Labour is considering plans to strip Britain's nuclear submarines of their weapons and use them to transport members of the armed forces in a move described by critics as a "Trident taxi service".
John Woodcock, a Labour MP and Trident supporter, said: "Aside from the question of why exactly this would be needed given the Astute class submarines already convey special forces, defence experts have pointed out that the so-called Japanese option is a red herring because it would break the non-proliferation treaty.
"You can't legally recreate the ability to make nuclear warheads once you've scrapped then and you can't claim to be a credible opposition if you want to spend billions on an underwater Trident taxi service for British troops. It is as if whoever keeps floating these barmy ideas is determined to make Labour a laughing stock."
I suppose the obvious question is how long before anyone noticed? It would help with the deficit too.
And he won't even have to pay severance money. At least they will have to work for a living for a change. And, since there seem to be many clever (STEM) Americans out of jobs, the necessary jobs can be replaced with better employees.
Cruz has an awesome ground game for tonight. There seems to be general lack of knowledge of Trump's ground game, and the campaign isn't talking about it.
Looking back it's amazing that the campaigns have been in Iowa well over a year, have spent tens of millions of dollars - including 40k TV ads - have huge teams of volunteers, some campaigns have over 20k folks in the state, and all scrambling over about 120k votes.
This evening for the GOP caucuses remember a number - 121,501. That's the GOP turnout last time.
One of the popular t-shirts - "Why should I vote for you? I've only met you 4 times."
You govern America by sitting on a 3 legged stool and the Republicans would not do too bad by retaining control of congress. A Trump presidency would be worth a marginally smaller bucket of spit than whoever he runs with as VP.
The problems might start after the midterm elections in 2018 when it's highly likely a President Trump would face Democrat majorities in both the Senate and Congress. We forget how often the President's party takes a pounding in the first midterm.
Clinton in 1994 was badly mauled by Gingrich and while Bush basked in his post 9/11 status in 2002, he too was on the wrong side of a mauling in 2006 when Pelosi and the Democrats took over only to lose back to the GOP at Obama's first mid term in 2010.
Interesting notion that if REMAIN wins narrowly (how defined ?), it'll be EU Ref 2 in 2020. I suppose it's possible IF the Conservatives pick someone very closely associated with LEAVE, there might be a manifesto commitment for a second referendum within 12 months of the re-election of a Conservative Government.
Sorry...Robert doesn't want us talking about all this.
As for matters American, it's entryism run riot on both sides tonight. Trump and Sanders could be carried to victory by caucus first-timers but the underlying numbers suggest neither would have a lock on the nomination at this time. Cromwell's "pragmatic" voters might yet deny Trump but if he wins IA and NH convincingly, he'll be that harder to stop.
Unless Patterson or Fox leads the Tories I think that would be unlikely, certainly there will be no EU Ref 2 if Osborne is PM
But what if it's PM Boris and the EU/member states don't actual ratify the negotiated settlement?
Both quite likely. And could lead to a second referendum, this time with the Prime Minister recommending LEAVE.
There are a tonne of reasons why there might be a second referendum:
Eurogeddon II Migrant crisis II Any significant change in the balance of sovereignty
Ultimately, though, if remaining in the EU is politically unpopular, it will not continue.
Emergency brake being removed by EU majority against UK's wishes.
Labour is considering plans to strip Britain's nuclear submarines of their weapons and use them to transport members of the armed forces in a move described by critics as a "Trident taxi service".
John Woodcock, a Labour MP and Trident supporter, said: "Aside from the question of why exactly this would be needed given the Astute class submarines already convey special forces, defence experts have pointed out that the so-called Japanese option is a red herring because it would break the non-proliferation treaty.
"You can't legally recreate the ability to make nuclear warheads once you've scrapped then and you can't claim to be a credible opposition if you want to spend billions on an underwater Trident taxi service for British troops. It is as if whoever keeps floating these barmy ideas is determined to make Labour a laughing stock."
Why should they only be used to transport service personnel? They'd be a wonderful tourist attraction on the Thames or the Solent. Or perhaps a regular passenger service to Australia or the Falkland Islands?
Given most people would not follow through with a threat like that and are therefore just expressing extreme distaste for the man, that doesn't seem that bad.
I'd almost like to see a Trump presidency - the Corbynista reaction would be hilarious!
In what way ? I suppose the Conservative reaction if Sanders won would be quite interesting as well.
Best case it will be Sanders vs Trump, so that Cameron get's a massive pain in his behinds whichever side wins.
Sanders is only slightly to the left of Cameron.
It's no secret Cameron and the PLP Conservative party's preferred choice is Hilary.
Notwithstanding her very uncomplimentary remarks about Cameron?
All of them, without exception, are terrible candidates who would make bad Presidents. However, whatever her other faults Hilary Clinton does have more experience of and a better grasp of diplomacy and the international situation than any other candidate. Therefore she is the candidate most likely to further Britain's interests.
She doesn't have any actual solutions to the world's problems other than her suggestion of nuking Iran, of course, but then nor do the others.
It may also help that she's arrogant, posh and an insider who keeps getting duffed up by more charismatic and capable politicians, so Cameron may have fellow feeling for her and she may resent that such a similar but in her view inferior candidate has succeeded where she has so far failed.
Labour is considering plans to strip Britain's nuclear submarines of their weapons and use them to transport members of the armed forces in a move described by critics as a "Trident taxi service".
John Woodcock, a Labour MP and Trident supporter, said: "Aside from the question of why exactly this would be needed given the Astute class submarines already convey special forces, defence experts have pointed out that the so-called Japanese option is a red herring because it would break the non-proliferation treaty.
"You can't legally recreate the ability to make nuclear warheads once you've scrapped then and you can't claim to be a credible opposition if you want to spend billions on an underwater Trident taxi service for British troops. It is as if whoever keeps floating these barmy ideas is determined to make Labour a laughing stock."
Why should they only be used to transport service personnel? They'd be a wonderful tourist attraction on the Thames or the Solent. Or perhaps a regular passenger service to Australia or the Falkland Islands?
Under a Corbyn government travel to Las Malvinas would probably not be easy for this taxi service. You'd have to run it by Argentina first.
Labour is considering plans to strip Britain's nuclear submarines of their weapons and use them to transport members of the armed forces in a move described by critics as a "Trident taxi service".
John Woodcock, a Labour MP and Trident supporter, said: "Aside from the question of why exactly this would be needed given the Astute class submarines already convey special forces, defence experts have pointed out that the so-called Japanese option is a red herring because it would break the non-proliferation treaty.
"You can't legally recreate the ability to make nuclear warheads once you've scrapped then and you can't claim to be a credible opposition if you want to spend billions on an underwater Trident taxi service for British troops. It is as if whoever keeps floating these barmy ideas is determined to make Labour a laughing stock."
Why should they only be used to transport service personnel? They'd be a wonderful tourist attraction on the Thames or the Solent. Or perhaps a regular passenger service to Australia or the Falkland Islands?
Under a Corbyn government travel to Las Malvinas would probably not be easy for this taxi service. You'd have to run it by Argentina first.
Interesting notion that if REMAIN wins narrowly (how defined ?), it'll be EU Ref 2 in 2020. I suppose it's possible IF the Conservatives pick someone very closely associated with LEAVE, there might be a manifesto commitment for a second referendum within 12 months of the re-election of a Conservative Government.
Sorry...Robert doesn't want us talking about all this.
As for matters American, it's entryism run riot on both sides tonight. Trump and Sanders could be carried to victory by caucus first-timers but the underlying numbers suggest neither would have a lock on the nomination at this time. Cromwell's "pragmatic" voters might yet deny Trump but if he wins IA and NH convincingly, he'll be that harder to stop.
Unless Patterson or Fox leads the Tories I think that would be unlikely, certainly there will be no EU Ref 2 if Osborne is PM
But what if it's PM Boris and the EU/member states don't actual ratify the negotiated settlement?
Both quite likely. And could lead to a second referendum, this time with the Prime Minister recommending LEAVE.
I think Boris has shot his bolt. I'm a heavy layer.
Labour is considering plans to strip Britain's nuclear submarines of their weapons and use them to transport members of the armed forces in a move described by critics as a "Trident taxi service".
John Woodcock, a Labour MP and Trident supporter, said: "Aside from the question of why exactly this would be needed given the Astute class submarines already convey special forces, defence experts have pointed out that the so-called Japanese option is a red herring because it would break the non-proliferation treaty.
"You can't legally recreate the ability to make nuclear warheads once you've scrapped then and you can't claim to be a credible opposition if you want to spend billions on an underwater Trident taxi service for British troops. It is as if whoever keeps floating these barmy ideas is determined to make Labour a laughing stock."
Why should they only be used to transport service personnel? They'd be a wonderful tourist attraction on the Thames or the Solent. Or perhaps a regular passenger service to Australia or the Falkland Islands?
Under a Corbyn government travel to Las Malvinas would probably not be easy for this taxi service. You'd have to run it by Argentina first.
Ah, I had forgotten. Well, a service to Buenos Aires, then.
Actually, a terrestrial service to places over the equator would be of great interest to people like me who can't fly long distances and can't bear the heat of sea travel. A submerged vessel would get round both problems.
Labour is considering plans to strip Britain's nuclear submarines of their weapons and use them to transport members of the armed forces in a move described by critics as a "Trident taxi service".
John Woodcock, a Labour MP and Trident supporter, said: "Aside from the question of why exactly this would be needed given the Astute class submarines already convey special forces, defence experts have pointed out that the so-called Japanese option is a red herring because it would break the non-proliferation treaty.
"You can't legally recreate the ability to make nuclear warheads once you've scrapped then and you can't claim to be a credible opposition if you want to spend billions on an underwater Trident taxi service for British troops. It is as if whoever keeps floating these barmy ideas is determined to make Labour a laughing stock."
I'd almost like to see a Trump presidency - the Corbynista reaction would be hilarious!
In what way ? I suppose the Conservative reaction if Sanders won would be quite interesting as well.
Best case it will be Sanders vs Trump, so that Cameron get's a massive pain in his behinds whichever side wins.
Sanders is only slightly to the left of Cameron.
It's no secret Cameron and the PLP Conservative party's preferred choice is Hilary.
Notwithstanding her very uncomplimentary remarks about Cameron?
All of them, without exception, are terrible candidates who would make bad Presidents. However, whatever her other faults Hilary Clinton does have more experience of and a better grasp of diplomacy and the international situation than any other candidate. Therefore she is the candidate most likely to further Britain's interests.
She doesn't have any actual solutions to the world's problems other than her suggestion of nuking Iran, of course, but then nor do the others.
