without even giving a nod to any arguments about defence. The unions want the subs built - jobs, unionised jobs in Cumbria. Corbyn doesn't like weapons. So build the subs and give them no weapons and both sides are happy.
    The fact remains though that Corbyn's proposal was almost as daft as Dave's we need Trident to protect ourselves from North Korea argument. He would do a lot better to stick to his beliefs, learn from the Donald.

    http://www.blunt4reigate.com/news/figures-show-crippling-costs-renewing-trident

    Awful lot of money to subsidise a handful of jobs.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    LondonBob said:

    http://nypost.com/2016/01/24/hillarys-team-copied-intel-off-top-secret-server-to-email/

    Another deliberate leak designed by the leaker(s) to block Obama's ability to suppress the FBI investigation, as well as DOJ action against Clinton and her immediate personal staff. This article, and the implied threat of more such leaks, effectively shuts out the possibility of a POTUS intervention in the investigation.

    It will be surprising if there are not indictments.

    From your link:

    In one email, Clinton pressured Sullivan to declassify cabled remarks by a foreign leader.

    “Just email it,” Clinton snapped, to which Sullivan replied: “Trust me, I share your exasperation. But until ops converts it to the unclassified email system, there is no physical way for me to email it.”

    In another recently released email, Clinton instructed Sullivan to convert a classified document into an unclassified email attachment by scanning it into an unsecured computer and sending it to her without any classified markings. “Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” she ordered.


    If this is accurate, how could it not lead to an indictment?

    IANAL, but it suggests intent, foreknowledge that the information was classified, presumably conspiracy, malfeasance and lots of other goodies.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,138
    Good evening, everyone.

    Maybe Labour should send Corbyn to live in the Calais jungle.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,774
    Tories dealt whopping Lords defeat over their plot to axe child poverty targets
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,774
    Campaigners had cause to celebrate tonight as peers voted 290 to 198 to force the Work and Pensions Secretary to keep the measures
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,029
    Wanderer said:

    Pro_Rata said:



    Would any of these be fast enough to respond to an escalation in tensions? Indeed could the process of re-arming Trident subs DURING an escalation in tensions itself be more dangerous than keeping the missiles on-board? Any which way, it is a fudge I cannot bring myself to like, but the context that the shark had already been jumped was enlightening.

    I think posts here are over-analysing it. What the poll IMO reflects is that half the population like having a nuclear deterrent, a fifth dislike it, and the remainder feel a bit uneasy about either having it (expensive, maybe escalates tension) or scrapping it (give up something for nothing, hmm) and are in the market for a compromise. The assumption that the overwhelming majority of the population are gung-ho Trident fans seems to be false.

    Whether a reasonable compromise exists is a separate question - another that I've seen knocking around would be "proactive multilateralism", where we offer to give up our nukes in exchange for some other countries scaling theirs back by similar numbers. That is possibly achievable (Russia and the US have both scaled back already) and avoids the "don't give up something for nothing" criticism while arguably making the world a bit safer, but of course won't satisfy anyone who wants us to have Trident so long as there's another nuke anywhere on the planet.

    Personally I've come to feel that the emergence of Trump et al means we shouldn't rule out Britain at some point having someone in charge with an itchy nuclear trigger finger. The theory that only foreign countries will ever be dangerous to world peace (none of us actually want a nuclear war even if we "win") is not necessarily sound.
    You really think rational people, as opposed to the sub optimally challenged corbynistas, will be taken in by all that convoluted rubbish?
    " sub optimally" - I see what you did there
    Use English wrongly?
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    Charles said:

    LondonBob said:

    http://nypost.com/2016/01/24/hillarys-team-copied-intel-off-top-secret-server-to-email/

    Another deliberate leak designed by the leaker(s) to block Obama's ability to suppress the FBI investigation, as well as DOJ action against Clinton and her immediate personal staff. This article, and the implied threat of more such leaks, effectively shuts out the possibility of a POTUS intervention in the investigation.

    It will be surprising if there are not indictments.

    From your link:

    In one email, Clinton pressured Sullivan to declassify cabled remarks by a foreign leader.

    “Just email it,” Clinton snapped, to which Sullivan replied: “Trust me, I share your exasperation. But until ops converts it to the unclassified email system, there is no physical way for me to email it.”

    In another recently released email, Clinton instructed Sullivan to convert a classified document into an unclassified email attachment by scanning it into an unsecured computer and sending it to her without any classified markings. “Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” she ordered.


    If this is accurate, how could it not lead to an indictment?

    IANAL, but it suggests intent, foreknowledge that the information was classified, presumably conspiracy, malfeasance and lots of other goodies.

    Can someone explain to me why she was doing this?

    Was it to benefit from the information, or was she just fed up with the system?

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,754
    Mortimer said:

    Omnium said:

    I was looking at Ed's wiki page. I wondered what he was up to now. Reading through it though one thing caught my attention - How on earth did he get elected to JCR President in his first year?

