I thought my new avatar might be appropriate for the current nature of political discourse
Many hearty congratulations to anyone who figures it out and why...
You think Junker is going to take military action to stop us seceding ? Or that Trump will be assassinated ? On utilitarian and personal preference grounds I'd rather it was the later but...
I thought my new avatar might be appropriate for the current nature of political discourse
Many hearty congratulations to anyone who figures it out and why...
You think Junker is going to take military action to stop us seceding ? Or that Trump will be assassinated ? On utilitarian and personal preference grounds I'd rather it was the later but...
In October 1962, Castro urged the USSR to nuke the USA, thus starting World War Three. Those today praising him today would probably have not lived to make those tributes to him.
Corbyn was twelve then.
Fortunately Krushchev was sane, and in his sixty ninth year. One day Jezza might grow up too.
I've been doing some reading up on this period recently (concentrating on the space aspects), and blame for the missile crisis can be blamed firmly at JFK's door.
JFK's playing up of the missile gap in the late 1950s, despite having been shown by Eisenhower that no such gap existed, made Khrushchev and the Russians feel that JFK was a dangerous extremist.
My wife and I had just become engaged at this time and we were not politically engaged but we were extremely fearful that a nuclear war was very possible and likely. We have never felt the same fear since
I was lucky; I was 16 when the Berlin wall fell, and I only had six months when a fear of nuclear war really struck my consciousness (as a kid I was very pro-nuclear and pro-tech, as I am now).
I am now feeling occasional murmurs of the same fear. The world feels much less certain that it did; more dangerous in the post-Brexit and pre-Donald world. Perhaps that's accentuated by having a young son.
I can understand your rationale which is accentuated by having a young son and indeed the World is much more dangerous with Putin's aggression and the election of Trump. However, Trump has made friendly noises to Putin and I do not have the 'real fear' I had in 1962.
Trump making friendly noises with Putin is a large part of the problem. Firstly, it's morally wrong (though others will doubtless disagree). But more importantly, it's unsustainable. And when they have a falling out, it will be a biggie, if only because Putin will have been given free rein and the situation will be harder to recover.
Even on here, we have people blaming the EU for the Ukrainian crisis, and saying that Russia should have more control over the states to its west. A few years back they'd have been called appeasers. Now they're useful idiots.
Bollox, the Americans poke into ebverybody's business and destabilise countries all over the plac eyet they criticise the Russians doing teh same. Stop the hypocrisy an dstart talking to Russia in a sensible fashion. It the American right wing nutters we hav eto worry about not the Russians.
I suppose these independent researchers are independent in the sense they support the Clintons.
And what evidence made you come to that conclusion, or are you just trolling?
I'm asking a straight forward question based on my experience,
My recollection of the campaign on PB was the only bot we had was a Clinton one - 619 - who posted lots of Clinton propaganda and spent most of its time ridiculing people like Plato who subsequently proved to be correct.
If we're going to mention bots and spammers lets look at the whole picture
Nah, we had Plato as well. At least 619 sometimes defended the stuff (s)he posted. Plato was correct, but much of the evidence she gave before the election was bogus. I particularly lol'ed when she claimed to have read the stuff she was posting, when it was obvious she had not.
In a statement on its website, GB Energy said: “Due to swift and significant increases in energy prices over recent months and, as a small supplier our inability to forward buy energy to allow us to access the best possible wholesale prices, means that the position of the business has become untenable.”
If I am reading that correctly, the business was a complete punt & shouldn't have been permitted to operate.
Effectively they were selling energy at a fixed price and betting that the spot price would remain low. Taking a profit while it worked and going bankrupt when it didn't.
I wonder whether the Directors will have committed an offence by taking on contingent liabilities without proper planning?
I suppose these independent researchers are independent in the sense they support the Clintons.
And what evidence made you come to that conclusion, or are you just trolling?
I'm asking a straight forward question based on my experience,
My recollection of the campaign on PB was the only bot we had was a Clinton one - 619 - who posted lots of Clinton propaganda and spent most of its time ridiculing people like Plato who subsequently proved to be correct.
If we're going to mention bots and spammers lets look at the whole picture
Nah, we had Plato as well. At least 619 sometimes defended the stuff (s)he posted. Plato was correct, but much of the evidence she gave before the election was bogus. I particularly lol'ed when she claimed to have read the stuff she was posting, when it was obvious she had not.
In October 1962, Castro urged the USSR to nuke the USA, thus starting World War Three. Those today praising him today would probably have not lived to make those tributes to him.
Corbyn was twelve then.
Fortunately Krushchev was sane, and in his sixty ninth year. One day Jezza might grow up too.
I've been doing some reading up on this period recently (concentrating on the space aspects), and blame for the missile crisis can be blamed firmly at JFK's door.
JFK's playing up of the missile gap in the late 1950s, despite having been shown by Eisenhower that no such gap existed, made Khrushchev and the Russians feel that JFK was a dangerous extremist.
My wife and I had just become engaged at this time and we were not politically engaged but we were extremely fearful that a nuclear war was very possible and likely. We have never felt the same fear since
I was lucky; I was 16 when the Berlin wall fell, and I only had six months when a fear of nuclear war really struck my consciousness (as a kid I was very pro-nuclear and pro-tech, as I am now).
I am now feeling occasional murmurs of the same fear. The world feels much less certain that it did; more dangerous in the post-Brexit and pre-Donald world. Perhaps that's accentuated by having a young son.
I can understand your rationale which is accentuated by having a young son and indeed the World is much more dangerous with Putin's aggression and the election of Trump. However, Trump has made friendly noises to Putin and I do not have the 'real fear' I had in 1962.
Trump making friendly noises with Putin is a large part of the problem. Firstly, it's morally wrong (though others will doubtless disagree). But more importantly, it's unsustainable. And when they have a falling out, it will be a biggie, if only because Putin will have been given free rein and the situation will be harder to recover.
Even on here, we have people blaming the EU for the Ukrainian crisis, and saying that Russia should have more control over the states to its west. A few years back they'd have been called appeasers. Now they're useful idiots.
Or maybe the fools that think the other way are the real fools, and perhaps they are not even useful but just idiots.
Trump making friendly noises with Putin is a large part of the problem. Firstly, it's morally wrong (though others will doubtless disagree). But more importantly, it's unsustainable. And when they have a falling out, it will be a biggie, if only because Putin will have been given free rein and the situation will be harder to recover.
Even on here, we have people blaming the EU for the Ukrainian crisis, and saying that Russia should have more control over the states to its west. A few years back they'd have been called appeasers. Now they're useful idiots.
Bollox, the Americans poke into ebverybody's business and destabilise countries all over the plac eyet they criticise the Russians doing teh same. Stop the hypocrisy an dstart talking to Russia in a sensible fashion. It the American right wing nutters we hav eto worry about not the Russians.
You have a point to an extent. But I'm not sure the people of Ukraine, Georgia and, to a lesser extent, other eastern European countries would agree that the US is more a threat to them than Russia.
Oh dear, look at Martin Lewis's tweet. He says "Do not switch now, until the firm is transferred to a new syupplier, that could risk you not getting any credit you are in back (this is unconfirmed, the process is new, but I believe that's the situation.)"
I suppose these independent researchers are independent in the sense they support the Clintons.
And what evidence made you come to that conclusion, or are you just trolling?
I'm asking a straight forward question based on my experience,
My recollection of the campaign on PB was the only bot we had was a Clinton one - 619 - who posted lots of Clinton propaganda and spent most of its time ridiculing people like Plato who subsequently proved to be correct.
If we're going to mention bots and spammers lets look at the whole picture
Nah, we had Plato as well. At least 619 sometimes defended the stuff (s)he posted. Plato was correct, but much of the evidence she gave before the election was bogus. I particularly lol'ed when she claimed to have read the stuff she was posting, when it was obvious she had not.
In October 1962, Castro urged the USSR to nuke the USA, thus starting World War Three. Those today praising him today would probably have not lived to make those tributes to him.
Corbyn was twelve then.
Fortunately Krushchev was sane, and in his sixty ninth year. One day Jezza might grow up too.
I've been doing some reading up on this period recently (concentrating on the space aspects), and blame for the missile crisis can be blamed firmly at JFK's door.
JFK's playing up of the missile gap in the late 1950s, despite having been shown by Eisenhower that no such gap existed, made Khrushchev and the Russians feel that JFK was a dangerous extremist.
My wife and I had just become engaged at this time and we were not politically engaged but we were extremely fearful that a nuclear war was very possible and likely. We have never felt the same fear since
I was lucky; I was 16 when the Berlin wall fell, and I only had six months when a fear of nuclear war really struck my consciousness (as a kid I was very pro-nuclear and pro-tech, as I am now).
I am now feeling occasional murmurs of the same fear. The world feels much less certain that it did; more dangerous in the post-Brexit and pre-Donald world. Perhaps that's accentuated by having a young son.
I can understand your rationale which is accentuated by having a young son and indeed the World is much more dangerous with Putin's aggression and the election of Trump. However, Trump has made friendly noises to Putin and I do not have the 'real fear' I had in 1962.