It may also help that she's arrogant, posh and an insider who keeps getting duffed up by more charismatic and capable politicians, so Cameron may have fellow feeling for her and she may resent that such a similar but in her view inferior candidate has succeeded where she has so far failed.
Agree with most of that but Hillary is certainly not posh, her father was a small businessman and she went to a public highschool. Romney, Kerry, the Bushes and the Kennedys are posh, the Clintons are nouveau riche!
Given most people would not follow through with a threat like that and are therefore just expressing extreme distaste for the man, that doesn't seem that bad.
Yeah it's like idiots who say they'll "move to Canada" or "leave London", the blowhards never follow through.
I'd almost like to see a Trump presidency - the Corbynista reaction would be hilarious!
In what way ? I suppose the Conservative reaction if Sanders won would be quite interesting as well.
Best case it will be Sanders vs Trump, so that Cameron get's a massive pain in his behinds whichever side wins.
Sanders is only slightly to the left of Cameron.
It's no secret Cameron and the PLP Conservative party's preferred choice is Hilary.
Notwithstanding her very uncomplimentary remarks about Cameron?
All of them, without exception, are terrible candidates who would make bad Presidents. However, whatever her other faults Hilary Clinton does have more experience of and a better grasp of diplomacy and the international situation than any other candidate. Therefore she is the candidate most likely to further Britain's interests.
She doesn't have any actual solutions to the world's problems other than her suggestion of nuking Iran, of course, but then nor do the others.
It may also help that she's arrogant, posh and an insider who keeps getting duffed up by more charismatic and capable politicians, so Cameron may have fellow feeling for her and she may resent that such a similar but in her view inferior candidate has succeeded where she has so far failed.
Agree with most of that but Hillary is certainly not posh, her father was a small businessman and she went to a public highschool. Romney, Kerry, the Bushes and the Kennedys are posh, the Clintons are nouveau riche!
I think of poshness as being about wealth, to be sure, but also about aloofness and perhaps even distaste(or even just academic like interest in, without any connection to) for 'common' people and things, or lacking understanding of those things. You could still do good things for ordinary people and be posh, but I don't think being nouveau riche prevents one from being so, particularly when one has spent decades as an elite.
Labour is considering plans to strip Britain's nuclear submarines of their weapons and use them to transport members of the armed forces in a move described by critics as a "Trident taxi service".
John Woodcock, a Labour MP and Trident supporter, said: "Aside from the question of why exactly this would be needed given the Astute class submarines already convey special forces, defence experts have pointed out that the so-called Japanese option is a red herring because it would break the non-proliferation treaty.
"You can't legally recreate the ability to make nuclear warheads once you've scrapped then and you can't claim to be a credible opposition if you want to spend billions on an underwater Trident taxi service for British troops. It is as if whoever keeps floating these barmy ideas is determined to make Labour a laughing stock."
I'd almost like to see a Trump presidency - the Corbynista reaction would be hilarious!
In what way ? I suppose the Conservative reaction if Sanders won would be quite interesting as well.
Best case it will be Sanders vs Trump, so that Cameron get's a massive pain in his behinds whichever side wins.
Sanders is only slightly to the left of Cameron.
It's no secret Cameron and the PLP Conservative party's preferred choice is Hilary.
Notwithstanding her very uncomplimentary remarks about Cameron?
All of them, without exception, are terrible candidates who would make bad Presidents. However, whatever her other faults Hilary Clinton does have more experience of and a better grasp of diplomacy and the international situation than any other candidate. Therefore she is the candidate most likely to further Britain's interests.
She doesn't have any actual solutions to the world's problems other than her suggestion of nuking Iran, of course, but then nor do the others.
It may also help that she's arrogant, posh and an insider who keeps getting duffed up by more charismatic and capable politicians, so Cameron may have fellow feeling for her and she may resent that such a similar but in her view inferior candidate has succeeded where she has so far failed.
Agree with most of that but Hillary is certainly not posh, her father was a small businessman and she went to a public highschool. Romney, Kerry, the Bushes and the Kennedys are posh, the Clintons are nouveau riche!
I think of poshness as being about wealth, to be sure, but also about aloofness and perhaps even distaste(or even just academic like interest in, without any connection to) for 'common' people and things, or lacking understanding of those things. You could still do good things for ordinary people and be posh, but I don't think being nouveau riche prevents one from being so, particularly when one has spent decades as an elite.
Her attitude is aloof yes but to be posh you really need to have been born into the upper middle class or even the upper class, been to private school and ideally an Ivy League College as well as have a high income
Labour is considering plans to strip Britain's nuclear submarines of their weapons and use them to transport members of the armed forces in a move described by critics as a "Trident taxi service".
John Woodcock, a Labour MP and Trident supporter, said: "Aside from the question of why exactly this would be needed given the Astute class submarines already convey special forces, defence experts have pointed out that the so-called Japanese option is a red herring because it would break the non-proliferation treaty.
"You can't legally recreate the ability to make nuclear warheads once you've scrapped then and you can't claim to be a credible opposition if you want to spend billions on an underwater Trident taxi service for British troops. It is as if whoever keeps floating these barmy ideas is determined to make Labour a laughing stock."
What nonsense - it has to be huge and expensive to pay for jobs, silly.
Funny that on an issue where Corbynis trying to act like a regular politician, with twisting himself in knots to adopt a position but also placate supporters who would be upset by it, he runs into easily mockable differences. He should stick to being uncompromising and rigid of thought - people may and indeed will say he is wrong, some in quite a mean fashion, but he cannot be attacked for inconsistently at least.
Interesting notion that if REMAIN wins narrowly (how defined ?), it'll be EU Ref 2 in 2020. I suppose it's possible IF the Conservatives pick someone very closely associated with LEAVE, there might be a manifesto commitment for a second referendum within 12 months of the re-election of a Conservative Government.
Sorry...Robert doesn't want us talking about all this.
As for matters American, it's entryism run riot on both sides tonight. Trump and Sanders could be carried to victory by caucus first-timers but the underlying numbers suggest neither would have a lock on the nomination at this time. Cromwell's "pragmatic" voters might yet deny Trump but if he wins IA and NH convincingly, he'll be that harder to stop.
Unless Patterson or Fox leads the Tories I think that would be unlikely, certainly there will be no EU Ref 2 if Osborne is PM
The law says new treaties must pass a referendum.
It doesn't need treaties. As we have seen so often before it just needs the ECJ to decide something is against the principles of the European Union.The first activist lawyer who gets a client who can show they are being discriminated against and all Cameron and Tusk's promises unravel. That is before you even get onto the basic fact that what Cameron is asking or is about as far from fundamental change as it is possible to get.
Not quite. The ECJ get to say whether something is compatible with the treaties, but it can't stop the treaties being changed and it can't stop the member states agreeing to change the treaties. It's the ECJ, not Skynet.
I'd almost like to see a Trump presidency - the Corbynista reaction would be hilarious!
In what way ? I suppose the Conservative reaction if Sanders won would be quite interesting as well.
Best case it will be Sanders vs Trump, so that Cameron get's a massive pain in his behinds whichever side wins.
Sanders is only slightly to the left of Cameron.
It's no secret Cameron and the PLP Conservative party's preferred choice is Hilary.
Notwithstanding her very uncomplimentary remarks about Cameron?
All of them, withed.
Agree he!
I think of poshness as being about wealth, to be sure, but also about aloofness and perhaps even distaste(or even just academic like interest in, without any connection to) for 'common' people and things, or lacking understanding of those things. You could still do good things for ordinary people and be posh, but I don't think being nouveau riche prevents one from being so, particularly when one has spent decades as an elite.
Her attitude is aloof yes but to be posh you really need to have been born into the upper middle class or even the upper class, been to private school and ideally an Ivy League College as well as have a high income
Certainly easier to be posh in that situation, to be inherently posh, but I don't think it is a requirement. If one acts just like those sorts of people, but happens to come from a less privileged background, are you not as posh as them because of it? I don't think so.
However, I don't know that I would class Clinton as posh even under my definition. She seems, as you say, aloof, and deeply, deeply cynical and manufactured I feel (she may be sincere in everything she says as far as I know, but she is clearly extremely conscious about the way she presents everything, and the political consequences of it), but not necessarily posh.
yeah.. like the junior doctors... The strike just hurts patients..
Hush now. Think of those poor Tarquins and Jemimas and their struggle for overtime all day on a Saturday, not just after 5pm ... errr, sorry, I meant the fight for patient safety.
Good to see it confirmed that it's all about the money, but we knew that already.
What nonsense - it has to be huge and expensive to pay for jobs, silly.
Some people think a nuclear deterrent is a barmy idea, but Corbyn's managed to conceive of something even more ludicrous a non-nuclear nuclear deterrent. There are probably even Quakers who think Corbyn's lost the plot.
Labour is considering plans to strip Britain's nuclear submarines of their weapons and use them to transport members of the armed forces in a move described by critics as a "Trident taxi service".
John Woodcock, a Labour MP and Trident supporter, said: "Aside from the question of why exactly this would be needed given the Astute class submarines already convey special forces, defence experts have pointed out that the so-called Japanese option is a red herring because it would break the non-proliferation treaty.
"You can't legally recreate the ability to make nuclear warheads once you've scrapped then and you can't claim to be a credible opposition if you want to spend billions on an underwater Trident taxi service for British troops. It is as if whoever keeps floating these barmy ideas is determined to make Labour a laughing stock."
What nonsense - it has to be huge and expensive to pay for jobs, silly.
Funny that on an issue where Corbynis trying to act like a regular politician, with twisting himself in knots to adopt a position but also placate supporters who would be upset by it, he runs into easily mockable differences. He should stick to being uncompromising and rigid of thought - people may and indeed will say he is wrong, some in quite a mean fashion, but he cannot be attacked for inconsistently at least.
It was huge and also very expensive but that's what Labour finally ended up with after their top notch tender, procurement and build process.
Labour is considering plans to strip Britain's nuclear submarines of their weapons and use them to transport members of the armed forces in a move described by critics as a "Trident taxi service".
John Woodcock, a Labour MP and Trident supporter, said: "Aside from the question of why exactly this would be needed given the Astute class submarines already convey special forces, defence experts have pointed out that the so-called Japanese option is a red herring because it would break the non-proliferation treaty.
"You can't legally recreate the ability to make nuclear warheads once you've scrapped then and you can't claim to be a credible opposition if you want to spend billions on an underwater Trident taxi service for British troops. It is as if whoever keeps floating these barmy ideas is determined to make Labour a laughing stock."
What nonsense - it has to be huge and expensive to pay for jobs, silly.