    Ed's legacy is being undermined and in some cases demolished by Corbyn. No wonder Ed is lukewarm.

    From my experience, only 2 people per year want to be. It is quite a lot of work, with little gain of power or respect. My 3 JCR presidents could be described as :

    1 - Nice carefree chap, was JCR pres when I arrived but no-one else seemed to care about politics.
    2- Lefty crusader, but not overly offensive JCR pres because she really wanted to be and her friends were happy to attend to vote for her.
    3 - Lovely sensible centrist friend of mine, one of the fairest people I know - now a crusading (human rights etc) barrister. I can't remember who opposed her, but IIRC even he knew he wouldn't have a chance.

    In short - it tells you nothing about EdM.
    Is JCR an acronym for Junior Common Room ?
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,303
    LondonBob said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Wanderer said:

    FPT

    Wanderer said:

    FWIW I see support for Trident is down to 51%. 29% like Corbyn's "subs but not nukes" idea and 20% want to scrap Trident altogether.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trident-majority-of-britons-back-keeping-nuclear-weapons-programme-poll-shows-a6831376.html

    Can you think of a more stupid idea ever floated by the leader of a major party than "subs but not nukes?" I really can't. I expect you're right that most people don't get the implications, don't realise that the submarines in question are designed for a specialised role and so forth. But Corbyn does, doesn't he?
    As something of a Corbynista, I have to say that the "nuclear missile subs with no nuclear missiles" was a proper jumping-the-shark moment, absolutely magnificently barmy.
    It's not just about the specific question of Trident but what it suggests about Corbyn's thinking in general. How about a compromise on Heathrow: we'll build a third runway but not use it. Let's build HS2 but not run trains on it.
    We'll build Trident but not use it would suit me very well thank you very much - especially the not use it bit.
    I think having CASD but not having to use it in anger would suit just about everyone.

    I rather think though that Corbyn's, "have the subs but don't arm" them was purely political without even giving a nod to any arguments about defence. The unions want the subs built - jobs, unionised jobs in Cumbria. Corbyn doesn't like weapons. So build the subs and give them no weapons and both sides are happy.
    The fact remains though that Corbyn's proposal was almost as daft as Dave's we need Trident to protect ourselves from North Korea argument. He would do a lot better to stick to his beliefs, learn from the Donald.

    http://www.blunt4reigate.com/news/figures-show-crippling-costs-renewing-trident

    Awful lot of money to subsidise a handful of jobs.
    That's what amazed me about the statement: I can understand those who think it is all far to expensive (although I suspect in many cases it is because they think the figure quoted is per year, not the total) even if I don't agree; and I agree with those who want to keep it despite the expense; and I can understand those who object to us having nuclear weapons on moral grounds. This has all the disadvantages and none of the advantages of any of the arguable positions.

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,164
    Pulpstar said:

    Mortimer said:

    Omnium said:

    I was looking at Ed's wiki page. I wondered what he was up to now. Reading through it though one thing caught my attention - How on earth did he get elected to JCR President in his first year?

    Ed's legacy is being undermined and in some cases demolished by Corbyn. No wonder Ed is lukewarm.

    From my experience, only 2 people per year want to be. It is quite a lot of work, with little gain of power or respect. My 3 JCR presidents could be described as :

    1 - Nice carefree chap, was JCR pres when I arrived but no-one else seemed to care about politics.
    2- Lefty crusader, but not overly offensive JCR pres because she really wanted to be and her friends were happy to attend to vote for her.
    3 - Lovely sensible centrist friend of mine, one of the fairest people I know - now a crusading (human rights etc) barrister. I can't remember who opposed her, but IIRC even he knew he wouldn't have a chance.

    In short - it tells you nothing about EdM.
    Is JCR an acronym for Junior Common Room ?
    Yup.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,130
    Mortimer said:

    Omnium said:

    I was looking at Ed's wiki page. I wondered what he was up to now. Reading through it though one thing caught my attention - How on earth did he get elected to JCR President in his first year?

    Ed's legacy is being undermined and in some cases demolished by Corbyn. No wonder Ed is lukewarm.

    From my experience, only 2 people per year want to be. It is quite a lot of work, with little gain of power or respect. My 3 JCR presidents could be described as :

    1 - Nice carefree chap, was JCR pres when I arrived but no-one else seemed to care about politics.
    2- Lefty crusader, but not overly offensive JCR pres because she really wanted to be and her friends were happy to attend to vote for her.
    3 - Lovely sensible centrist friend of mine, one of the fairest people I know - now a crusading (human rights etc) barrister. I can't remember who opposed her, but IIRC even he knew he wouldn't have a chance.

    In short - it tells you nothing about EdM.