Trump making friendly noises with Putin is a large part of the problem. Firstly, it's morally wrong (though others will doubtless disagree). But more importantly, it's unsustainable. And when they have a falling out, it will be a biggie, if only because Putin will have been given free rein and the situation will be harder to recover.
Even on here, we have people blaming the EU for the Ukrainian crisis, and saying that Russia should have more control over the states to its west. A few years back they'd have been called appeasers. Now they're useful idiots.
Or maybe the fools that think the other way are the real fools, and perhaps they are not even useful but just idiots.
I'm not sure that someone who want self-determination for his own country should be so keen to deny that right from others.
I suppose these independent researchers are independent in the sense they support the Clintons.
And what evidence made you come to that conclusion, or are you just trolling?
I'm asking a straight forward question based on my experience,
My recollection of the campaign on PB was the only bot we had was a Clinton one - 619 - who posted lots of Clinton propaganda and spent most of its time ridiculing people like Plato who subsequently proved to be correct.
If we're going to mention bots and spammers lets look at the whole picture
Nah, we had Plato as well. At least 619 sometimes defended the stuff (s)he posted. Plato was correct, but much of the evidence she gave before the election was bogus. I particularly lol'ed when she claimed to have read the stuff she was posting, when it was obvious she had not.
@foxinthesoxuk 3 former Soviet members are now EU and NATO members. Allowing a Communist Dictatorship to over run a multi party democracy like Taiwan would render the West's authority meaningless. Where would it all stop ?
I do not think that we could do anything military to influence a fight between China and Taiwan, so should not pretend that we could.
The Baltics I would be bothered about, but not to the point of wanting to have a shooting war with Russia. We should leave NATO as well as the EU.
Dr. Foxinsix, President Xi has a more militaristic approach than President Hu did. Xi's increased military spending significantly and already used it for a substantial land grab in the South China Sea.
Not worth us bothering about. China is a friendly country to us, and we have no military or territorial interest in the region.
Apart from s defence agreement with the Sultanate of Brunei (and a battalion of Gurkhas)? I do hope you engage your brain at work (as your performance here suggests cerebral disjunct)....
In October 1962, Castro urged the USSR to nuke the USA, thus starting World War Three. Those today praising him today would probably have not lived to make those tributes to him.
Corbyn was twelve then.
Fortunately Krushchev was sane, and in his sixty ninth year. One day Jezza might grow up too.
I've been doing some reading up on this period recently (concentrating on the space aspects), and blame for the missile crisis can be blamed firmly at JFK's door.
JFK's playing up of the missile gap in the late 1950s, despite having been shown by Eisenhower that no such gap existed, made Khrushchev and the Russians feel that JFK was a dangerous extremist.
The Deutschland 83 TV series, although mostly told from the Western perspective (GDR essentially a nasty place), illustrated the danger quite well - the theme is that the Soviets are genuinely half-convinced that a Western nuclear strike is planned, and are chewing over a pre-emptive strike (the hero is a GDR spy who discovers that the West is actually planning no such thing). We used to worry all the time that the Russians might unleash one, and I don't think many of us worked out that similar fears might exist on both sides.
@foxinthesoxuk 3 former Soviet members are now EU and NATO members. Allowing a Communist Dictatorship to over run a multi party democracy like Taiwan would render the West's authority meaningless. Where would it all stop ?
I do not think that we could do anything military to influence a fight between China and Taiwan, so should not pretend that we could.
The Baltics I would be bothered about, but not to the point of wanting to have a shooting war with Russia. We should leave NATO as well as the EU.
I think NATO is a busted flush and there is not a cat in Hell's chance that it would go to war with Russia over the Baltics. It really should have stood down in 1990, its job done.
Dr. Foxinsix, President Xi has a more militaristic approach than President Hu did. Xi's increased military spending significantly and already used it for a substantial land grab in the South China Sea.
Not worth us bothering about. China is a friendly country to us, and we have no military or territorial interest in the region.
Apart from s defence agreement with the Sultanate of Brunei (and a battalion of Gurkhas)? I do hope you engage your brain at work (as your performance here suggests cerebral disjunct)....
A battalion of Ghurkas up against the Chinese Army and Navy? I can see that working out well!
@foxinsoxuk Well the game is up then. Western democracies militarily over run because the west won't fight. Which it doesn't need to for as long as the other lot believe we will. Back to the 1930's. My guess at the moment is defending the Baltics would become very unpopular in Britain if it came to it. Another strategic catastrophe by globalist Brexiters. You can't define eastern Europeans as alien to us and a threat to living standards and be prepared to fight Russia for them at the same time. Isolationism is Isolationism.
Trump making friendly noises with Putin is a large part of the problem. Firstly, it's morally wrong (though others will doubtless disagree). But more importantly, it's unsustainable. And when they have a falling out, it will be a biggie, if only because Putin will have been given free rein and the situation will be harder to recover.
Even on here, we have people blaming the EU for the Ukrainian crisis, and saying that Russia should have more control over the states to its west. A few years back they'd have been called appeasers. Now they're useful idiots.
Bollox, the Americans poke into ebverybody's business and destabilise countries all over the plac eyet they criticise the Russians doing teh same. Stop the hypocrisy an dstart talking to Russia in a sensible fashion. It the American right wing nutters we hav eto worry about not the Russians.
You have a point to an extent. But I'm not sure the people of Ukraine, Georgia and, to a lesser extent, other eastern European countries would agree that the US is more a threat to them than Russia.
Cuba, Grenada, Haiti, Nicaragua? All big countries tend to 'care' about unfriendly regimes on their borders. I seem to recall that in the days of the Empah we had client states all around the fringes, especially of the Raj!
On Topic: " It's in your hands " is an experiment. They are trying to find a small l liberal framing of " Take back control " that works. The By-election result will be data.
In October 1962, Castro urged the USSR to nuke the USA, thus starting World War Three. Those today praising him today would probably have not lived to make those tributes to him.
Corbyn was twelve then.
Fortunately Krushchev was sane, and in his sixty ninth year. One day Jezza might grow up too.
I've been doing some reading up on this period recently (concentrating on the space aspects), and blame for the missile crisis can be blamed firmly at JFK's door.
JFK's playing up of the missile gap in the late 1950s, despite having been shown by Eisenhower that no such gap existed, made Khrushchev and the Russians feel that JFK was a dangerous extremist.
The Deutschland 83 TV series, although mostly told from the Western perspective (GDR essentially a nasty place), illustrated the danger quite well - the theme is that the Soviets are genuinely half-convinced that a Western nuclear strike is planned, and are chewing over a pre-emptive strike (the hero is a GDR spy who discovers that the West is actually planning no such thing). We used to worry all the time that the Russians might unleash one, and I don't think many of us worked out that similar fears might exist on both sides.
Deutschland 83 was very good drama (if a bit fanciful at times) at getting the Cold War atmosphere correct, right down to GDR agents making useful idiots of the West German peace movement.
GDR was a pretty nasty place, a nation of Stasi informers, surveillance and blackmail. "The Lives of Others" was a very good drama on daily life there.
Castro's Cuba lacks the Germanic efficiency at internal oppression, though not the intent. I do understand the sympathy in Latin America for Fidel nonetheless as a rare example of successfully standing up to the hegemony and neo-colonialism of the USA. I think this is what Jezza was getting at when describing Castro as outlasting 8 Presidents.
(Oh, and another PBer who looks nothing like how I imagined him).
It's been a good year (well, except for those on the other side of my Betfair account!), but the Paddock Club tickets were £4K each and the wife would have killed me! Maybe next year if business is good
@foxinsoxuk Well the game is up then. Western democracies militarily over run because the west won't fight. Which it doesn't need to for as long as the other lot believe we will. Back to the 1930's. My guess at the moment is defending the Baltics would become very unpopular in Britain if it came to it. Another strategic catastrophe by globalist Brexiters. You can't define eastern Europeans as alien to us and a threat to living standards and be prepared to fight Russia for them at the same time. Isolationism is Isolationism.
What game, Mr. Submarine? There was never any chance that NATO would fight for the Baltics . It would be a fight it couldn't win for a start. Secondly, Europe has essentially disarmed so it couldn't fight a hot war against a reasonably equipped state even if it wanted to. Most European NATO members will not spend money that they have agreed to spend on defence, and still will not, possibly because their peoples do not want to fight.
Trump's statements about NATO are just an expression of the frustration and anger that has been building up in the USA for twenty years or so. Why, they ask, should we carry 75% of the NATO spending and do all the heavy lifting when the Europeans will not even match their agreed commitments?
This is an issue that has bugger all to do with Brexit.
Perhaps the LDs want to wash their hands of something.
"In previous elections the party campaigns often have had a good idea at this stage how the postal vote campaigns were going." They can only know postal turnout shirley.
Trump making friendly noises with Putin is a large part of the problem. Firstly, it's morally wrong (though others will doubtless disagree). But more importantly, it's unsustainable. And when they have a falling out, it will be a biggie, if only because Putin will have been given free rein and the situation will be harder to recover.