Some people think a nuclear deterrent is a barmy idea, but Corbyn's managed to conceive of something even more ludicrous a non-nuclear nuclear deterrent. There are probably even Quakers who think Corbyn's lost the plot.
A non nuclear nuclear deterrent.
Ha! Seriously, I mean seriously you really have to admire the skill and expertise of Corby and his gang for taking total fuckwittery to yet new levels of impossibility.
Labour is considering plans to strip Britain's nuclear submarines of their weapons and use them to transport members of the armed forces in a move described by critics as a "Trident taxi service".
John Woodcock, a Labour MP and Trident supporter, said: "Aside from the question of why exactly this would be needed given the Astute class submarines already convey special forces, defence experts have pointed out that the so-called Japanese option is a red herring because it would break the non-proliferation treaty.
"You can't legally recreate the ability to make nuclear warheads once you've scrapped then and you can't claim to be a credible opposition if you want to spend billions on an underwater Trident taxi service for British troops. It is as if whoever keeps floating these barmy ideas is determined to make Labour a laughing stock."
Not quite. The ECJ get to say whether something is compatible with the treaties, but it can't stop the treaties being changed and it can't stop the member states agreeing to change the treaties. It's the ECJ, not Skynet.
The ECJ can interpret the treaties and in doing so can circumvent their intent as they did with the Social Chapter. John Major learnt this to his cost. As his letter of November 1996 made clear:
"My intention in agreeing to the Protocol on Social Policy at Maascricht was to ensure that social legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. The other Heads of state and Government also agreed that arrangement, without which there would have been no agreement at all at Maastricht
However, in its judgment today, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article I 18a is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act. This appears to mean that legislation which the United Kingdom had expected would be dealt with under the Protocol can in fact be adopted under Article 118a.
That is contrary to the clear and express wishes of the United Kingdom Government1 and goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied."
Moreover we are not going to get a new treaty and so the ECJ is free to strike down any 'deal' that might be cooked up whenever they like.
IMHO, it's worth considering who the Tory flag carrier for Leave will be if it doesn't become May or Javid given Gove and Boris have effectively ruled themselves out.
If Remain carries the day, but the EU deal turns south (or is just unpopular) within the parliamentary party then the high-profile Tories that stuck their necks out in 2016 will be in a good place for the 2019/2020 leadership contest. There are 80-90 BOO MPs and it will be hard to lock their candidate out, particularly if they attract 20-40 extra soft eurosceptics who are not swayed by Osborne.
I rule out Grayling (too wooden and unpopular), IDS (too much history) and its no secret Whittingdale doesn't want it so my choices are as follows - the odds are available on Betfair under either PM after Cameron or next Tory leader (precious little difference at these odds):
Priti Patel - 25/1 (ambitious, and feeling this might be her moment - maybe a tad short) Jesse Norman - 170/1 (tipped by Bruce Anderson, and longstanding EU rebel) Theresa Villiers - 260/1 (committed eurosceptic) Liam Fox - 80/1 (very prominent in taking the Tory lead for Leave so far, even dining "secretly" with May)
The odds for Villiers in particular are ridiculous. Even Michael Portillo and Louise Bagshawe are shorter.
I have only a covering bet on Paterson. I don't think there's much evidence he'd be The Choice.
I'm also backing a couple of female Tory cabinet ministers who are not out-and-out eurosceptics, but aren't europhiles and who could become "Stop Osborne" candidates:
Justine Greening - 260/1 (international development and economic secretary to treasury previously; widely rated) Liz Truss - 100/1 (was previously close to Leave and undecided, she may surprise later)
You can do a lot with small stakes at these sorts of odds.
As always, do your own research. Full disclosure: I am a heavy layer of Osborne and Boris.
John Woodcock, a Labour MP and Trident supporter, said: "Aside from the question of why exactly this would be needed given the Astute class submarines already convey special forces, defence experts have pointed out that the so-called Japanese option is a red herring because it would break the non-proliferation treaty.
The assumption behind the Japanese option is that at the point where you're embarking a crash program to create nuclear weapons, breaking the non-proliferation treaty is the least of your worries, and the treaty is probably already dead in any case. But in most possible worlds that doesn't happen and you get to de-escalate. Continuing to develop Trident, on the other hand, breaches the non-proliferation treaty immediately: The point of the treaty was supposed to be that non-nuclear countries wouldn't go nuclear, and in return nuclear countries would negotiate to get rid of their nuclear weapons over time.
Labour is considering plans to strip Britain's nuclear submarines of their weapons and use them to transport members of the armed forces in a move described by critics as a "Trident taxi service".
John Woodcock, a Labour MP and Trident supporter, said: "Aside from the question of why exactly this would be needed given the Astute class submarines already convey special forces, defence experts have pointed out that the so-called Japanese option is a red herring because it would break the non-proliferation treaty.
"You can't legally recreate the ability to make nuclear warheads once you've scrapped then and you can't claim to be a credible opposition if you want to spend billions on an underwater Trident taxi service for British troops. It is as if whoever keeps floating these barmy ideas is determined to make Labour a laughing stock."
The Astutes are hunter-killers: subs that hunt subs. The Vanguards are mobile launchpads for ballistic missiles. Neither are transport vessels and cannot hold a large enough number of troops to render them useful as troop transports. I would continue but applying logic to one of Corbyn's presentiments is to grant them more sense than they actually possess.
I'd almost like to see a Trump presidency - the Corbynista reaction would be hilarious!
In what way ? I suppose the Conservative reaction if Sanders won would be quite interesting as well.
Best case it will be Sanders vs Trump, so that Cameron get's a massive pain in his behinds whichever side wins.
Sanders is only slightly to the left of Cameron.
It's no secret Cameron and the PLP Conservative party's preferred choice is Hilary.
Notwithstanding her very uncomplimentary remarks about Cameron?
All of them, withed.
Agree he!
I think of poshness as being about wealth, to be sure, but also about aloofness and perhaps even distaste(or even just academic like interest in, without any connection to) for 'common' people and things, or lacking understanding of those things. You could still do good things for ordinary people and be posh, but I don't think being nouveau riche prevents one from being so, particularly when one has spent decades as an elite.
Her attitude is aloof yes but to be posh you really need to have been born into the upper middle class or even the upper class, been to private school and ideally an Ivy League College as well as have a high income
Certainly easier to be posh in that situation, to be inherently posh, but I don't think it is a requirement. If one acts just like those sorts of people, but happens to come from a less privileged background, are you not as posh as them because of it? I don't think so.
However, I don't know that I would class Clinton as posh even under my definition. She seems, as you say, aloof, and deeply, deeply cynical and manufactured I feel (she may be sincere in everything she says as far as I know, but she is clearly extremely conscious about the way she presents everything, and the political consequences of it), but not necessarily posh.
You can become rich and intelligent, however being posh is largely something you are born into
'It was always going to be thin gruel when Dave made it known he was going to campaign to remain in the EU regardless.'
You only need to contrast the homeopathic nothingness that is now being discussed with the wide ranging and genuine changes the PM was talking about when this process began.
IMHO, it's worth considering who the Tory flag carrier for Leave will be if it doesn't become May or Javid given Gove and Boris have effectively ruled themselves out.
If Remain carries the day, but the EU deal turns south (or is just unpopular) within the parliamentary party then the high-profile Tories that stuck their necks out in 2016 will be in a good place for the 2019/2020 leadership contest. There are 80-90 BOO MPs and it will be hard to lock their candidate out, particularly if they attract 20-40 extra soft eurosceptics who are not swayed by Osborne.
I rule out Grayling (too wooden and unpopular), IDS (too much history) and its no secret Whittingdale doesn't want it so my choices are as follows - the odds are available on Betfair under either PM after Cameron or next Tory leader (precious little difference at these odds):
Priti Patel - 25/1 (ambitious, and feeling this might be her moment - maybe a tad short) Jesse Norman - 170/1 (tipped by Bruce Anderson, and longstanding EU rebel) Theresa Villiers - 260/1 (committed eurosceptic) Liam Fox - 80/1 (very prominent in taking the Tory lead for Leave so far, even dining "secretly" with May)
The odds for Villiers in particular are ridiculous. Even Michael Portillo and Louise Bagshawe are shorter.
I have only a covering bet on Paterson. I don't think there's much evidence he'd be The Choice.
I'm also backing a couple of female Tory cabinet ministers who are not out-and-out eurosceptics, but aren't europhiles and who could become "Stop Osborne" candidates:
Justine Greening - 260/1 (international development and economic secretary to treasury previously; widely rated) Liz Truss - 100/1 (was previously close to Leave and undecided, she may surprise later)
You can do a lot with small stakes at these sorts of odds.
As always, do your own research. Full disclosure: I am a heavy layer of Osborne and Boris.
In the circumstances you describe I don't think any Tory who had not supported Leave will have a chance of becoming leader.
I'd almost like to see a Trump presidency - the Corbynista reaction would be hilarious!
In what way ? I suppose the Conservative reaction if Sanders won would be quite interesting as well.
Best case it will be Sanders vs Trump, so that Cameron get's a massive pain in his behinds whichever side wins.
Sanders is only slightly to the left of Cameron.
It's no secret Cameron and the PLP Conservative party's preferred choice is Hilary.
Notwithstanding her very uncomplimentary remarks about Cameron?
All of them, without exception, are terrible candidates who would make bad Presidents. However, whatever her other faults Hilary Clinton does have more experience of and a better grasp of diplomacy and the international situation than any other candidate. Therefore she is the candidate most likely to further Britain's interests.
She doesn't have any actual solutions to the world's problems other than her suggestion of nuking Iran, of course, but then nor do the others.
It may also help that she's arrogant, posh and an insider who keeps getting duffed up by more charismatic and capable politicians, so Cameron may have fellow feeling for her and she may resent that such a similar but in her view inferior candidate has succeeded where she has so far failed.
Agree with most of that but Hillary is certainly not posh, her father was a small businessman and she went to a public highschool. Romney, Kerry, the Bushes and the Kennedys are posh, the Clintons are nouveau riche!
I think of poshness as being about wealth, to be sure, but also about aloofness and perhaps even distaste(or even just academic like interest in, without any connection to) for 'common' people and things, or lacking understanding of those things. You could still do good things for ordinary people and be posh, but I don't think being nouveau riche prevents one from being so, particularly when one has spent decades as an elite.
Her attitude is aloof yes but to be posh you really need to have been born into the upper middle class or even the upper class, been to private school and ideally an Ivy League College as well as have a high income
Depends on which country, of course.
In the UK, which school you went to, how you speak, your family name and your father are what counts - not money.
You could live on a council estate in the UK and still be recognised as an aristocrat if your birth was "right".