    First year JCR President must mean getting elected in your first term surely? My point wasn't around his ability to get elected, apply, or do the (minor) job. It was the timing,
  • LondonBobLondonBob Posts: 467

    Pro_Rata said:



    Would any of these be fast enough to respond to an escalation in tensions? Indeed could the process of re-arming Trident subs DURING an escalation in tensions itself be more dangerous than keeping the missiles on-board? Any which way, it is a fudge I cannot bring myself to like, but the context that the shark had already been jumped was enlightening.

    I think posts here are over-analysing it. What the poll IMO reflects is that half the population like having a nuclear deterrent, a fifth dislike it, and the remainder feel a bit uneasy about either having it (expensive, maybe escalates tension) or scrapping it (give up something for nothing, hmm) and are in the market for a compromise. The assumption that the overwhelming majority of the population are gung-ho Trident fans seems to be false.

    Whether a reasonable compromise exists is a separate question - another that I've seen knocking around would be "proactive multilateralism", where we offer to give up our nukes in exchange for some other countries scaling theirs back by similar numbers. That is possibly achievable (Russia and the US have both scaled back already) and avoids the "don't give up something for nothing" criticism while arguably making the world a bit safer, but of course won't satisfy anyone who wants us to have Trident so long as there's another nuke anywhere on the planet.

    Personally I've come to feel that the emergence of Trump et al means we shouldn't rule out Britain at some point having someone in charge with an itchy nuclear trigger finger. The theory that only foreign countries will ever be dangerous to world peace (none of us actually want a nuclear war even if we "win") is not necessarily sound.
    We should be more worried about one of the other 200+ countries in the world having an itchy nuclear finger. We at least have some pretty hefty checks and balances to our system. North Korea doesn't and nor does Iran, not to mention regimes yet to exist.
    Iran has very stringent restrictions as per the recent deal, even though the US NIE confidently stated Iran gave up any sort of nuclear weapons program in 2003.

    We should wait and see, Trump has stated his intention to re-engage with the Russians, after all these years since Bush withdrew from the ABM treaty, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a reduction from both sides, provided the Americans have the will.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,164

    Tories dealt whopping Lords defeat over their plot to axe child poverty targets

    What a load of rubbish.

    Measures are unimportant. The reality is. Trust the Lords to get twisted knickers about mere, bloody measures.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Charles said:

    If this is accurate, how could it not lead to an indictment?

    IANAL, but it suggests intent, foreknowledge that the information was classified, presumably conspiracy, malfeasance and lots of other goodies.

    That was my reaction as well. I think we certainly have to take seriously the possibility that Hillary might have to withdraw.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,774
    Mortimer said:

    Tories dealt whopping Lords defeat over their plot to axe child poverty targets

    What a load of rubbish.

    Measures are unimportant. The reality is. Trust the Lords to get twisted knickers about mere, bloody measures.
    Tories dealt whopping Lords defeat over their plot to axe child poverty targets
  • LadyBucketLadyBucket Posts: 590
    Haven't seen any comments re Labour's urgent question on the Google tax. I take it, it was pretty mediocre and no "blows were landed?"

    I did catch a glimpse of Alison McGovern's very, very, very low-cut top!
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,164
    edited 2016 25
    Omnium said:

    Mortimer said:

    Omnium said:

    I was looking at Ed's wiki page. I wondered what he was up to now. Reading through it though one thing caught my attention - How on earth did he get elected to JCR President in his first year?

    Ed's legacy is being undermined and in some cases demolished by Corbyn. No wonder Ed is lukewarm.

    From my experience, only 2 people per year want to be. It is quite a lot of work, with little gain of power or respect. My 3 JCR presidents could be described as :

    1 - Nice carefree chap, was JCR pres when I arrived but no-one else seemed to care about politics.
    2- Lefty crusader, but not overly offensive JCR pres because she really wanted to be and her friends were happy to attend to vote for her.
    3 - Lovely sensible centrist friend of mine, one of the fairest people I know - now a crusading (human rights etc) barrister. I can't remember who opposed her, but IIRC even he knew he wouldn't have a chance.

    In short - it tells you nothing about EdM.

    First year JCR President must mean getting elected in your first term surely? My point wasn't around his ability to get elected, apply, or do the (minor) job. It was the timing,
    Elections tend to happen for appointment the following year, or was it in fact that JCR pres. terms last from Trinity to Hilary, to avoid exams. I'm a little fuzzy.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,233

    Mortimer said:

    Tories dealt whopping Lords defeat over their plot to axe child poverty targets

    What a load of rubbish.

    Measures are unimportant. The reality is. Trust the Lords to get twisted knickers about mere, bloody measures.
    Tories dealt whopping Lords defeat over their plot to axe child poverty targets
    Not exactly whopping.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,161
    Sell Hillary!
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,164

    Mortimer said:

    Tories dealt whopping Lords defeat over their plot to axe child poverty targets

    What a load of rubbish.

    Measures are unimportant. The reality is. Trust the Lords to get twisted knickers about mere, bloody measures.
    Tories dealt whopping Lords defeat over their plot to axe child poverty targets
    Is this groundhog day?
This discussion has been closed.