Even on here, we have people blaming the EU for the Ukrainian crisis, and saying that Russia should have more control over the states to its west. A few years back they'd have been called appeasers. Now they're useful idiots.
Bollox, the Americans poke into ebverybody's business and destabilise countries all over the plac eyet they criticise the Russians doing teh same. Stop the hypocrisy an dstart talking to Russia in a sensible fashion. It the American right wing nutters we hav eto worry about not the Russians.
You have a point to an extent. But I'm not sure the people of Ukraine, Georgia and, to a lesser extent, other eastern European countries would agree that the US is more a threat to them than Russia.
Cuba, Grenada, Haiti, Nicaragua? All big countries tend to 'care' about unfriendly regimes on their borders. I seem to recall that in the days of the Empah we had client states all around the fringes, especially of the Raj!
When discussing Castro's crimes against opposition within Cuba, the context does need to be borne in mind of US support for right wing death squads and disappearances across Latin America. Cold war politics there was not really about polite debate and accepting opposition points. Within this context Castro was far from the worst offender.
Dr. Foxinsix, President Xi has a more militaristic approach than President Hu did. Xi's increased military spending significantly and already used it for a substantial land grab in the South China Sea.
Not worth us bothering about. China is a friendly country to us, and we have no military or territorial interest in the region.
Apart from s defence agreement with the Sultanate
of Brunei (and a battalion of Gurkhas)? I do hope you engage your brain at work (as your performance here suggests cerebral disjunct)....
A battalion of Ghurkas up against the Chinese Army and Navy? I can see that working out well!
Engage brain.
I also missed-out the FPDA and Malaysia's interests in Borneo and Sarawak. We have these in place and rumours are the T31 are for sunny-climes.
If, and a big if, Oz and Kiwi-land go T26 we may have to rethink our Atlantacist strategy. Or buy another half-dozen Astutes...
Dr. Foxinsix, President Xi has a more militaristic approach than President Hu did. Xi's increased military spending significantly and already used it for a substantial land grab in the South China Sea.
Not worth us bothering about. China is a friendly country to us, and we have no military or territorial interest in the region.
Apart from s defence agreement with the Sultanate
of Brunei (and a battalion of Gurkhas)? I do hope you engage your brain at work (as your performance here suggests cerebral disjunct)....
A battalion of Ghurkas up against the Chinese Army and Navy? I can see that working out well!
Engage brain.
I also missed-out the FPDA and Malaysia's interests in Borneo and Sarawak. We have these in place and rumours are the T31 are for sunny-climes.
If, and a big if, Oz and Kiwi-land go T26 we may have to rethink our Atlantacist strategy.Or buy another half-dozen Astutes... P
Not our business anymore. Those countries can look after themselves. A little friendly help with intelligence is as far as our help should go.
I also missed-out the FPDA and Malaysia's interests in Borneo and Sarawak. We have these in place and rumours are the T31 are for sunny-climes.
If, and a big if, Oz and Kiwi-land go T26 we may have to rethink our Atlantacist strategy. Or buy another half-dozen Astutes...
Buying another six Astutes would be a very good idea, Mr. Thoughts. Two problems though, we have nowhere to build them for at least a decade and we probably couldn't crew them even if we did. The RN is struggling to crew the existing fleet.
In October 1962, Castro urged the USSR to nuke the USA, thus starting World War Three. Those today praising him today would probably have not lived to make those tributes to him.
Corbyn was twelve then.
Fortunately Krushchev was sane, and in his sixty ninth year. One day Jezza might grow up too.
I've been doing some reading up on this period recently (concentrating on the space aspects), and blame for the missile crisis can be blamed firmly at JFK's door.
JFK's playing up of the missile gap in the late 1950s, despite having been shown by Eisenhower that no such gap existed, made Khrushchev and the Russians feel that JFK was a dangerous extremist.
The Deutschland 83 TV series, although mostly told from the Western perspective (GDR essentially a nasty place), illustrated the danger quite well - the theme is that the Soviets are genuinely half-convinced that a Western nuclear strike is planned, and are chewing over a pre-emptive strike (the hero is a GDR spy who discovers that the West is actually planning no such thing). We used to worry all the time that the Russians might unleash one, and I don't think many of us worked out that similar fears might exist on both sides.
Deutschland 83 was very good drama (if a bit fanciful at times) at getting the Cold War atmosphere correct, right down to GDR agents making useful idiots of the West German peace movement.
GDR was a pretty nasty place, a nation of Stasi informers, surveillance and blackmail. "The Lives of Others" was a very good drama on daily life there.
Castro's Cuba lacks the Germanic efficiency at internal oppression, though not the intent. I do understand the sympathy in Latin America for Fidel nonetheless as a rare example of successfully standing up to the hegemony and neo-colonialism of the USA. I think this is what Jezza was getting at when describing Castro as outlasting 8 Presidents.
Mr Corbyn sort of admiring the fact that Castro lasted more than 8 US presidents was rather creepy given the reason was that the US has democratic elections and a term limit on presidents and Castro abolished leadership elections.
A very strange point to make imo.
On the Baltics , as soon as NATO basicially say they will not defend them then this makes Russia all the more likely to invade .To keep the peace therefore Nato needs to state it will defend them and have a convincing military strength to do so . Who said geopolitics was easy?
In October 1962, Castro urged the USSR to nuke the USA, thus starting World War Three. Those today praising him today would probably have not lived to make those tributes to him.
Corbyn was twelve then.
Fortunately Krushchev was sane, and in his sixty ninth year. One day Jezza might grow up too.
I've been doing some reading up on this period recently (concentrating on the space aspects), and blame for the missile crisis can be blamed firmly at JFK's door.
JFK's playing up of the missile gap in the late 1950s, despite having been shown by Eisenhower that no such gap existed, made Khrushchev and the Russians feel that JFK was a dangerous extremist.
The Deutschland 83 TV series, although mostly told from the Western perspective (GDR essentially a nasty place), illustrated the danger quite well - the theme is that the Soviets are genuinely half-convinced that a Western nuclear strike is planned, and are chewing over a pre-emptive strike (the hero is a GDR spy who discovers that the West is actually planning no such thing). We used to worry all the time that the Russians might unleash one, and I don't think many of us worked out that similar fears might exist on both sides.
Deutschland 83 was very good drama (if a bit fanciful at times) at getting the Cold War atmosphere correct, right down to GDR agents making useful idiots of the West German peace movement.
GDR was a pretty nasty place, a nation of Stasi informers, surveillance and blackmail. "The Lives of Others" was a very good drama on daily life there.
Castro's Cuba lacks the Germanic efficiency at internal oppression, though not the intent. I do understand the sympathy in Latin America for Fidel nonetheless as a rare example of successfully standing up to the hegemony and neo-colonialism of the USA. I think this is what Jezza was getting at when describing Castro as outlasting 8 Presidents.
Mr Corbyn sort of admiring the fact that Castro lasted more than 8 US presidents was rather creepy given the reason was that the US has democratic elections and a term limit on presidents and Castro abolished leadership elections.
A very strange point to make imo.
On the Baltics , as soon as NATO basicially say they will not defend them then this makes Russia all the more likely to invade .To keep the peace therefore Nato needs to state it will defend them and have a convincing military strength to do so . Who said geopolitics was easy?
May be he is hinting that only ill health will make him stand down?
Dr. Foxinsix, President Xi has a more militaristic approach than President Hu did. Xi's increased military spending significantly and already used it for a substantial land grab in the South China Sea.
Not worth us bothering about. China is a friendly country to us, and we have no military or territorial interest in the region.
Apart from s defence agreement with the Sultanate
of Brunei (and a battalion of Gurkhas)? I do hope you engage your brain at work (as your performance here suggests cerebral disjunct)....
A battalion of Ghurkas up against the Chinese Army and Navy? I can see that working out well!
Engage brain.
I also missed-out the FPDA and Malaysia's interests in Borneo and Sarawak. We have these in place and rumours are the T31 are for sunny-climes.
If, and a big if, Oz and Kiwi-land go T26 we may have to rethink our Atlantacist strategy. Or buy another half-dozen Astutes...
Spaz-editor:
So, yes, we have interests within the South China Sea. Once again Dr Fox you have shown your on failings.
You could, in the context of Conservative Party infighting over the decades on the EU. Don't fall into the trap that disagreements on the EU damage parties. Of our two main parties, one jumped in with both feet on one side of the EU referendum debate, thus alienating 40% of its traditional supporters who disagreed with that stance. The other had a foot in both camps and was split right down the middle on the issue. The split party is the one that is thriving in the polls in the wake of the referendum.
A public fracas on this issue will do Labour nothing but good, if it signals to its potential voters that there is after all room for both supporters and opponents of Brexit within the party.
@foxinsoxuk Well the game is up then. Western democracies militarily over run because the west won't fight. Which it doesn't need to for as long as the other lot believe we will. Back to the 1930's. My guess at the moment is defending the Baltics would become very unpopular in Britain if it came to it. Another strategic catastrophe by globalist Brexiters. You can't define eastern Europeans as alien to us and a threat to living standards and be prepared to fight Russia for them at the same time. Isolationism is Isolationism.