Labour is considering plans to strip Britain's nuclear submarines of their weapons and use them to transport members of the armed forces in a move described by critics as a "Trident taxi service".
John Woodcock, a Labour MP and Trident supporter, said: "Aside from the question of why exactly this would be needed given the Astute class submarines already convey special forces, defence experts have pointed out that the so-called Japanese option is a red herring because it would break the non-proliferation treaty.
"You can't legally recreate the ability to make nuclear warheads once you've scrapped then and you can't claim to be a credible opposition if you want to spend billions on an underwater Trident taxi service for British troops. It is as if whoever keeps floating these barmy ideas is determined to make Labour a laughing stock."
Why should they only be used to transport service personnel? They'd be a wonderful tourist attraction on the Thames or the Solent. Or perhaps a regular passenger service to Australia or the Falkland Islands?
Gives precious votes to another candidate in a close 2 way race, its suicide. If Sanders wins the vote but loses the delegates, it's still a big win for Sanders and a big defeat for Hillary, the media will report who won the vote not who got delegates.
Apparently the Democrats plan not to announce vote shares, only delegates. Can't see that holding.
@RichardT - in the case of no Leave Tory getting any traction then I think the party and members may go for the most eurosceptic candidate who isn't Osborne.
I also think Truss and Greening may push a couple of Thatcher buttons with the membership.
They are in the cabinet, and have government experience, so at 100/1+ are value IMHO.
Yes, but it can't contradict them. If the treaties say "This beer is for Doug" then it can debate the meaning of "beer", "Doug" or even of "for", but it can't turn round and say "This beer is not for Doug".
Moreover we are not going to get a new treaty and so the ECJ is free to strike down any 'deal' that might be cooked up whenever they like.
It is entirely possible that any promised treaty changes may not be ratified. I don't think that's probable, since the "we will incorporate these changes in the next treaty changes" route is well established by now.
But an agreement to change the treaties is outside the scope of the ECJ before it takes effect (an agreement to change the treaties is not an agreement to break the treaties), and after it takes effect the ECJ can't overthrow it because at that point the treaties have been changed
So your point that the treaty changes may never eventuate has some traction, but your point that the ECJ can overturn it doesn't.
Labour is considering plans to strip Britain's nuclear submarines of their weapons and use them to transport members of the armed forces in a move described by critics as a "Trident taxi service".
John Woodcock, a Labour MP and Trident supporter, said: "Aside from the question of why exactly this would be needed given the Astute class submarines already convey special forces, defence experts have pointed out that the so-called Japanese option is a red herring because it would break the non-proliferation treaty.
"You can't legally recreate the ability to make nuclear warheads once you've scrapped then and you can't claim to be a credible opposition if you want to spend billions on an underwater Trident taxi service for British troops. It is as if whoever keeps floating these barmy ideas is determined to make Labour a laughing stock."
Why should they only be used to transport service personnel? They'd be a wonderful tourist attraction on the Thames or the Solent. Or perhaps a regular passenger service to Australia or the Falkland Islands?
You'd never get them to go south of the river....
You'd never get them to move in the river - they'd be stuck in the mud. Displacement of Vanguard submarine - 12 metres. Charted depth of the Thames at London Bridge - 1.8 metres.
Labour is considering plans to strip Britain's nuclear submarines of their weapons and use them to transport members of the armed forces in a move described by critics as a "Trident taxi service".
John Woodcock, a Labour MP and Trident supporter, said: "Aside from the question of why exactly this would be needed given the Astute class submarines already convey special forces, defence experts have pointed out that the so-called Japanese option is a red herring because it would break the non-proliferation treaty.
"You can't legally recreate the ability to make nuclear warheads once you've scrapped then and you can't claim to be a credible opposition if you want to spend billions on an underwater Trident taxi service for British troops. It is as if whoever keeps floating these barmy ideas is determined to make Labour a laughing stock."
The Astutes are hunter-killers: subs that hunt subs. The Vanguards are mobile launchpads for ballistic missiles. Neither are transport vessels and cannot hold a large enough number of troops to render them useful as troop transports. I would continue but applying logic to one of Corbyn's presentiments is to grant them more sense than they actually possess.
I'd almost like to see a Trump presidency - the Corbynista reaction would be hilarious!
In what way ? I suppose the Conservative reaction if Sanders won would be quite interesting as well.
Best case it will be Sanders vs Trump, so that Cameron get's a massive pain in his behinds whichever side wins.
Sanders is only slightly to the left of Cameron.
It's no secret Cameron and the PLP Conservative party's preferred choice is Hilary.
Notwithstanding her very uncomplimentary remarks about Cameron?
All of them, withed.
Agree he!
I think of poshness as being about wealth, to be sure, but also about aloofness and perhaps even distaste(or even just academic like interest in, without any connection to) for 'common' people and things, or lacking understanding of those things. You could still do good things for ordinary people and be posh, but I don't think being nouveau riche prevents one from being so, particularly when one has spent decades as an elite.
Her attitude is aloof yes but to be posh you really need to have been born into the upper middle class or even the upper class, been to private school and ideally an Ivy League College as well as have a high income
Certainly easier to be posh in that situation, to be inherently posh, but I don't think it is a requirement. If one acts just like those sorts of people, but happens to come from a less privileged background, are you not as posh as them because of it? I don't think so.
However, I don't know that I would class Clinton as posh even under my definition. She seems, as you say, aloof, and deeply, deeply cynical and manufactured I feel (she may be sincere in everything she says as far as I know, but she is clearly extremely conscious about the way she presents everything, and the political consequences of it), but not necessarily posh.
You can become rich and intelligent, however being posh is largely something you are born into
I'd almost like to see a Trump presidency - the Corbynista reaction would be hilarious!
In what way ? I suppose the Conservative reaction if Sanders won would be quite interesting as well.
Best case it will be Sanders vs Trump, so that Cameron get's a massive pain in his behinds whichever side wins.
Sanders is only slightly to the left of Cameron.
It's no secret Cameron and the PLP Conservative party's preferred choice is Hilary.
Notwithstanding her very uncomplimentary remarks about Cameron?
All of them, withed.
Agree he!
I think of poshness as being about wealth, to be sure, but also about aloofness and perhaps even distaste(or even just academic like interest in, without any connection to) for 'common' people and things, or lacking understanding of those things. You could still do good things for ordinary people and be posh, but I don't think being nouveau riche prevents one from being so, particularly when one has spent decades as an elite.
Her attitude is aloof yes but to be posh you really need to have been born into the upper middle class or even the upper class, been to private school and ideally an Ivy League College as well as have a high income
Certainly easier to be posh in that situation, to be inherently posh, but I don't think it is a requirement. If one acts just like those sorts of people, but happens to come from a less privileged background, are you not as posh as them because of it? I don't think so.
However, I don't know that I would class Clinton as posh even under my definition. She seems, as you say, aloof, and deeply, deeply cynical and manufactured I feel (she may be sincere in everything she says as far as I know, but she is clearly extremely conscious about the way she presents everything, and the political consequences of it), but not necessarily posh.
You can become rich and intelligent, however being posh is largely something you are born into
Her attitude is aloof yes but to be posh you really need to have been born into the upper middle class or even the upper class, been to private school and ideally an Ivy League College as well as have a high income
Depends on which country, of course.
In the UK, which school you went to, how you speak, your family name and your father are what counts - not money.
You could live on a council estate in the UK and still be recognised as an aristocrat if your birth was "right".
Really, in the UK, it is how you speak. All the rest you can camouflage, but the moment you speak, you are pigeon-holed.
In the US, there are two worlds. The old world of the WASPs, of vanishingly small relevance to the rest of the country. If you are not one of them, you are not one of them.
For the rest, it is basically classless. You move in circles based on wealth, employment and education - but, unlike the class system in the UK, they are not exclusive in any way. Anyone can acquire wealth, anyone can gain education (formal or the more useful kind from real life) and employment is upwardly mobile still.
That said, there are classy people and gauche people. Trump's main sin his is gaucheness.
You'd never get them to move in the river - they'd be stuck in the mud. Displacement of Vanguard submarine - 12 metres. Charted depth of the Thames at London Bridge - 1.8 metres.
Nahh, they'd go via the Fleet[1]
[1] This is possibly the best pun I have ever made on PB. The Fleet is an old tributary of the Thames which has been built over - hence "Fleet Street" - and so is now underground. So you've got an underwater boat in an underground river. Additionally, "fleet" is a collective noun for marine vessels.
Labour is considering plans to strip Britain's nuclear submarines of their weapons and use them to transport members of the armed forces in a move described by critics as a "Trident taxi service".
John Woodcock, a Labour MP and Trident supporter, said: "Aside from the question of why exactly this would be needed given the Astute class submarines already convey special forces, defence experts have pointed out that the so-called Japanese option is a red herring because it would break the non-proliferation treaty.
"You can't legally recreate the ability to make nuclear warheads once you've scrapped then and you can't claim to be a credible opposition if you want to spend billions on an underwater Trident taxi service for British troops. It is as if whoever keeps floating these barmy ideas is determined to make Labour a laughing stock."
Why should they only be used to transport service personnel? They'd be a wonderful tourist attraction on the Thames or the Solent. Or perhaps a regular passenger service to Australia or the Falkland Islands?
You'd never get them to go south of the river....
You'd never get them to move in the river - they'd be stuck in the mud. Displacement of Vanguard submarine - 12 metres. Charted depth of the Thames at London Bridge - 1.8 metres.
Sounds like there's scope for a substantial development project there - to fit all our subs with some sort of muddy-bottom-crawling capability, a bit like tanks.
Chuka Ummuna on C4 news debating Europe. He is no genius but he was so far ahead of the normal Labour drone as defies belief. He agrees with Cameron on racism in University selection; he agreed with part of Maggie's Bruges speech but he fought his corner for membership of the EU.
Whether you agree with him or not is really the point. This man is articulate, intelligent and Labour. It makes him almost unique. If he is not their next leader Labour are persisting in not being serious.
I reckon there are a great many from all the parties who would agree with you, although I can't remember Henry G fancying Ummuna's chances greatly.
On the betting front, Ladbrokes have him best-priced at 20/1 to be the next Labour leader, while the likes of Paddy Power have him much shorter at 14/1.
Thanks, I will get £10 on tomorrow. Well worth a punt. Even Labour need to sober up eventually.
he sounded like a Tory snakeoil salesman, your average Red Tory.
Labour is considering plans to strip Britain's nuclear submarines of their weapons and use them to transport members of the armed forces in a move described by critics as a "Trident taxi service".
