politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Theresa May will be hoping for another polling industry fa

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Theresa May will be hoping for another polling industry failure on June 8th

if("undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper)window.datawrapper={};window.datawrapper["oNogu"]={},window.datawrapper["oNogu"].embedDeltas={"100":622,"200":520,"300":469,"400":469,"500":469,"600":443,"700":443,"800":443,"900":443,"1000":443},window.datawrapper["oNogu"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-oNogu"),window.datawrapper["oNogu"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["oNogu"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["oNogu"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var b in a.data["datawrapper-height"])if("oNogu"==b)window.datawrapper["oNogu"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px"});

Read the full story here

TwistedFireStopper

First!
Unless I blew the lead.

Roger

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

SouthamObserver

The Tories clearly felt they had a huge lead. May would not have called the election otherwise. The local election results pretty much confirmed it existed. After the Tories win very comfortably next week the puzzle will be why some polls detected such a strong Labour surge.

Charles

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

SouthamObserver

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

Charles

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

I didn't hear her say that last night?

Roger

"If there is another polling failure Theresa May can argue she didn’t blow a 25% lead against Corbyn because such a lead never existed".

I can't see anything in the figures above that point to anything other than her blowing a 25% point lead?

(But thanks for the orgy etiquette. I foolishly thank everyone)

MaxPB

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

After this campaign team Theresa won't be given another chance to be judged.

JackW

I shall miss most of the Conservative bedweeting today as Mrs JackW and I are having "trade" around to measure up and discuss plans for our nuclear bunker.

For interior design Mrs JackW fancies delicate shades of blue whilst I'm for a themed apocalypse orange with sunburst red and edging in a subtle mushroom shade.

I hope we don't fallout over it ....

SouthamObserver

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

I didn't hear her say that last night?

She has said it a number of times during the campaign.

Charles

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

I didn't hear her say that last night?

She has said it a number of times during the campaign.

I've been busy working

SouthamObserver

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

After this campaign team Theresa won't be given another chance to be judged.

Yep - this campaign has shown clearly that May is not up to it. But who is there to take over. The Tory talent cupboard is pretty bare. May probably was the best person for the job out of those who applied. Even Corbyn would have beaten Leadsom.

daodao

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

MaxPB

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

After this campaign team Theresa won't be given another chance to be judged.

Yep - this campaign has shown clearly that May is not up to it. But who is there to take over. The Tory talent cupboard is pretty bare. May probably was the best person for the job out of those who applied. Even Corbyn would have beaten Leadsom.

Lynton Crosby. Get him into the HoL.

SouthamObserver

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

I didn't hear her say that last night?

She has said it a number of times during the campaign.

I've been busy working

Good for you. Here's the Tory manifesto:

https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto

MaxPB

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

SquareRoot

If the polls , especially You Gov prove to be wrong, It will be the last time anyone will give credence to polling. No Tory can fail to have been alarmed at what the polls are saying now and more importantly what they were saying at the start of the campaign. Both could easily be wrong. Frankly, I think the pollsters have lost the plot since 2015, and 2017 polls are just guesswork.

Charles

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

I didn't hear her say that last night?

She has said it a number of times during the campaign.

I've been busy working

Good for you. Here's the Tory manifesto:

https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto

Sorry - no time. Busy exporting.

ydoethur

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

Not necessarily. Oddly, the one time during the 2010 leaders' debates that Cameron got a really positive audience response was when defending attacks on his £1 million IHT threshold. Voters do like the idea of lower taxes. The only problem is they also like more public spending. Hence why Brown borrowed passim ad nauseam after 2000 to square the circle, with unfortunate results.

daodao

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best suited to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

SouthamObserver

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

Voters do not trust Corbyn on security. That wins it for the Tories. But this campaign has shown that what comes next for them will not be pretty.

peter_from_putney

I very much doubt TM will have the heart or enthusiasm to continue as PM for any extended period were her majority to be less than even a comfortable 70 - 80 seats. For let's be honest about things, this General Election which promised to deliver a Tory Majority of at least 150 seats or even more, was supposed to be about pretty much ensuring a further Tory victory in 2022. In fact it will probably result in precisely the opposite, unless by some miracle, the economy booms, Brexit is an unalloyed success and Boris were to take over the top job in around 2020.
The chance of all three of these happening? Probably <1% I would estimate.
So we are going to get a marxist government .... it's simply a matter of whether that happens next week or five years hence.