What game, Mr. Submarine? There was never any chance that NATO would fight for the Baltics . It would be a fight it couldn't win for a start. Secondly, Europe has essentially disarmed so it couldn't fight a hot war against a reasonably equipped state even if it wanted to. Most European NATO members will not spend money that they have agreed to spend on defence, and still will not, possibly because their peoples do not want to fight.
Trump's statements about NATO are just an expression of the frustration and anger that has been building up in the USA for twenty years or so. Why, they ask, should we carry 75% of the NATO spending and do all the heavy lifting when the Europeans will not even match their agreed commitments?
This is an issue that has bugger all to do with Brexit.
What America buys when paying for the lions share of NATO (and Pacific equivalent) is influence. America decides and other NATO countries fall in line.
Trump wants Europe to pay more for the costs of its garrisons, but if that price is high then, for example the Germans would rather build their own Sovereign forces. What would happen if Britain were landed with an annual couple of Billion dollar bill to pay for the USAF airbases in East Anglia? We would tell them to bugger off and pay for the RAF instead. Other countries will feel the same. The USA would still be the dominant player in NATO, but with much less authority over us minions.
Dr. Foxinsix, President Xi has a more militaristic approach than President Hu did. Xi's increased military spending significantly and already used it for a substantial land grab in the South China Sea.
Not worth us bothering about. China is a friendly country to us, and we have no military or territorial interest in the region.
Apart from s defence agreement with the Sultanate
of Brunei (and a battalion of Gurkhas)? I do hope you engage your brain at work (as your performance here suggests cerebral disjunct)....
A battalion of Ghurkas up against the Chinese Army and Navy? I can see that working out well!
Engage brain.
I also missed-out the FPDA and Malaysia's interests in Borneo and Sarawak. We have these in place and rumours are the T31 are for sunny-climes.
If, and a big if, Oz and Kiwi-land go T26 we may have to rethink our Atlantacist strategy. Or buy another half-dozen Astutes...
Spaz-editor:
So, yes, we have interests within the South China Sea. Once again Dr Fox you have shown your on failings. quote
We do indeed have interests in that region. What we could do about them if push came to shove is a different matter.
Trump making friendly noises with Putin is a large part of the problem. Firstly, it's morally wrong (though others will doubtless disagree). But more importantly, it's unsustainable. And when they have a falling out, it will be a biggie, if only because Putin will have been given free rein and the situation will be harder to recover.
Even on here, we have people blaming the EU for the Ukrainian crisis, and saying that Russia should have more control over the states to its west. A few years back they'd have been called appeasers. Now they're useful idiots.
Bollox, the Americans poke into ebverybody's business and destabilise countries all over the plac eyet they criticise the Russians doing teh same. Stop the hypocrisy an dstart talking to Russia in a sensible fashion. It the American right wing nutters we hav eto worry about not the Russians.
You have a point to an extent. But I'm not sure the people of Ukraine, Georgia and, to a lesser extent, other eastern European countries would agree that the US is more a threat to them than Russia.
Cuba, Grenada, Haiti, Nicaragua? All big countries tend to 'care' about unfriendly regimes on their borders. I seem to recall that in the days of the Empah we had client states all around the fringes, especially of the Raj!
How NATO accepted non-alignment for 'border states' during the Cold War, but not after it, is inexplicable. I assume NATO thought this time it could stick two fingers up to Russia; i.e., nothing to do with security, only with power play.
F*** NATO. Its adversary, the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact, wanted worldwide Communist rule and was dangerous but it dissolved itself about 20 years ago. I can actually sympathise with Trump if part of his position is that NATO has no business invading other countries and that admitting the Baltic states might have been an error.
Only chance Juppe has today is if there is a markedly lower turnout than last weekend. There were a lot of voters who voted for Fillon last week to try and knock Sarkozy out. Juppe's only hope is that those who did will not bother to pay another two euro's to vote today now that Sarkozy has been disposed of and that the supporters of Sarkozy do not feel sufficiently motivated to vote in large numbers either, because they are likely to split for Fillon if they do.
Anyone heard any news about how the turnout is looking in comparison to last week?
You could, in the context of Conservative Party infighting over the decades on the EU. Don't fall into the trap that disagreements on the EU damage parties. Of our two main parties, one jumped in with both feet on one side of the EU referendum debate, thus alienating 40% of its traditional supporters who disagreed with that stance. The other had a foot in both camps and was split right down the middle on the issue. The split party is the one that is thriving in the polls in the wake of the referendum.
A public fracas on this issue will do Labour nothing but good, if it signals to its potential voters that there is after all room for both supporters and opponents of Brexit within the party.
I'm not sure accusing your shadow chancellor of being "UKIP lite" is the way to express a broad church. It sounds mroe as if Abbott says that people who agree with McDonnell should leave the party. Although I agree with your central point, even the splits in the Tories are pushing the boundary when it comes to gaining vs losing voters.
Only chance Juppe has today is if there is a markedly lower turnout than last weekend. There were a lot of voters who voted for Fillon last week to try and knock Sarkozy out. Juppe's only hope is that those who did will not bother to pay another two euro's to vote today now that Sarkozy has been disposed of and that the supporters of Sarkozy do not feel sufficiently motivated to vote in large numbers either, because they are likely to split for Fillon if they do.
Anyone heard any news about how the turnout is looking in comparison to last week?
Juppé needs a truly enormous swing if it is Fillon > nobody he is after. He needs hundreds of thousands of left-wing voters (which we infer made up a key part of FIllon's vote although this is not entirely clear) to go Fillon > Juppé. Little sign of that at the moment, the polls suggest 60/40 which is pretty much the same as 44/28 in the first round. This suggests that Juppé has gained a few switchers via this route, but only enough to offset the 2/1 break in the Sarkozy vote.
How NATO accepted non-alignment for 'border states' during the Cold War, but not after it, is inexplicable. I assume NATO thought this time it could stick two fingers up to Russia; i.e., nothing to do with security, only with power play.
The expansion was in the aftermath, not of the end of the Cold War, but at the height of the 'with us or against us' Bush policy following 9/11. Russia was being punished for taking an independent line on the Iraq war. The confrontational situation we have now with Russia is yet more geopolitical fallout from that catastrophic mistake.
Only chance Juppe has today is if there is a markedly lower turnout than last weekend. There were a lot of voters who voted for Fillon last week to try and knock Sarkozy out. Juppe's only hope is that those who did will not bother to pay another two euro's to vote today now that Sarkozy has been disposed of and that the supporters of Sarkozy do not feel sufficiently motivated to vote in large numbers either, because they are likely to split for Fillon if they do.
Anyone heard any news about how the turnout is looking in comparison to last week?
Juppé needs a truly enormous swing if it is Fillon > nobody he is after. He needs hundreds of thousands of left-wing voters (which we infer made up a key part of FIllon's vote although this is not entirely clear) to go Fillon > Juppé. Little sign of that at the moment, the polls suggest 60/40 which is pretty much the same as 44/28 in the first round. This suggests that Juppé has gained a few switchers via this route, but only enough to offset the 2/1 break in the Sarkozy vote.
I have no update on the turnout.
I agree, Juppe has no chance of people switching. He needed a really good debate on thursday for that to happen.. and he didn't get it. Only chance he has, as I said, is that those who were voting to dispose of Sarkozy last week, won't bother to vote this time around.. and there were quite a few of those. I think it will be closer than the 60/40 the polls suggest and would not rule out another shock completely. If you see reports of turnout being markedly down on last week, then it might pay to cover Juppe, because that would be the first sign of a surprise.
I suppose these independent researchers are independent in the sense they support the Clintons.
And what evidence made you come to that conclusion, or are you just trolling?
I'm asking a straight forward question based on my experience,
My recollection of the campaign on PB was the only bot we had was a Clinton one - 619 - who posted lots of Clinton propaganda and spent most of its time ridiculing people like Plato who subsequently proved to be correct.
If we're going to mention bots and spammers lets look at the whole picture
Nah, we had Plato as well. At least 619 sometimes defended the stuff (s)he posted. Plato was correct, but much of the evidence she gave before the election was bogus. I particularly lol'ed when she claimed to have read the stuff she was posting, when it was obvious she had not.
Morning Alan, at times it seems there are more 619's about , or at least useful idiots.
To be useful, an idiot needs to have some standing.
William, I was being generous as it is Sunday.
Care to say who you are insinuating about, or are you too much of a coward on a Sunday?
If the cap fits, I am not scared to say you are writing a load of bollox , you have some grudge againt Putin/Russia , you write partisan bollox on Turkey and your flag waving right wing rubbish for US/UK as being the good guys is pathetic and cretinous. Is that brave enough for you.
I also missed-out the FPDA and Malaysia's interests in Borneo and Sarawak. We have these in place and rumours are the T31 are for sunny-climes.
If, and a big if, Oz and Kiwi-land go T26 we may have to rethink our Atlantacist strategy. Or buy another half-dozen Astutes...