John Woodcock, a Labour MP and Trident supporter, said: "Aside from the question of why exactly this would be needed given the Astute class submarines already convey special forces, defence experts have pointed out that the so-called Japanese option is a red herring because it would break the non-proliferation treaty.
"You can't legally recreate the ability to make nuclear warheads once you've scrapped then and you can't claim to be a credible opposition if you want to spend billions on an underwater Trident taxi service for British troops. It is as if whoever keeps floating these barmy ideas is determined to make Labour a laughing stock."
Why should they only be used to transport service personnel? They'd be a wonderful tourist attraction on the Thames or the Solent. Or perhaps a regular passenger service to Australia or the Falkland Islands?
You'd never get them to go south of the river....
You'd never get them to move in the river - they'd be stuck in the mud. Displacement of Vanguard submarine - 12 metres. Charted depth of the Thames at London Bridge - 1.8 metres.
Draught 12 metres, not displacement! Displacement is measured in tons (or tonnes if you prefer).
Her attitude is aloof yes but to be posh you really need to have been born into the upper middle class or even the upper class, been to private school and ideally an Ivy League College as well as have a high income
Depends on which country, of course.
In the UK, which school you went to, how you speak, your family name and your father are what counts - not money.
You could live on a council estate in the UK and still be recognised as an aristocrat if your birth was "right".
Really, in the UK, it is how you speak. All the rest you can camouflage, but the moment you speak, you are pigeon-holed.
In the US, there are two worlds. The old world of the WASPs, of vanishingly small relevance to the rest of the country. If you are not one of them, you are not one of them.
For the rest, it is basically classless. You move in circles based on wealth, employment and education - but, unlike the class system in the UK, they are not exclusive in any way. Anyone can acquire wealth, anyone can gain education (formal or the more useful kind from real life) and employment is upwardly mobile still.
That said, there are classy people and gauche people. Trump's main sin his is gaucheness.
This happened to me tonight at my swimming pool.
A friendly WWC guy with a tattoo (who I'd previously heard speaking in very blokey and sweary terms to a couple of young guys the previous week) asked me how I was doing.
As soon as I opened my mouth and he heard my answer the informality ended, although he stayed smiley and friendly, and the conversation ended quickly and politely.
Her attitude is aloof yes but to be posh you really need to have been born into the upper middle class or even the upper class, been to private school and ideally an Ivy League College as well as have a high income
Depends on which country, of course.
In the UK, which school you went to, how you speak, your family name and your father are what counts - not money.
You could live on a council estate in the UK and still be recognised as an aristocrat if your birth was "right".
Really, in the UK, it is how you speak. All the rest you can camouflage, but the moment you speak, you are pigeon-holed.
In the US, there are two worlds. The old world of the WASPs, of vanishingly small relevance to the rest of the country. If you are not one of them, you are not one of them.
For the rest, it is basically classless. You move in circles based on wealth, employment and education - but, unlike the class system in the UK, they are not exclusive in any way. Anyone can acquire wealth, anyone can gain education (formal or the more useful kind from real life) and employment is upwardly mobile still.
That said, there are classy people and gauche people. Trump's main sin his is gaucheness.
People say there's no such thing as a neutral accent in the UK, but actually I think someone like former BBC presenter Richard Bacon has a pretty unplaceable accent. (He's from Mansfield originally, oddly enough).
yeah.. like the junior doctors... The strike just hurts patients..
Hush now. Think of those poor Tarquins and Jemimas and their struggle for overtime all day on a Saturday, not just after 5pm ... errr, sorry, I meant the fight for patient safety.
Good to see it confirmed that it's all about the money, but we knew that already.
Carry on thinking it's about pay and demeaning doctors (you're not Jeremy Hunt, are you?). By the time it gets to 2020 there won't be enough doctors to safely cover even emergency rotas.
I'd almost like to see a Trump presidency - the Corbynista reaction would be hilarious!
In what way ? I suppose the Conservative reaction if Sanders won would be quite interesting as well.
Best case it will be Sanders vs Trump, so that Cameron get's a massive pain in his behinds whichever side wins.
Sanders is only slightly to the left of Cameron.
It's no secret Cameron and the PLP Conservative party's preferred choice is Hilary.
Notwithstanding her very uncomplimentary remarks about Cameron?
It may also help that she's arrogant, posh and an insider who keeps getting duffed up by more charismatic and capable politicians, so Cameron may have fellow feeling for her and she may resent that such a similar but in her view inferior candidate has succeeded where she has so far failed.
Agree with most of that but Hillary is certainly not posh, her father was a small businessman and she went to a public highschool. Romney, Kerry, the Bushes and the Kennedys are posh, the Clintons are nouveau riche!
I think of poshness as being about wealth, to be sure, but also about aloofness and perhaps even distaste(or even just academic like interest in, without any connection to) for 'common' people and things, or lacking understanding of those things. You could still do good things for ordinary people and be posh, but I don't think being nouveau riche prevents one from being so, particularly when one has spent decades as an elite.
Her attitude is aloof yes but to be posh you really need to have been born into the upper middle class or even the upper class, been to private school and ideally an Ivy League College as well as have a high income
Depends on which country, of course.
In the UK, which school you went to, how you speak, your family name and your father are what counts - not money.
You could live on a council estate in the UK and still be recognised as an aristocrat if your birth was "right".
To an extent but then aristocracy depends on birth by definition
I'd almost like to see a Trump presidency - the Corbynista reaction would be hilarious!
In what way ? I suppose the Conservative reaction if Sanders won would be quite interesting as well.
Best case it will be Sanders vs Trump, so that Cameron get's a massive pain in his behinds whichever side wins.
Sanders is only slightly to the left of Cameron.
It's no secret Cameron and the PLP Conservative party's preferred choice is Hilary.
Notwithstanding her very uncomplimentary remarks about Cameron?
All of them, withed.
Agree he!
I think of poshness as being about wealth, to be sure, but also about aloofness and perhaps even distaste(or even just academic like interest in, without any connection to) for 'common' people and things, or lacking understanding of those things. You could still do good things for ordinary people and be posh, but I don't think being nouveau riche prevents one from being so, particularly when one has spent decades as an elite.
Her attitude is aloof yes but to be posh you really need to have been born into the upper middle class or even the upper class, been to private school and ideally an Ivy League College as well as have a high income
Certainly easier to be posh in that situation, to be inherently posh, but I don't think it is a requirement. If one acts just like those sorts of people, but happens to come from a less privileged background, are you not as posh as them because of it? I don't think so.
However, I don't know that I would class Clinton as posh even under my definition. She seems, as you say, aloof, and deeply, deeply cynical and manufactured I feel (she may be sincere in everything she says as far as I know, but she is clearly extremely conscious about the way she presents everything, and the political consequences of it), but not necessarily posh.
You can become rich and intelligent, however being posh is largely something you are born into
The posh side normally prevails, as Prince George will attest
yeah.. like the junior doctors... The strike just hurts patients..
Hush now. Think of those poor Tarquins and Jemimas and their struggle for overtime all day on a Saturday, not just after 5pm ... errr, sorry, I meant the fight for patient safety.
Good to see it confirmed that it's all about the money, but we knew that already.
Carry on thinking it's about pay and demeaning doctors (you're not Jeremy Hunt, are you?). By the time it gets to 2020 there won't be enough doctors to safely cover even emergency rotas.
I'd almost like to see a Trump presidency - the Corbynista reaction would be hilarious!
In what way ? I suppose the Conservative reaction if Sanders won would be quite interesting as well.
Best case it will be Sanders vs Trump, so that Cameron get's a massive pain in his behinds whichever side wins.
Sanders is only slightly to the left of Cameron.
It's no secret Cameron and the PLP Conservative party's preferred choice is Hilary.
Notwithstanding her very uncomplimentary remarks about Cameron?
It may also help that she's arrogant, posh and an insider who keeps getting duffed up by more charismatic and capable politicians, so Cameron may have fellow feeling for her and she may resent that such a similar but in her view inferior candidate has succeeded where she has so far failed.
Agree with most of that but Hillary is certainly not posh, her father was a small businessman and she went to a public highschool. Romney, Kerry, the Bushes and the Kennedys are posh, the Clintons are nouveau riche!
I think of poshness as being about wealth, to be sure, but also about aloofness and perhaps even distaste(or even just academic like interest in, without any connection to) for 'common' people and things, or lacking understanding of those things. You could still do good things for ordinary people and be posh, but I don't think being nouveau riche prevents one from being so, particularly when one has spent decades as an elite.
Her attitude is aloof yes but to be posh you really need to have been born into the upper middle class or even the upper class, been to private school and ideally an Ivy League College as well as have a high income
Depends on which country, of course.
In the UK, which school you went to, how you speak, your family name and your father are what counts - not money.
You could live on a council estate in the UK and still be recognised as an aristocrat if your birth was "right".
To an extent but then aristocracy depends on birth by definition
Yes, it was a turn of phrase. It would apply to any upper-middle-class or upper-class person in that situation whether titled or not.
Her attitude is aloof yes but to be posh you really need to have been born into the upper middle class or even the upper class, been to private school and ideally an Ivy League College as well as have a high income
Depends on which country, of course.
In the UK, which school you went to, how you speak, your family name and your father are what counts - not money.
You could live on a council estate in the UK and still be recognised as an aristocrat if your birth was "right".
Really, in the UK, it is how you speak. All the rest you can camouflage, but the moment you speak, you are pigeon-holed.
In the US, there are two worlds. The old world of the WASPs, of vanishingly small relevance to the rest of the country. If you are not one of them, you are not one of them.
For the rest, it is basically classless. You move in circles based on wealth, employment and education - but, unlike the class system in the UK, they are not exclusive in any way. Anyone can acquire wealth, anyone can gain education (formal or the more useful kind from real life) and employment is upwardly mobile still.
That said, there are classy people and gauche people. Trump's main sin his is gaucheness.
In social mobility terms there is actually not much difference between the UK and US, Australia and Scandinavia are more mobile in most surveys. In the US if you are born into an old monied family and probably educated at private schools and Harvard or Yale you will be posh
yeah.. like the junior doctors... The strike just hurts patients..
Hush now. Think of those poor Tarquins and Jemimas and their struggle for overtime all day on a Saturday, not just after 5pm ... errr, sorry, I meant the fight for patient safety.
Good to see it confirmed that it's all about the money, but we knew that already.
Carry on thinking it's about pay and demeaning doctors (you're not Jeremy Hunt, are you?). By the time it gets to 2020 there won't be enough doctors to safely cover even emergency rotas.
Why would that be?
Because it is all about money after all?
