politicalbetting.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.
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.
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.
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
Politico Daily People thought @Ed_Miliband was a "dork" & "had the appeal of a potato" yet #BeckettReport called him "courageous" https://t.co/3P7SCRCMvG
Politico Daily People thought @Ed_Miliband was a "dork" & "had the appeal of a potato" yet #BeckettReport called him "courageous" https://t.co/3P7SCRCMvG
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.
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).
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.
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...
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.
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!'.
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.
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 ...
Politico Daily People thought @Ed_Miliband was a "dork" & "had the appeal of a potato" yet #BeckettReport called him "courageous" https://t.co/3P7SCRCMvG
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.
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.
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.
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.
#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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
Comments
If you are delighted with the way he is trashing Labour, vote "satisfied"........
So we're really only one down with two night watchmen gone.
However, this won’t stop some trying to argue otherwise. – All part of the fun on PB.Com
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.
Corbyn on 33% with Ipsos MORI is almost level with Cameron's 35% with ComRes
HMS OK
HMS Alright
HMS Average
HMS Not Bad
HMS So-So
HMS Adequate
HMS Normal
HMS Satisfactory
Wouldn't Ireland's tax deals with multinationals unravel I they were out of the EU?
Politico Daily
People thought @Ed_Miliband was a "dork" & "had the appeal of a potato" yet #BeckettReport called him "courageous" https://t.co/3P7SCRCMvG
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/milifan-prime-minister-ed-miliband
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).
You could probably lay your mortgage on that.
The whole idea of the Japanese option is ridiculous IMO. But some will believe that is is cheaper and safer ...
Massive over-sampling of the public sector.
His odds are a wonder of the modern world.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/milifan-prime-minister-ed-miliband
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.
A great Hertsmere MP.
- 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.
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.
As it turned out, he wasn't an Arran Victor either.
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.
http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/5139/garlic-mash-potato-bake
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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
Ed's legacy is being undermined and in some cases demolished by Corbyn. No wonder Ed is lukewarm.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/35399467/irish-potato-picture-sells-for-750000
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.
http://www.blunt4reigate.com/news/figures-show-crippling-costs-renewing-trident
Awful lot of money to subsidise a handful of jobs.
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.
Maybe Labour should send Corbyn to live in the Calais jungle.
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?
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,
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.
Measures are unimportant. The reality is. Trust the Lords to get twisted knickers about mere, bloody measures.
I did catch a glimpse of Alison McGovern's very, very, very low-cut top!