Buying another six Astutes would be a very good idea, Mr. Thoughts. Two problems though, we have nowhere to build them for at least a decade and we probably couldn't crew them even if we did. The RN is struggling to crew the existing fleet.
Hurst, unfortunately I doubt we have enough boats left to constitute a fleet.
Dr. Foxinsix, President Xi has a more militaristic approach than President Hu did. Xi's increased military spending significantly and already used it for a substantial land grab in the South China Sea.
Not worth us bothering about. China is a friendly country to us, and we have no military or territorial interest in the region.
Apart from s defence agreement with the Sultanate
of Brunei (and a battalion of Gurkhas)? I do hope you engage your brain at work (as your performance here suggests cerebral disjunct)....
A battalion of Ghurkas up against the Chinese Army and Navy? I can see that working out well!
Engage brain.
I also missed-out the FPDA and Malaysia's interests in Borneo and Sarawak. We have these in place and rumours are the T31 are for sunny-climes.
If, and a big if, Oz and Kiwi-land go T26 we may have to rethink our Atlantacist strategy.Or buy another half-dozen Astutes... P
Not our business anymore. Those countries can look after themselves. A little friendly help with intelligence is as far as our help should go.
The Empire is history.
Unfortunately not for some of the more extreme nutters on here Fox, they live in the past.
Dr. Foxinsix, President Xi has a more militaristic approach than President Hu did. Xi's increased military spending significantly and already used it for a substantial land grab in the South China Sea.
Not worth us bothering about. China is a friendly country to us, and we have no military or territorial interest in the region.
Apart from s defence agreement with the Sultanate of Brunei (and a battalion of Gurkhas)? I do hope you engage your brain at work (as your performance here suggests cerebral disjunct)....
I also missed-out the FPDA and Malaysia's interests in Borneo and Sarawak. We have these in place and rumours are the T31 are for sunny-climes.
If, and a big if, Oz and Kiwi-land go T26 we may have to rethink our Atlantacist strategy. Or buy another half-dozen Astutes...
Buying another six Astutes would be a very good idea, Mr. Thoughts. Two problems though, we have nowhere to build them for at least a decade and we probably couldn't crew them even if we did. The RN is struggling to crew the existing fleet.
Hurst, unfortunately I doubt we have enough boats left to constitute a fleet.
Plus the boats that we do have either don't have any planes to fly off them, they don't have any missiles to fire or they aren't seaworthy. As it stands the RN is nothing more than a glorified coast guard.
Care to say who you are insinuating about, or are you too much of a coward on a Sunday?
If the cap fits, I am not scared to say you are writing a load of bollox , you have some grudge againt Putin/Russia , you write partisan bollox on Turkey and your flag waving right wing rubbish for US/UK as being the good guys is pathetic and cretinous. Is that brave enough for you.
LOL. Let's take these one-by-one:
1) you have some grudge againt Putin/Russia. Well, I don't support a country that is acting in the way Russia is, both domestically and internationally. The messy assassination of Litvinenko in London and the shooting down of the airliner (and the stupid cover-ups) should upset you as well. Add in other factors, and it's clear that Russia is no friend to us or democracy.
2) you write partisan bollox on Turkey No, I try to give a much-needed Turkish perspective on things. And as for it being partisan: nope. Many of my criticisms of Turkish policy, and my writings about the Kurds, would not be seen positively by the AKP or even many Turks. I have lamented the collapse of the peace process (Solution process) with the Kurds. I've been about the only person on here before the coup to mention the importance of Gulen (hardly a friend of the regime). I have asked people to consider how they would feel, if they were living in Turkey given the refugee crisis, the bombings, and the pressure caused by the adjoining war.
3) your flag waving right wing rubbish for US/UK as being the good guys Nope. I have criticised the US in the past, and in fact my criticism of JFK earlier in this thread is hardly a standard pro-US view. And I've expressed in the past how I have more sympathy with the USSR during the Cold War than the US, given their respective histories. But I can not support the USSR's system. But as for the UK/US being the good guys: generally and comparatively, yes. Not that good guys could not have been much, much better.
So you are wrong on many levels. Now, tell me why Scotsmen deserve self-determination, but those folk in Eastern Europe deserve only to live under Russia's thumb?
You could, in the context of Conservative Party infighting over the decades on the EU. Don't fall into the trap that disagreements on the EU damage parties. Of our two main parties, one jumped in with both feet on one side of the EU referendum debate, thus alienating 40% of its traditional supporters who disagreed with that stance. The other had a foot in both camps and was split right down the middle on the issue. The split party is the one that is thriving in the polls in the wake of the referendum.
A public fracas on this issue will do Labour nothing but good, if it signals to its potential voters that there is after all room for both supporters and opponents of Brexit within the party.
I'm not sure accusing your shadow chancellor of being "UKIP lite" is the way to express a broad church. It sounds mroe as if Abbott says that people who agree with McDonnell should leave the party. Although I agree with your central point, even the splits in the Tories are pushing the boundary when it comes to gaining vs losing voters.
There are a couple of potential added bonuses for Labour: 1. Accusing the Shadow Chancellor of being UKIP lite may be a ridiculous thing to say, but if you wanted to win back traditional Labour voters who have flirted with support for UKIP that is exactly what you want to be accused of. 2. I cannot think of a Labour figure that appeals less to the general public than Dianne Abbott, and so if you could hand pick someone who you would want to do the accusing, it is her.
Only chance Juppe has today is if there is a markedly lower turnout than last weekend. There were a lot of voters who voted for Fillon last week to try and knock Sarkozy out. Juppe's only hope is that those who did will not bother to pay another two euro's to vote today now that Sarkozy has been disposed of and that the supporters of Sarkozy do not feel sufficiently motivated to vote in large numbers either, because they are likely to split for Fillon if they do.
Anyone heard any news about how the turnout is looking in comparison to last week?
Juppé needs a truly enormous swing if it is Fillon > nobody he is after. He needs hundreds of thousands of left-wing voters (which we infer made up a key part of FIllon's vote although this is not entirely clear) to go Fillon > Juppé. Little sign of that at the moment, the polls suggest 60/40 which is pretty much the same as 44/28 in the first round. This suggests that Juppé has gained a few switchers via this route, but only enough to offset the 2/1 break in the Sarkozy vote.
I have no update on the turnout.
I agree, Juppe has no chance of people switching. He needed a really good debate on thursday for that to happen.. and he didn't get it. Only chance he has, as I said, is that those who were voting to dispose of Sarkozy last week, won't bother to vote this time around.. and there were quite a few of those. I think it will be closer than the 60/40 the polls suggest and would not rule out another shock completely. If you see reports of turnout being markedly down on last week, then it might pay to cover Juppe, because that would be the first sign of a surprise.
Turnout 10-15% up at noon compared to last week so that looks like Juppe's goose is well and truly cooked.
Let's say the Michigan and Wisconsin recounts go ahead but no others, so even if they flip it doesn't change the election but the day before the EC vote they both report that they have detected wide spread electoral fraud in favour of Trump and their EC votes will got to Clinton.
Care to say who you are insinuating about, or are you too much of a coward on a Sunday?
If the cap fits, I am not scared to say you are writing a load of bollox , you have some grudge againt Putin/Russia , you write partisan bollox on Turkey and your flag waving right wing rubbish for US/UK as being the good guys is pathetic and cretinous. Is that brave enough for you.
LOL. Let's take these one-by-one:
1) you have some grudge againt Putin/Russia. Well, I don't support a country that is acting in the way Russia is, both domestically and internationally. The messy assassination of Litvinenko in London and the shooting down of the airliner (and the stupid cover-ups) should upset you as well. Add in other factors, and it's clear that Russia is no friend to us or democracy.
2) you write partisan bollox on Turkey No, I try to give a much-needed Turkish perspective on things. And as for it being partisan: nope. Many of my criticisms of Turkish policy, and my writings about the Kurds, would not be seen positively by the AKP or even many Turks. I have lamented the collapse of the peace process (Solution process) with the Kurds. I've been about the only person on here before the coup to mention the importance of Gulen (hardly a friend of the regime). I have asked people to consider how they would feel, if they were living in Turkey given the refugee crisis, the bombings, and the pressure caused by the adjoining war.
3) your flag waving right wing rubbish for US/UK as being the good guys Nope. I have criticised the US in the past, and in fact my criticism of JFK earlier in this thread is hardly a standard pro-US view. And I've expressed in the past how I have more sympathy with the USSR during the Cold War than the US, given their respective histories. But I can not support the USSR's system. But as for the UK/US being the good guys: generally and comparatively, yes. Not that good guys could not have been much, much better.
So you are wrong on many levels. Now, tell me why Scotsmen deserve self-determination, but those folk in Eastern Europe deserve only to live under Russia's thumb?
Who is living under Russia's thumb, mere speculation. Fact is we are under the thumb and have much less chance of self determination than Eastern Europe. More addled headed bollox
Let's say the Michigan and Wisconsin recounts go ahead but no others, so even if they flip it doesn't change the election but the day before the EC vote try both report that they have detected wide spread electoral fraud in favour of Trump.