Because doctors are quite employable and none of them will want to work for an idiot who thinks that their level of intelligence/expertise is on a par with doing a quick Google search.
You just carry on convincing yourself with the fantasy it's all about the money.
yeah.. like the junior doctors... The strike just hurts patients..
Hush now. Think of those poor Tarquins and Jemimas and their struggle for overtime all day on a Saturday, not just after 5pm ... errr, sorry, I meant the fight for patient safety.
Good to see it confirmed that it's all about the money, but we knew that already.
Carry on thinking it's about pay and demeaning doctors (you're not Jeremy Hunt, are you?). By the time it gets to 2020 there won't be enough doctors to safely cover even emergency rotas.
'Recent concessions by Hunt and Dalton – that normal or “plain time” could end at 9pm on weekdays and 5pm on Saturdays – proved insufficient to sway the BMA. The doctors’ union wants all of Saturday to continue to attract lucrative overtime payments.'
Labour is considering plans to strip Britain's nuclear submarines of their weapons and use them to transport members of the armed forces in a move described by critics as a "Trident taxi service".
John Woodcock, a Labour MP and Trident supporter, said: "Aside from the question of why exactly this would be needed given the Astute class submarines already convey special forces, defence experts have pointed out that the so-called Japanese option is a red herring because it would break the non-proliferation treaty.
"You can't legally recreate the ability to make nuclear warheads once you've scrapped then and you can't claim to be a credible opposition if you want to spend billions on an underwater Trident taxi service for British troops. It is as if whoever keeps floating these barmy ideas is determined to make Labour a laughing stock."
The Astutes are hunter-killers: subs that hunt subs. The Vanguards are mobile launchpads for ballistic missiles. Neither are transport vessels and cannot hold a large enough number of troops to render them useful as troop transports. I would continue but applying logic to one of Corbyn's presentiments is to grant them more sense than they actually possess.
A Trident ballistic missile is about 2 metres wide by 13m long. If you stripped out all the gubbins and packed fully-laden soldiers in like sardines you'd get about 25 in each launch tube. A Vanguard has 16 SLBM launch tubes, so that's 400 soldiers, all packed into tubes, weeing on the guy at the bottom of the tube, holding their breath, and trying not to fart..
Or conversely you could just charter a 747 and transport 400 soldiers in some comfort, with a warm meal and an inflight movie.
Chuka Ummuna on C4 news debating Europe. He is no genius but he was so far ahead of the normal Labour drone as defies belief. He agrees with Cameron on racism in University selection; he agreed with part of Maggie's Bruges speech but he fought his corner for membership of the EU.
Whether you agree with him or not is really the point. This man is articulate, intelligent and Labour. It makes him almost unique. If he is not their next leader Labour are persisting in not being serious.
I reckon there are a great many from all the parties who would agree with you, although I can't remember Henry G fancying Ummuna's chances greatly.
On the betting front, Ladbrokes have him best-priced at 20/1 to be the next Labour leader, while the likes of Paddy Power have him much shorter at 14/1.
Thanks, I will get £10 on tomorrow. Well worth a punt. Even Labour need to sober up eventually.
he sounded like a Tory snakeoil salesman, your average Red Tory.
Keep that up, if he is remotely plausible we don't want him being voted labour leader. And neither do you of course.
yeah.. like the junior doctors... The strike just hurts patients..
Hush now. Think of those poor Tarquins and Jemimas and their struggle for overtime all day on a Saturday, not just after 5pm ... errr, sorry, I meant the fight for patient safety.
Good to see it confirmed that it's all about the money, but we knew that already.
Carry on thinking it's about pay and demeaning doctors (you're not Jeremy Hunt, are you?). By the time it gets to 2020 there won't be enough doctors to safely cover even emergency rotas.
Why would that be?
Because it is all about money after all?
Because doctors are quite employable and none of them will want to work for an idiot who thinks that their level of intelligence/expertise is on a par with doing a quick Google search.
You just carry on convincing yourself with the fantasy it's all about the money.
Where does this rubbish notion of working for Hunt come from.
Do you think the entire armed service think they work for Fallon?
It is as facile as the 'its not about the money but we'll all leave otherwise' argument.
Note: still some outstanding issues. I presume these are things he's agreed with Cameron in principle but need to be bought into by the other 27 member states.
yeah.. like the junior doctors... The strike just hurts patients..
Hush now. Think of those poor Tarquins and Jemimas and their struggle for overtime all day on a Saturday, not just after 5pm ... errr, sorry, I meant the fight for patient safety.
Good to see it confirmed that it's all about the money, but we knew that already.
Carry on thinking it's about pay and demeaning doctors (you're not Jeremy Hunt, are you?). By the time it gets to 2020 there won't be enough doctors to safely cover even emergency rotas.
Why would that be?
Because it is all about money after all?
Because doctors are quite employable and none of them will want to work for an idiot who thinks that their level of intelligence/expertise is on a par with doing a quick Google search.
You just carry on convincing yourself with the fantasy it's all about the money.
New contracts should include a clause surcharging any doctors who wish to hotfoot it overseas for more loot, within say 10 years of qualifying at the taxpayers expense. Seems fair.
You govern America by sitting on a 3 legged stool and the Republicans would not do too bad by retaining control of congress. A Trump presidency would be worth a marginally smaller bucket of spit than whoever he runs with as VP.
The problems might start after the midterm elections in 2018 when it's highly likely a President Trump would face Democrat majorities in both the Senate and Congress. We forget how often the President's party takes a pounding in the first midterm.
Clinton in 1994 was badly mauled by Gingrich and while Bush basked in his post 9/11 status in 2002, he too was on the wrong side of a mauling in 2006 when Pelosi and the Democrats took over only to lose back to the GOP at Obama's first mid term in 2010.
President Trump getting disowned by the GOP in 2018 and running for re-election as an independent in 2020 would be fun.
A Trident ballistic missile is about 2 metres wide by 13m long. If you stripped out all the gubbins and packed fully-laden soldiers in like sardines you'd get about 25 in each launch tube. A Vanguard has 16 SLBM launch tubes, so that's 400 soldiers, all packed into tubes, weeing on the guy at the bottom of the tube, holding their breath, and trying not to fart..
Or conversely you could just charter a 747 and transport 400 soldiers in some comfort, with a warm meal and an inflight movie.
God, Corbyn is thick.
Even I don't think that's what they are proposing. I took it to mean they want to build ballistic missile subs and then use them to carry dry dock shelters. So about £4 billion or so to drop off a dozen hard nuts off the coast of Somalia.
Labour is considering plans to strip Britain's nuclear submarines of their weapons and use them to transport members of the armed forces in a move described by critics as a "Trident taxi service".
John Woodcock, a Labour MP and Trident supporter, said: "Aside from the question of why exactly this would be needed given the Astute class submarines already convey special forces, defence experts have pointed out that the so-called Japanese option is a red herring because it would break the non-proliferation treaty.
"You can't legally recreate the ability to make nuclear warheads once you've scrapped then and you can't claim to be a credible opposition if you want to spend billions on an underwater Trident taxi service for British troops. It is as if whoever keeps floating these barmy ideas is determined to make Labour a laughing stock."
The Astutes are hunter-killers: subs that hunt subs. The Vanguards are mobile launchpads for ballistic missiles. Neither are transport vessels and cannot hold a large enough number of troops to render them useful as troop transports. I would continue but applying logic to one of Corbyn's presentiments is to grant them more sense than they actually possess.
Yes - which of course was a ship laid down in 1976 and converted. Not purpose built. The Vanguard was laid down in 1986, so the logic is that it should be converted but it will be too old once the new class come into service.
yeah.. like the junior doctors... The strike just hurts patients..
Hush now. Think of those poor Tarquins and Jemimas and their struggle for overtime all day on a Saturday, not just after 5pm ... errr, sorry, I meant the fight for patient safety.
Good to see it confirmed that it's all about the money, but we knew that already.
Carry on thinking it's about pay and demeaning doctors (you're not Jeremy Hunt, are you?). By the time it gets to 2020 there won't be enough doctors to safely cover even emergency rotas.
Why would that be?
Because it is all about money after all?
Because doctors are quite employable and none of them will want to work for an idiot who thinks that their level of intelligence/expertise is on a par with doing a quick Google search.
You just carry on convincing yourself with the fantasy it's all about the money.
New contracts should include a clause surcharging any doctors who wish to hotfoot it overseas for more loot, within say 10 years of qualifying at the taxpayers expense. Seems fair.
This taxpayers expense stuff is all nonsense. Doctors are no more trained at "taxpayers' expense" than an engineer or a lawyer. All university education is subsidised in this country.
yeah.. like the junior doctors... The strike just hurts patients..
Hush now. Think of those poor Tarquins and Jemimas and their struggle for overtime all day on a Saturday, not just after 5pm ... errr, sorry, I meant the fight for patient safety.
Good to see it confirmed that it's all about the money, but we knew that already.
Carry on thinking it's about pay and demeaning doctors (you're not Jeremy Hunt, are you?). By the time it gets to 2020 there won't be enough doctors to safely cover even emergency rotas.
If doctors are going to put patients at risk by striking for money, they deserve every last bit of opprobrium that they get.
I presume the fact you're back on here talking about this means there's going to be another strike?
But you seem to forget Hunt is not offering more money so this dispute is certainly not about money. Hunt will not even get what he needs, and say he wants, which is more consultant cover and therapy and diagnostic services available at weekends. Having fewer junior doctors available during the week and more at weekends will do nothing to "improve the standard of care for patients at weekends" as the unnamed parrot from the DoH squawks.
I'd almost like to see a Trump presidency - the Corbynista reaction would be hilarious!
In what way ? I suppose the Conservative reaction if Sanders won would be quite interesting as well.
Best case it will be Sanders vs Trump, so that Cameron get's a massive pain in his behinds whichever side wins.
Sanders is only slightly to the left of Cameron.
It's no secret Cameron and the PLP Conservative party's preferred choice is Hilary.
Notwithstanding her very uncomplimentary remarks about Cameron?
It may also help that she's arrogant, posh and an insider who keeps getting duffed up by more charismatic and capable politicians, so Cameron may have fellow feeling for her and she may resent that such a similar but in her view inferior candidate has succeeded where she has so far failed.
Agree with most of that but Hillary is certainly not posh, her father was a small businessman and she went to a public highschool. Romney, Kerry, the Bushes and the Kennedys are posh, the Clintons are nouveau riche!
I think of poshness as being about wealth, to be sure, but also about aloofness and perhaps even distaste(or even just academic like interest in, without any connection to) for 'common' people and things, or lacking understanding of those things. You could still do good things for ordinary people and be posh, but I don't think being nouveau riche prevents one from being so, particularly when one has spent decades as an elite.
Her attitude is aloof yes but to be posh you really need to have been born into the upper middle class or even the upper class, been to private school and ideally an Ivy League College as well as have a high income
Depends on which country, of course.
In the UK, which school you went to, how you speak, your family name and your father are what counts - not money.
You could live on a council estate in the UK and still be recognised as an aristocrat if your birth was "right".
To an extent but then aristocracy depends on birth by definition
Yes, it was a turn of phrase. It would apply to any upper-middle-class or upper-class person in that situation whether titled or not.
Well that is true, checking out now for a shower and snooze prior to Iowa exits
Yes, but it can't contradict them. If the treaties say "This beer is for Doug" then it can debate the meaning of "beer", "Doug" or even of "for", but it can't turn round and say "This beer is not for Doug".
Moreover we are not going to get a new treaty and so the ECJ is free to strike down any 'deal' that might be cooked up whenever they like.
It is entirely possible that any promised treaty changes may not be ratified. I don't think that's probable, since the "we will incorporate these changes in the next treaty changes" route is well established by now.
But an agreement to change the treaties is outside the scope of the ECJ before it takes effect (an agreement to change the treaties is not an agreement to break the treaties), and after it takes effect the ECJ can't overthrow it because at that point the treaties have been changed
So your point that the treaty changes may never eventuate has some traction, but your point that the ECJ can overturn it doesn't.
The ECJ can interpret them to the detriment of the UK. This is what they did with the working time directive. Hence Major's embarrassment in 1996.
yeah.. like the junior doctors... The strike just hurts patients..
Hush now. Think of those poor Tarquins and Jemimas and their struggle for overtime all day on a Saturday, not just after 5pm ... errr, sorry, I meant the fight for patient safety.
Good to see it confirmed that it's all about the money, but we knew that already.
Carry on thinking it's about pay and demeaning doctors (you're not Jeremy Hunt, are you?). By the time it gets to 2020 there won't be enough doctors to safely cover even emergency rotas.
If doctors are going to put patients at risk by striking for money, they deserve every last bit of opprobrium that they get.
I presume the fact you're back on here talking about this means there's going to be another strike?
Yes there will be another strike next week. And I post here regularly and not just about the government running down the health service.
yeah.. like the junior doctors... The strike just hurts patients..
Hush now. Think of those poor Tarquins and Jemimas and their struggle for overtime all day on a Saturday, not just after 5pm ... errr, sorry, I meant the fight for patient safety.
Good to see it confirmed that it's all about the money, but we knew that already.
Carry on thinking it's about pay and demeaning doctors (you're not Jeremy Hunt, are you?). By the time it gets to 2020 there won't be enough doctors to safely cover even emergency rotas.
If doctors are going to put patients at risk by striking for money, they deserve every last bit of opprobrium that they get.
I presume the fact you're back on here talking about this means there's going to be another strike?
Yes there will be another strike next week. And I post here regularly and not just about the government running down the health service.
I'm beginning to think you actually believe this guff.
If 100% of British GDP was spent on the NHS, the chances are it still wouldn't be considered enough by:
a) the politicised unions b) the Labour party (who are not to be trusted on health issues - remember stafford and pfi c) the left-leaning media
The service is run for the producers, not the consumers. It is, in the words of Clem, not up to it.
yeah.. like the junior doctors... The strike just hurts patients..
Hush now. Think of those poor Tarquins and Jemimas and their struggle for overtime all day on a Saturday, not just after 5pm ... errr, sorry, I meant the fight for patient safety.
Good to see it confirmed that it's all about the money, but we knew that already.
Carry on thinking it's about pay and demeaning doctors (you're not Jeremy Hunt, are you?). By the time it gets to 2020 there won't be enough doctors to safely cover even emergency rotas.
'Recent concessions by Hunt and Dalton – that normal or “plain time” could end at 9pm on weekdays and 5pm on Saturdays – proved insufficient to sway the BMA. The doctors’ union wants all of Saturday to continue to attract lucrative overtime payments.'
They were supposed to win enough seats at the last election to make up the numbers & then be blamed for forcing Dave & George to ditch the stupid 7-day a week NHS pledge.
A Trident ballistic missile is about 2 metres wide by 13m long. If you stripped out all the gubbins and packed fully-laden soldiers in like sardines you'd get about 25 in each launch tube. A Vanguard has 16 SLBM launch tubes, so that's 400 soldiers, all packed into tubes, weeing on the guy at the bottom of the tube, holding their breath, and trying not to fart..
Or conversely you could just charter a 747 and transport 400 soldiers in some comfort, with a warm meal and an inflight movie.
God, Corbyn is thick.
Even I don't think that's what they are proposing. I took it to mean they want to build ballistic missile subs and then use them to carry dry dock shelters. So about £4 billion or so to drop off a dozen hard nuts off the coast of Somalia.
They're almost childlike in their stupidity, really. I mean on one level it's kind of sweet, but it's just not adult. Next week: flying submarines. Airborne aircraft carriers. AT-ATs. Stuff that looks good in crayon, but is just flat-out dumb IRL
Yes, but it can't contradict them. If the treaties say "This beer is for Doug" then it can debate the meaning of "beer", "Doug" or even of "for", but it can't turn round and say "This beer is not for Doug".
Moreover we are not going to get a new treaty and so the ECJ is free to strike down any 'deal' that might be cooked up whenever they like.
It is entirely possible that any promised treaty changes may not be ratified. I don't think that's probable, since the "we will incorporate these changes in the next treaty changes" route is well established by now.
But an agreement to change the treaties is outside the scope of the ECJ before it takes effect (an agreement to change the treaties is not an agreement to break the treaties), and after it takes effect the ECJ can't overthrow it because at that point the treaties have been changed
So your point that the treaty changes may never eventuate has some traction, but your point that the ECJ can overturn it doesn't.
The ECJ can interpret them to the detriment of the UK. This is what they did with the working time directive. Hence Major's embarrassment in 1996.
yeah.. like the junior doctors... The strike just hurts patients..
Hush now. Think of those poor Tarquins and Jemimas and their struggle for overtime all day on a Saturday, not just after 5pm ... errr, sorry, I meant the fight for patient safety.
Good to see it confirmed that it's all about the money, but we knew that already.
Carry on thinking it's about pay and demeaning doctors (you're not Jeremy Hunt, are you?). By the time it gets to 2020 there won't be enough doctors to safely cover even emergency rotas.
If doctors are going to put patients at risk by striking for money, they deserve every last bit of opprobrium that they get.
I presume the fact you're back on here talking about this means there's going to be another strike?
Yes there will be another strike next week. And I post here regularly and not just about the government running down the health service.
How is it running it down? By protecting spending on the NHS it has caused quite substantial reductions to other areas of public spending.
yeah.. like the junior doctors... The strike just hurts patients..
Hush now. Think of those poor Tarquins and Jemimas and their struggle for overtime all day on a Saturday, not just after 5pm ... errr, sorry, I meant the fight for patient safety.
Good to see it confirmed that it's all about the money, but we knew that already.
Carry on thinking it's about pay and demeaning doctors (you're not Jeremy Hunt, are you?). By the time it gets to 2020 there won't be enough doctors to safely cover even emergency rotas.
'Recent concessions by Hunt and Dalton – that normal or “plain time” could end at 9pm on weekdays and 5pm on Saturdays – proved insufficient to sway the BMA. The doctors’ union wants all of Saturday to continue to attract lucrative overtime payments.'
They were supposed to win enough seats at the last election to make up the numbers & then be blamed for forcing Dave & George to ditch the stupid 7-day a week NHS pledge.
It was not a stupid pledge.
It should have started with GP contract renegotiation, though. Return of OOH service and increased provision of hours - probably incentivised by paying per appointment.
A Trident ballistic missile is about 2 metres wide by 13m long. If you stripped out all the gubbins and packed fully-laden soldiers in like sardines you'd get about 25 in each launch tube. A Vanguard has 16 SLBM launch tubes, so that's 400 soldiers, all packed into tubes, weeing on the guy at the bottom of the tube, holding their breath, and trying not to fart..
Or conversely you could just charter a 747 and transport 400 soldiers in some comfort, with a warm meal and an inflight movie.
God, Corbyn is thick.
Even I don't think that's what they are proposing. I took it to mean they want to build ballistic missile subs and then use them to carry dry dock shelters. So about £4 billion or so to drop off a dozen hard nuts off the coast of Somalia.
They're almost childlike in their stupidity, really. I mean on one level it's kind of sweet, but it's just not adult. Next week: flying submarines. Airborne aircraft carriers. AT-ATs. Stuff that looks good in crayon, but is just flat-out dumb IRL
Actually, please please please can the next Labour defence brainfart involve AT-ATs? I mean it's just as wildly impracticable, but it'd look wicked cool. For about thirty seconds, at least
A Trident ballistic missile is about 2 metres wide by 13m long. If you stripped out all the gubbins and packed fully-laden soldiers in like sardines you'd get about 25 in each launch tube. A Vanguard has 16 SLBM launch tubes, so that's 400 soldiers, all packed into tubes, weeing on the guy at the bottom of the tube, holding their breath, and trying not to fart..
Or conversely you could just charter a 747 and transport 400 soldiers in some comfort, with a warm meal and an inflight movie.
God, Corbyn is thick.
Even I don't think that's what they are proposing. I took it to mean they want to build ballistic missile subs and then use them to carry dry dock shelters. So about £4 billion or so to drop off a dozen hard nuts off the coast of Somalia.
They're almost childlike in their stupidity, really. I mean on one level it's kind of sweet, but it's just not adult. Next week: flying submarines. Airborne aircraft carriers. AT-ATs. Stuff that looks good in crayon, but is just flat-out dumb IRL
Actually, please please please can the next Labour defence brainfart involve AT-ATs? I mean it's just as wildly impracticable, but it'd look wicked cool. For about thirty seconds, at least
Corbyn to replace House of Lords with Galactic Senate? Those floating podium things are kinda cool!
Comments
If Corbyn, Maodonnell and Thornberry did not exist, Osborne would have tried to invent them.
Looking back it's amazing that the campaigns have been in Iowa well over a year, have spent tens of millions of dollars - including 40k TV ads - have huge teams of volunteers, some campaigns have over 20k folks in the state, and all scrambling over about 120k votes.
This evening for the GOP caucuses remember a number - 121,501. That's the GOP turnout last time.
One of the popular t-shirts - "Why should I vote for you? I've only met you 4 times."
Clinton in 1994 was badly mauled by Gingrich and while Bush basked in his post 9/11 status in 2002, he too was on the wrong side of a mauling in 2006 when Pelosi and the Democrats took over only to lose back to the GOP at Obama's first mid term in 2010.