What would happen next?
Trump wins. Basically you don't get any other outcome, because if it produces a mess it ends up with Congress, and they pick Trump.
What America buys when paying for the lions share of NATO (and Pacific equivalent) is influence. America decides and other NATO countries fall in line.
Trump wants Europe to pay more for the costs of its garrisons, but if that price is high then, for example the Germans would rather build their own Sovereign forces. What would happen if Britain were landed with an annual couple of Billion dollar bill to pay for the USAF airbases in East Anglia? We would tell them to bugger off and pay for the RAF instead. Other countries will feel the same. The USA would still be the dominant player in NATO, but with much less authority over us minions.
A nice theory, Doc, but sadly lacking in fact. For example the Germans do not pay for the USA Forces any more than they paid for BAOR and certainly have not built up their own. In fact they have run down the Bundeswehr to such an extent that when a year or so back they tried to hold a large exercise they could not even equip all the infantry with rifles.
All NATO countries agreed to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence. A big majority have breached that agreement and continue to do so. The Septics finally getting snotty about this, after years of gently pointing out that Europe is not bearing its share, should not come as a surprise.
Be that as it may, NATO cannot and will not fight for its Eastern members and the current efforts designed to prove that it can and would are empty posturing. The decision to expand its membership to the East was an act of stupidity that could almost have been designed to provoke the reaction from Russia that it has and the Russians told us in advance it would.
Let's say the Michigan and Wisconsin recounts go ahead but no others, so even if they flip it doesn't change the election but the day before the EC vote try both report that they have detected wide spread electoral fraud in favour of Trump.
What would happen next?
Trump wins. Basically you don't get any other outcome, because if it produces a mess it ends up with Congress, and they pick Trump.
12 faithless electors would give it to Hilary at hr point though.
And would Congress pick Trump with evidence of voter fraud if it was a hung decision
What America buys when paying for the lions share of NATO (and Pacific equivalent) is influence. America decides and other NATO countries fall in line.
Trump wants Europe to pay more for the costs of its garrisons, but if that price is high then, for example the Germans would rather build their own Sovereign forces. What would happen if Britain were landed with an annual couple of Billion dollar bill to pay for the USAF airbases in East Anglia? We would tell them to bugger off and pay for the RAF instead. Other countries will feel the same. The USA would still be the dominant player in NATO, but with much less authority over us minions.
A nice theory, Doc, but sadly lacking in fact. For example the Germans do not pay for the USA Forces any more than they paid for BAOR and certainly have not built up their own. In fact they have run down the Bundeswehr to such an extent that when a year or so back they tried to hold a large exercise they could not even equip all the infantry with rifles.
All NATO countries agreed to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence. A big majority have breached that agreement and continue to do so. The Septics finally getting snotty about this, after years of gently pointing out that Europe is not bearing its share, should not come as a surprise.
Be that as it may, NATO cannot and will not fight for its Eastern members and the current efforts designed to prove that it can and would are empty posturing. The decision to expand its membership to the East was an act of stupidity that could almost have been designed to provoke the reaction from Russia that it has and the Russians told us in advance it would.
Sure, if the Yanks get demanding, they should be told to clear off. We may well want to spend on butter rather than guns. The stupidity of expanding NATO to the East is that we have no intention of honouring the defence pact. I do support self determination of all countries, but we are no longer the worlds policeman, so should not pretend that we are.
Let's say the Michigan and Wisconsin recounts go ahead but no others, so even if they flip it doesn't change the election but the day before the EC vote they both report that they have detected wide spread electoral fraud in favour of Trump and their EC votes will got to Clinton.
Care to say who you are insinuating about, or are you too much of a coward on a Sunday?
If the cap fits, I am not scared to say you are writing a load of bollox , you have some grudge againt Putin/Russia , you write partisan bollox on Turkey and your flag waving right wing rubbish for US/UK as being the good guys is pathetic and cretinous. Is that brave enough for you.
LOL. Let's take these one-by-one:
1) you have some grudge againt Putin/Russia. Well, I don't support a country that is acting in the way Russia is, both domestically and internationally. The messy assassination of Litvinenko in London and the shooting down of the airliner (and the stupid cover-ups) should upset you as well. Add in other factors, and it's clear that Russia is no friend to us or democracy.
2) you write partisan bollox on Turkey No, I try to give a much-needed Turkish perspective on things. And as for it being partisan: nope. Many of my criticisms of Turkish policy, and my writings about the Kurds, would not be seen positively by the AKP or even many Turks. I have lamented the collapse of the peace process (Solution process) with the Kurds. I've been about the only person on here before the coup to mention the importance of Gulen (hardly a friend of the regime). I have asked people to consider how they would feel, if they were living in Turkey given the refugee crisis, the bombings, and the pressure caused by the adjoining war.
3) your flag waving right wing rubbish for US/UK as being the good guys Nope. I have criticised the US in the past, and in fact my criticism of JFK earlier in this thread is hardly a standard pro-US view. And I've expressed in the past how I have more sympathy with the USSR during the Cold War than the US, given their respective histories. But I can not support the USSR's system. But as for the UK/US being the good guys: generally and comparatively, yes. Not that good guys could not have been much, much better.
So you are wrong on many levels. Now, tell me why Scotsmen deserve self-determination, but those folk in Eastern Europe deserve only to live under Russia's thumb?
Who is living under Russia's thumb, mere speculation. Fact is we are under the thumb and have much less chance of self determination than Eastern Europe. More addled headed bollox
Not speculation; fact. Or have you missed what's happened in the Ukraine over the last ten or so years?
"... (we) have much less chance of self determination than Eastern Europe. "
I also missed-out the FPDA and Malaysia's interests in Borneo and Sarawak. We have these in place and rumours are the T31 are for sunny-climes.
If, and a big if, Oz and Kiwi-land go T26 we may have to rethink our Atlantacist strategy. Or buy another half-dozen Astutes...
Buying another six Astutes would be a very good idea, Mr. Thoughts. Two problems though, we have nowhere to build them for at least a decade and we probably couldn't crew them even if we did. The RN is struggling to crew the existing fleet.
Hurst, unfortunately I doubt we have enough boats left to constitute a fleet.
Plus the boats that we do have either don't have any planes to fly off them, they don't have any missiles to fire or they aren't seaworthy. As it stands the RN is nothing more than a glorified coast guard.
I think your point is valid, Mr. Max, the RN has actually, with the exception of the submarine force, been a coastal defence force since 2006 when its offensive air arm was taken away.
However, you like Mr. G before you seem to be confusing boats with ships. Submarines are boats (when turning they lean into the turn like a motorbike), Frigates, Destroyers and the like are ships (they lean out away from the turn). Here endeth the lesson.
I'm still wondering about Hofer in Austria for next weekend. Gallup had him at +6% 10 days before the first poll, which he narrowly lost, by 0.6%, albeit due to cheating or other "irregularities" (potential cheating ) with the absentee votes. Without the absentee votes, he would have won by 4%. The most recent Gallup polls have him ahead by 2%, 0%, 2%, 2%, 4%. Take a bit off those poll scores for the absentee votes. Then add a bit because he will probably be helped by the Turkish EU-application story about the possible "opening of the gates" by Turkey. Hello "gates of Vienna". Add a bit, if desired, for "less cheating this time". (Or don't.) The result could well be very close. It's possible those with a lot of influence will ensure that Hofer gets in. Local knowledge, anyone? His back price is 1.45.
Let's say the Michigan and Wisconsin recounts go ahead but no others, so even if they flip it doesn't change the election but the day before the EC vote try both report that they have detected wide spread electoral fraud in favour of Trump.
What would happen next?
Trump wins. Basically you don't get any other outcome, because if it produces a mess it ends up with Congress, and they pick Trump.
12 faithless electors would give it to Hilary at hr point though.
And would Congress pick Trump with evidence of voter fraud if it was a hung decision
Yup. The noise machine would immediately turn whatever the evidence of voter fraud was into an unproven partisan allegation, and the Republicans would back Trump for fear of getting lynched by their base.
Let's say the Michigan and Wisconsin recounts go ahead but no others, so even if they flip it doesn't change the election but the day before the EC vote they both report that they have detected wide spread electoral fraud in favour of Trump and their EC votes will got to Clinton.
I'm still wondering about Hofer in Austria for next weekend. Gallup had him at +6% 10 days before the first poll, which he narrowly lost, by 0.6%, albeit due to cheating or other "irregularities" (potential cheating ) with the absentee votes. Without the absentee votes, he would have won by 4%. The most recent Gallup polls have him ahead by 2%, 0%, 2%, 2%, 4%. Take a bit off those poll scores for the absentee votes. Then add a bit because he will probably be helped by the Turkish EU-application story about the possible "opening of the gates" by Turkey. Hello "gates of Vienna". Add a bit, if desired, for "less cheating this time". (Or don't.) The result could well be very close. It's possible those with a lot of influence will ensure that Hofer gets in. Local knowledge, anyone? His back price is 1.45.
He lost last time when he had a clear poll lead. This time he doesn't have a clear poll lead so I expect he will underperform again and lose again.
I also missed-out the FPDA and Malaysia's interests in Borneo and Sarawak. We have these in place and rumours are the T31 are for sunny-climes.
If, and a big if, Oz and Kiwi-land go T26 we may have to rethink our Atlantacist strategy. Or buy another half-dozen Astutes...
Buying another six Astutes would be a very good idea, Mr. Thoughts. Two problems though, we have nowhere to build them for at least a decade and we probably couldn't crew them even if we did. The RN is struggling to crew the existing fleet.
Hurst, unfortunately I doubt we have enough boats left to constitute a fleet.
Plus the boats that we do have either don't have any planes to fly off them, they don't have any missiles to fire or they aren't seaworthy. As it stands the RN is nothing more than a glorified coast guard.
I think your point is valid, Mr. Max, the RN has actually, with the exception of the submarine force, been a coastal defence force since 2006 when its offensive air arm was taken away.
However, you like Mr. G before you seem to be confusing boats with ships. Submarines are boats (when turning they lean into the turn like a motorbike), Frigates, Destroyers and the like are ships (they lean out away from the turn). Here endeth the lesson.
Ha! I did not know that.
I was on (one of HM's) ships once as it drove (sailed? motored?) through the Thames Barrier. V interesting.
I also missed-out the FPDA and Malaysia's interests in Borneo and Sarawak. We have these in place and rumours are the T31 are for sunny-climes.
If, and a big if, Oz and Kiwi-land go T26 we may have to rethink our Atlantacist strategy. Or buy another half-dozen Astutes...
Buying another six Astutes would be a very good idea, Mr. Thoughts. Two problems though, we have nowhere to build them for at least a decade and we probably couldn't crew them even if we did. The RN is struggling to crew the existing fleet.
Hurst, unfortunately I doubt we have enough boats left to constitute a fleet.
Plus the boats that we do have either don't have any planes to fly off them, they don't have any missiles to fire or they aren't seaworthy. As it stands the RN is nothing more than a glorified coast guard.
I think your point is valid, Mr. Max, the RN has actually, with the exception of the submarine force, been a coastal defence force since 2006 when its offensive air arm was taken away.
However, you like Mr. G before you seem to be confusing boats with ships. Submarines are boats (when turning they lean into the turn like a motorbike), Frigates, Destroyers and the like are ships (they lean out away from the turn). Here endeth the lesson.
Avast, Mr Llama! Even a huge sub like the Red October?
Also while we're on the subject I just listened to QT and what really fucking irritates me is that some Lab harpy is able now to demolish the Cons reputation for fiscal probity.
No matter that their own plans are for twice the amount of borrowing, it's all a wash as far as the public is concerned.
Dear lord let Jezza remain in place until further notice.
Let's say the Michigan and Wisconsin recounts go ahead but no others, so even if they flip it doesn't change the election but the day before the EC vote they both report that they have detected wide spread electoral fraud in favour of Trump and their EC votes will got to Clinton.
I have money on Trump to win Michigan so I hope not. Lol.
Betfair settles on "projected vote share". So it should settle for Trump - it specifically rules out nonsense amongst the Electoral college (Faithless electors etc)
I also missed-out the FPDA and Malaysia's interests in Borneo and Sarawak. We have these in place and rumours are the T31 are for sunny-climes.
If, and a big if, Oz and Kiwi-land go T26 we may have to rethink our Atlantacist strategy. Or buy another half-dozen Astutes...
Buying another six Astutes would be a very good idea, Mr. Thoughts. Two problems though, we have nowhere to build them for at least a decade and we probably couldn't crew them even if we did. The RN is struggling to crew the existing fleet.
Hurst, unfortunately I doubt we have enough boats left to constitute a fleet.
Plus the boats that we do have either don't have any planes to fly off them, they don't have any missiles to fire or they aren't seaworthy. As it stands the RN is nothing more than a glorified coast guard.
I think your point is valid, Mr. Max, the RN has actually, with the exception of the submarine force, been a coastal defence force since 2006 when its offensive air arm was taken away.
However, you like Mr. G before you seem to be confusing boats with ships. Submarines are boats (when turning they lean into the turn like a motorbike), Frigates, Destroyers and the like are ships (they lean out away from the turn). Here endeth the lesson.
Ha! I did not know that.
I was on (one of HM's) ships once as it drove (sailed? motored?) through the Thames Barrier. V interesting.
Boats versus submarines is easy. If you want to get into real controversy, than try asking civil engineers when is a structure a bridge or when it is a tunnel.
Boats versus submarines is easy. If you want to get into real controversy, than try asking civil engineers when is a structure a bridge or when it is a tunnel.
Boats versus submarines is easy. If you want to get into real controversy, than try asking civil engineers when is a structure a bridge or when it is a tunnel.
Does the Oresund bridge count as both?
That's one of my want-to-do structures.
Personally I'd call it a link, comprising individual bridge and tunnel structures. Others will differ.
Also while we're on the subject I just listened to QT and what really fucking irritates me is that some Lab harpy is able now to demolish the Cons reputation for fiscal probity.
No matter that their own plans are for twice the amount of borrowing, it's all a wash as far as the public is concerned.
Dear lord let Jezza remain in place until further notice.
Labour are not even at the races. No one is listening to them beyond their echo chamber.
Even in the local elections on Thursday they were dropping 25% in Newcastle and Mansfield.
He lost last time when he had a clear poll lead. This time he doesn't have a clear poll lead so I expect he will underperform again and lose again.
Do the pollsters want to lose again? Maybe they've got their shit together in the meantime?
A 5+% win for eithe rcandidate would be a polling failure here, a close race wouldn't be. The polls really can't tell you who is likely to win in this case
Also while we're on the subject I just listened to QT and what really fucking irritates me is that some Lab harpy is able now to demolish the Cons reputation for fiscal probity.
No matter that their own plans are for twice the amount of borrowing, it's all a wash as far as the public is concerned.
Dear lord let Jezza remain in place until further notice.
Labour are not even at the races. No one is listening to them beyond their echo chamber.
Even in the local elections on Thursday they were dropping 25% in Newcastle and Mansfield.
..and yet the opinion polls have them on 29%.. That figure is LUDICROUS>
Also while we're on the subject I just listened to QT and what really fucking irritates me is that some Lab harpy is able now to demolish the Cons reputation for fiscal probity.
No matter that their own plans are for twice the amount of borrowing, it's all a wash as far as the public is concerned.
Dear lord let Jezza remain in place until further notice.
Labour are not even at the races. No one is listening to them beyond their echo chamber.
Even in the local elections on Thursday they were dropping 25% in Newcastle and Mansfield.
The trashing of the Cons' economic competence reputation will sadly last beyond Jezza and will still be there when Lab recovers.
Plus Lab will continue to be quite a force locally, and especially in 2018, whoever's at the helm.
Also while we're on the subject I just listened to QT and what really fucking irritates me is that some Lab harpy is able now to demolish the Cons reputation for fiscal probity.
No matter that their own plans are for twice the amount of borrowing, it's all a wash as far as the public is concerned.
Dear lord let Jezza remain in place until further notice.
Labour are not even at the races. No one is listening to them beyond their echo chamber.
Even in the local elections on Thursday they were dropping 25% in Newcastle and Mansfield.
They did not lose any votes on Thursday to the Conservatives , look at the derisory votes the Conservatives got in Newcastle and Mansfield .
Nick Cohen absolutely bang on the money today about the centre right's dalliance with the populist right:
A very prescient quote from Burke:
An MP was their representative, not their delegate. He owed the voters only “his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion”.
Also while we're on the subject I just listened to QT and what really fucking irritates me is that some Lab harpy is able now to demolish the Cons reputation for fiscal probity.
No matter that their own plans are for twice the amount of borrowing, it's all a wash as far as the public is concerned.
Dear lord let Jezza remain in place until further notice.
Labour are not even at the races. No one is listening to them beyond their echo chamber.
Even in the local elections on Thursday they were dropping 25% in Newcastle and Mansfield.
They did not lose any votes on Thursday to the Conservatives , look at the derisory votes the Conservatives got in Newcastle and Mansfield .
I expect that in Richmond the Labour vote will hold up too.
Also while we're on the subject I just listened to QT and what really fucking irritates me is that some Lab harpy is able now to demolish the Cons reputation for fiscal probity.
No matter that their own plans are for twice the amount of borrowing, it's all a wash as far as the public is concerned.
Dear lord let Jezza remain in place until further notice.
Labour are not even at the races. No one is listening to them beyond their echo chamber.
Even in the local elections on Thursday they were dropping 25% in Newcastle and Mansfield.
..and yet the opinion polls have them on 29%.. That figure is LUDICROUS>
Based on Local Election results the 41/42% being recorded for the Tories in national polling is even more ludicrous.Moreover in several of last week's by elections Labour increased its vote share - Carlisle - Pendle - North Somerset.
Comments
It the American right wing nutters we hav eto worry about not the Russians.