Why should they only be used to transport service personnel? They'd be a wonderful tourist attraction on the Thames or the Solent. Or perhaps a regular passenger service to Australia or the Falkland Islands?
She doesn't have any actual solutions to the world's problems other than her suggestion of nuking Iran, of course, but then nor do the others.
It may also help that she's arrogant, posh and an insider who keeps getting duffed up by more charismatic and capable politicians, so Cameron may have fellow feeling for her and she may resent that such a similar but in her view inferior candidate has succeeded where she has so far failed.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/donald-trump-iowa-caucuses-marriage-218471
I cannot wait until the details are released. They will be torn to shreds within minutes.
It was always going to be thin gruel when Dave made it known he was going to campaign to remain in the EU regardless.
Under a Corbyn government travel to Las Malvinas would probably not be easy for this taxi service. You'd have to run it by Argentina first.
Is there an Uber sub division?
Ah, I had forgotten. Well, a service to Buenos Aires, then.
Actually, a terrestrial service to places over the equator would be of great interest to people like me who can't fly long distances and can't bear the heat of sea travel. A submerged vessel would get round both problems.
I can't imagine Corbyn authorising the sort of mission where a bunch of SBS arrive by sea from a sub and go kill some terrorists on the quiet.
If Corbyn comes to power they might as well not build the bloody subs in the first place.
If you are a Brit overseas and the shit hits the fan don't expect Corbyn to authorise a mission to rescue you.
He's *sub* 2/1 for the nomination (why?) but over 20/1 for Iowa.
I've laid the former and backed the latter.
If Corbyn comes to power they might as well not build the bloody subs in the first place.
If you are a Brit overseas and the shit hits the fan don't expect Corbyn to authorise a mission to rescue you.
Labours newest addition to the submarine fleet as agreed acceptable to the Argentinian authorities. ( flag intentional)
http://tinyurl.com/h232yyr
http://tinyurl.com/h232yyr
What nonsense - it has to be huge and expensive to pay for jobs, silly.
Funny that on an issue where Corbynis trying to act like a regular politician, with twisting himself in knots to adopt a position but also placate supporters who would be upset by it, he runs into easily mockable differences. He should stick to being uncompromising and rigid of thought - people may and indeed will say he is wrong, some in quite a mean fashion, but he cannot be attacked for inconsistently at least.
However, I don't know that I would class Clinton as posh even under my definition. She seems, as you say, aloof, and deeply, deeply cynical and manufactured I feel (she may be sincere in everything she says as far as I know, but she is clearly extremely conscious about the way she presents everything, and the political consequences of it), but not necessarily posh.
Good to see it confirmed that it's all about the money, but we knew that already.
Funny that on an issue where Corbynis trying to act like a regular politician, with twisting himself in knots to adopt a position but also placate supporters who would be upset by it, he runs into easily mockable differences. He should stick to being uncompromising and rigid of thought - people may and indeed will say he is wrong, some in quite a mean fashion, but he cannot be attacked for inconsistently at least.
It was huge and also very expensive but that's what Labour finally ended up with after their top notch tender, procurement and build process.
The "OK class", designed by First Sea Lady Emily Thornberry in 2021, approved by Supreme Leader Corbyn and Chancellor of the Extraordinaire McDonnell:
HMS OK
HMS Alright
HMS Average
HMS Normal
HMS Adequate
HMS Not Bad
HMS Sufficient
HMS So So
Ha! Seriously, I mean seriously you really have to admire the skill and expertise of Corby and his gang for taking total fuckwittery to yet new levels of impossibility.
HMS OK
HMS Alright
HMS Average
HMS Normal
HMS Adequate
HMS Not Bad
HMS Sufficient
HMS So So
Labour will designate them as the Malvinas Class.
HMS Macri
HMS Kirchner
HMS Galtieri
HMS Belgrano
etc
"My intention in agreeing to the Protocol on Social Policy at Maascricht was to ensure that social legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. The other Heads of state and Government also agreed that arrangement, without which there would have been no agreement at all at Maastricht
However, in its judgment today, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article I 18a is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act. This appears to mean that legislation which the United Kingdom had expected would be dealt with under the Protocol can in fact be adopted under Article 118a.
That is contrary to the clear and express wishes of the United Kingdom Government1 and goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied."
Moreover we are not going to get a new treaty and so the ECJ is free to strike down any 'deal' that might be cooked up whenever they like.
IMHO, it's worth considering who the Tory flag carrier for Leave will be if it doesn't become May or Javid given Gove and Boris have effectively ruled themselves out.
If Remain carries the day, but the EU deal turns south (or is just unpopular) within the parliamentary party then the high-profile Tories that stuck their necks out in 2016 will be in a good place for the 2019/2020 leadership contest. There are 80-90 BOO MPs and it will be hard to lock their candidate out, particularly if they attract 20-40 extra soft eurosceptics who are not swayed by Osborne.
I rule out Grayling (too wooden and unpopular), IDS (too much history) and its no secret Whittingdale doesn't want it so my choices are as follows - the odds are available on Betfair under either PM after Cameron or next Tory leader (precious little difference at these odds):
Priti Patel - 25/1 (ambitious, and feeling this might be her moment - maybe a tad short)
Jesse Norman - 170/1 (tipped by Bruce Anderson, and longstanding EU rebel)
Theresa Villiers - 260/1 (committed eurosceptic)
Liam Fox - 80/1 (very prominent in taking the Tory lead for Leave so far, even dining "secretly" with May)
The odds for Villiers in particular are ridiculous. Even Michael Portillo and Louise Bagshawe are shorter.
I have only a covering bet on Paterson. I don't think there's much evidence he'd be The Choice.
I'm also backing a couple of female Tory cabinet ministers who are not out-and-out eurosceptics, but aren't europhiles and who could become "Stop Osborne" candidates:
Justine Greening - 260/1 (international development and economic secretary to treasury previously; widely rated)
Liz Truss - 100/1 (was previously close to Leave and undecided, she may surprise later)
You can do a lot with small stakes at these sorts of odds.
As always, do your own research. Full disclosure: I am a heavy layer of Osborne and Boris.
The Astutes are hunter-killers: subs that hunt subs. The Vanguards are mobile launchpads for ballistic missiles. Neither are transport vessels and cannot hold a large enough number of troops to render them useful as troop transports. I would continue but applying logic to one of Corbyn's presentiments is to grant them more sense than they actually possess.
You only need to contrast the homeopathic nothingness that is now being discussed with the wide ranging and genuine changes the PM was talking about when this process began.
In the UK, which school you went to, how you speak, your family name and your father are what counts - not money.
You could live on a council estate in the UK and still be recognised as an aristocrat if your birth was "right".
You'd never get them to go south of the river....
I also think Truss and Greening may push a couple of Thatcher buttons with the membership.
They are in the cabinet, and have government experience, so at 100/1+ are value IMHO.
But an agreement to change the treaties is outside the scope of the ECJ before it takes effect (an agreement to change the treaties is not an agreement to break the treaties), and after it takes effect the ECJ can't overthrow it because at that point the treaties have been changed
So your point that the treaty changes may never eventuate has some traction, but your point that the ECJ can overturn it doesn't.
You'd never get them to move in the river - they'd be stuck in the mud. Displacement of Vanguard submarine - 12 metres. Charted depth of the Thames at London Bridge - 1.8 metres.
The polite suggestion is that someone near Corbyn looked up USS Ohio on Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ohio_(SSGN-726)
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
In the US, there are two worlds. The old world of the WASPs, of vanishingly small relevance to the rest of the country. If you are not one of them, you are not one of them.
For the rest, it is basically classless. You move in circles based on wealth, employment and education - but, unlike the class system in the UK, they are not exclusive in any way. Anyone can acquire wealth, anyone can gain education (formal or the more useful kind from real life) and employment is upwardly mobile still.
That said, there are classy people and gauche people. Trump's main sin his is gaucheness.
Good night all.
[1] This is possibly the best pun I have ever made on PB. The Fleet is an old tributary of the Thames which has been built over - hence "Fleet Street" - and so is now underground. So you've got an underwater boat in an underground river. Additionally, "fleet" is a collective noun for marine vessels.
Sounds like there's scope for a substantial development project there - to fit all our subs with some sort of muddy-bottom-crawling capability, a bit like tanks.
Draught 12 metres, not displacement! Displacement is measured in tons (or tonnes if you prefer).
That is all.
A friendly WWC guy with a tattoo (who I'd previously heard speaking in very blokey and sweary terms to a couple of young guys the previous week) asked me how I was doing.
As soon as I opened my mouth and he heard my answer the informality ended, although he stayed smiley and friendly, and the conversation ended quickly and politely.
Because it is all about money after all?
You just carry on convincing yourself with the fantasy it's all about the money.
Money. Greedy doctors.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/01/junior-doctors-strike-to-go-ahead-next-wednesday-says-bma
A Trident ballistic missile is about 2 metres wide by 13m long. If you stripped out all the gubbins and packed fully-laden soldiers in like sardines you'd get about 25 in each launch tube. A Vanguard has 16 SLBM launch tubes, so that's 400 soldiers, all packed into tubes, weeing on the guy at the bottom of the tube, holding their breath, and trying not to fart..
Or conversely you could just charter a 747 and transport 400 soldiers in some comfort, with a warm meal and an inflight movie.
God, Corbyn is thick.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaKko-JUEAII7Hm.jpg
Do you think the entire armed service think they work for Fallon?
It is as facile as the 'its not about the money but we'll all leave otherwise' argument.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35456633
Note: still some outstanding issues. I presume these are things he's agreed with Cameron in principle but need to be bought into by the other 27 member states.
For the sake of his own dignity, the man should withdraw now.
Goodnight all. See you in the morning.
Yes - which of course was a ship laid down in 1976 and converted. Not purpose built. The Vanguard was laid down in 1986, so the logic is that it should be converted but it will be too old once the new class come into service.
I presume the fact you're back on here talking about this means there's going to be another strike?
If 100% of British GDP was spent on the NHS, the chances are it still wouldn't be considered enough by:
a) the politicised unions
b) the Labour party (who are not to be trusted on health issues - remember stafford and pfi
c) the left-leaning media
The service is run for the producers, not the consumers. It is, in the words of Clem, not up to it.
They were supposed to win enough seats at the last election to make up the numbers & then be blamed for forcing Dave & George to ditch the stupid 7-day a week NHS pledge.
It should have started with GP contract renegotiation, though. Return of OOH service and increased provision of hours - probably incentivised by paying per appointment.