If I am reading that correctly, the business was a complete punt & shouldn't have been permitted to operate.
Effectively they were selling energy at a fixed price and betting that the spot price would remain low. Taking a profit while it worked and going bankrupt when it didn't.
I wonder whether the Directors will have committed an offence by taking on contingent liabilities without proper planning?
http://tinyurl.com/hvl3cf4
Looks like I won't be seeing that £100 again.
https://twitter.com/dxbitguy/status/802823700642992128
(Oh, and another PBer who looks nothing like how I imagined him).
Anyway, I must be off.
The Baltics I would be bothered about, but not to the point of wanting to have a shooting war with Russia. We should leave NATO as well as the EU.
I hope you have an awesome time. That's one massive sun hat you're wearing, must be hot.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-john-mcdonnell-backlash-ukip-nationalism-exclusive-a7441121.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/26/labour-will-not-win-a-general-election-as-ukip-lite-says-diane-abbott
Yes it's a very big sun hat, it's always warm in the sandpit, even in November!
Whatever happened to your planned trip out here?
All big countries tend to 'care' about unfriendly regimes on their borders. I seem to recall that in the days of the Empah we had client states all around the fringes, especially of the Raj!
GDR was a pretty nasty place, a nation of Stasi informers, surveillance and blackmail. "The Lives of Others" was a very good drama on daily life there.
Castro's Cuba lacks the Germanic efficiency at internal oppression, though not the intent. I do understand the sympathy in Latin America for Fidel nonetheless as a rare example of successfully standing up to the hegemony and neo-colonialism of the USA. I think this is what Jezza was getting at when describing Castro as outlasting 8 Presidents.
He won the debate a few nights ago with Juppé - note the evven bigger win among sympathisers of the centre and right
http://www.ouest-france.fr/elections/presidentielle/primaire-droite/fillon-juge-plus-convaincant-que-juppe-lors-du-dernier-debat-463374
Trump's statements about NATO are just an expression of the frustration and anger that has been building up in the USA for twenty years or so. Why, they ask, should we carry 75% of the NATO spending and do all the heavy lifting when the Europeans will not even match their agreed commitments?
This is an issue that has bugger all to do with Brexit.
"In previous elections the party campaigns often have had a good idea at this stage how the postal vote campaigns were going."
They can only know postal turnout shirley.
Engage brain.
I also missed-out the FPDA and Malaysia's interests in Borneo and Sarawak. We have these in place and rumours are the T31 are for sunny-climes.
If, and a big if, Oz and Kiwi-land go T26 we may have to rethink our Atlantacist strategy. Or buy another half-dozen Astutes...
I also missed-out the FPDA and Malaysia's interests in Borneo and Sarawak. We have these in place and rumours are the T31 are for sunny-climes.
If, and a big if, Oz and Kiwi-land go T26 we may have to rethink our Atlantacist strategy.Or buy another half-dozen Astutes...
Not our business anymore. Those countries can look after themselves. A little friendly help with intelligence is as far as our help should go.
The Empire is history.
A very strange point to make imo.
On the Baltics , as soon as NATO basicially say they will not defend them then this makes Russia all the more likely to invade .To keep the peace therefore Nato needs to state it will defend them and have a convincing military strength to do so . Who said geopolitics was easy?
Jonathan Haidt - The Tyranny of Social Justice Warriors
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3z6IZdeZYA
I also missed-out the FPDA and Malaysia's interests in Borneo and Sarawak. We have these in place and rumours are the T31 are for sunny-climes.
If, and a big if, Oz and Kiwi-land go T26 we may have to rethink our Atlantacist strategy. Or buy another half-dozen Astutes...
Spaz-editor:
So, yes, we have interests within the South China Sea. Once again Dr Fox you have shown your on failings.
A public fracas on this issue will do Labour nothing but good, if it signals to its potential voters that there is after all room for both supporters and opponents of Brexit within the party.
Trump wants Europe to pay more for the costs of its garrisons, but if that price is high then, for example the Germans would rather build their own Sovereign forces. What would happen if Britain were landed with an annual couple of Billion dollar bill to pay for the USAF airbases in East Anglia? We would tell them to bugger off and pay for the RAF instead. Other countries will feel the same. The USA would still be the dominant player in NATO, but with much less authority over us minions.
So, yes, we have interests within the South China Sea. Once again Dr Fox you have shown your on failings. quote
We do indeed have interests in that region. What we could do about them if push came to shove is a different matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_State_Treaty
Finland = neutral too for good reason.
How NATO accepted non-alignment for 'border states' during the Cold War, but not after it, is inexplicable. I assume NATO thought this time it could stick two fingers up to Russia; i.e., nothing to do with security, only with power play.
F*** NATO. Its adversary, the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact, wanted worldwide Communist rule and was dangerous but it dissolved itself about 20 years ago. I can actually sympathise with Trump if part of his position is that NATO has no business invading other countries and that admitting the Baltic states might have been an error.
Anyone heard any news about how the turnout is looking in comparison to last week?
I have no update on the turnout.
The Empire is history.
Unfortunately not for some of the more extreme nutters on here Fox, they live in the past.
1) you have some grudge againt Putin/Russia.
Well, I don't support a country that is acting in the way Russia is, both domestically and internationally. The messy assassination of Litvinenko in London and the shooting down of the airliner (and the stupid cover-ups) should upset you as well. Add in other factors, and it's clear that Russia is no friend to us or democracy.
2) you write partisan bollox on Turkey
No, I try to give a much-needed Turkish perspective on things. And as for it being partisan: nope. Many of my criticisms of Turkish policy, and my writings about the Kurds, would not be seen positively by the AKP or even many Turks. I have lamented the collapse of the peace process (Solution process) with the Kurds. I've been about the only person on here before the coup to mention the importance of Gulen (hardly a friend of the regime). I have asked people to consider how they would feel, if they were living in Turkey given the refugee crisis, the bombings, and the pressure caused by the adjoining war.
3) your flag waving right wing rubbish for US/UK as being the good guys
Nope. I have criticised the US in the past, and in fact my criticism of JFK earlier in this thread is hardly a standard pro-US view. And I've expressed in the past how I have more sympathy with the USSR during the Cold War than the US, given their respective histories. But I can not support the USSR's system. But as for the UK/US being the good guys: generally and comparatively, yes. Not that good guys could not have been much, much better.
So you are wrong on many levels. Now, tell me why Scotsmen deserve self-determination, but those folk in Eastern Europe deserve only to live under Russia's thumb?
1. Accusing the Shadow Chancellor of being UKIP lite may be a ridiculous thing to say, but if you wanted to win back traditional Labour voters who have flirted with support for UKIP that is exactly what you want to be accused of.
2. I cannot think of a Labour figure that appeals less to the general public than Dianne Abbott, and so if you could hand pick someone who you would want to do the accusing, it is her.
Let's say the Michigan and Wisconsin recounts go ahead but no others, so even if they flip it doesn't change the election but the day before the EC vote they both report that they have detected wide spread electoral fraud in favour of Trump and their EC votes will got to Clinton.
What would happen next?
EC vote still goes ahead? Court cases obviously. Faithless electors? Rioting?
All NATO countries agreed to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence. A big majority have breached that agreement and continue to do so. The Septics finally getting snotty about this, after years of gently pointing out that Europe is not bearing its share, should not come as a surprise.
Be that as it may, NATO cannot and will not fight for its Eastern members and the current efforts designed to prove that it can and would are empty posturing. The decision to expand its membership to the East was an act of stupidity that could almost have been designed to provoke the reaction from Russia that it has and the Russians told us in advance it would.
And would Congress pick Trump with evidence of voter fraud if it was a hung decision
"... (we) have much less chance of self determination than Eastern Europe. "
LOL. Did you miss the Scottish referendum?
However, you like Mr. G before you seem to be confusing boats with ships. Submarines are boats (when turning they lean into the turn like a motorbike), Frigates, Destroyers and the like are ships (they lean out away from the turn). Here endeth the lesson.
I was on (one of HM's) ships once as it drove (sailed? motored?) through the Thames Barrier. V interesting.
No matter that their own plans are for twice the amount of borrowing, it's all a wash as far as the public is concerned.
Dear lord let Jezza remain in place until further notice.
Looks like a coin toss to me.
That's one of my want-to-do structures.
Personally I'd call it a link, comprising individual bridge and tunnel structures. Others will differ.
Even in the local elections on Thursday they were dropping 25% in Newcastle and Mansfield.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/27/what-has-become-of-conservatism-trump-farage-le-pen-brexit?CMP=share_btn_tw
He was warning the centre left about its tolerance of the hard left way before anyone else and he was spot on about that too.
It seems as if the centre right is on course to do what the centre left did. And now Labour is unelectable. I wonder if history will repeat itself.
https://twitter.com/Koksalakn/status/759844340751491072
Plus Lab will continue to be quite a force locally, and especially in 2018, whoever's at the helm.
An MP was their representative, not their delegate. He owed the voters only “his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion”.
If the 1% wish to regain trust they must first reform themselves.