MaxPB

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best fitted to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

Whatever.

TravelJunkie

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

The_Apocalypse

SouthamObserver said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

Voters do not trust Corbyn on security. That wins it for the Tories. But this campaign has shown that what comes next for them will not be pretty.

They are getting smashed in the 2018 Locals, I think.

CarlottaVance

FPT John Harris video from NE Scotland:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2017/jun/01/a-fishy-business-why-the-tories-are-back-in-scotland-video

Two telling observations - outside the Central belt, Scotland has always been a small c conservative country and the Tories have been in hibernation for 50 years - and the inferred promise of "vote Tory, get fish".

daodao

SouthamObserver said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

Voters do not trust Corbyn on security. That wins it for the Tories. But this campaign has shown that what comes next for them will not be pretty.

But what sort of win? A majority of 12 ?! What a needless GE.

ydoethur

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best fitted to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

That's a Marxist society. Name me one Marxist society that has been just.

You are confusing justice and decency. A decent society cares for its weaker and less able members. A just society is one where everyone is rewarded according to their efforts.

It would be entirely reasonable to say on that basis our current system is neither fair nor decent. But Marxist societies are both deliberately unfair and deliberately indecent. They give out to their client groups by taking randomly from the ablest and brutally oppress the weakest. Hence two Soviet jokes: 'they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work' and 'if you tried Communism in the Sahara desert, you'd run out of sand.'

SouthamObserver

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

I didn't hear her say that last night?

She has said it a number of times during the campaign.

I've been busy working

Good for you. Here's the Tory manifesto:

https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto

Sorry - no time. Busy exporting.

Ha, ha!! If it's all down to you, Chas, you are not running a good business. Learn to delegate ;-)

Roger

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

After this campaign team Theresa won't be given another chance to be judged.

Yep - this campaign has shown clearly that May is not up to it. But who is there to take over. The Tory talent cupboard is pretty bare. May probably was the best person for the job out of those who applied. Even Corbyn would have beaten Leadsom.

Lynton Crosby. Get him into the HoL.

It is the advertiser/PR's job to sell someone else's idea/product. Steve Hilton showed the mistake of confusing the function of the seller with the person/ideas being sold. As an advertiser once said in a different context 'Don't confuse the waiters with the chef'

Big_G_NorthWales

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best suited to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

Is that from his red book

CarlottaVance

SouthamObserver said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

Voters do not trust Corbyn on security. That wins it for the Tories. But this campaign has shown that what comes next for them will not be pretty.

Doesn't look like Labour's going to give up Marxism and return to Methodism either....

Charles

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best suited to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

Since when has a tenet of Marxist philosophy been "the fundamental principle of a just society"?

daodao

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

But it was stated in the context of a response to a question about higher rate taxation.

TravelJunkie

Big_G_NorthWales said:

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best suited to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

Is that from his red book

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

Voters do not trust Corbyn on security. That wins it for the Tories. But this campaign has shown that what comes next for them will not be pretty.

Doesn't look like Labour's going to give up Marxism and return to Methodism either....

Do you support dropping a bomb and killing millions of innocent people?

daodao

Charles said:

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best suited to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

Since when has a tenet of Marxist philosophy been "the fundamental principle of a just society"?

If it's not equitable, it's not just.

Charles

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

RobD

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

After this campaign team Theresa won't be given another chance to be judged.

Yep - this campaign has shown clearly that May is not up to it. But who is there to take over. The Tory talent cupboard is pretty bare. May probably was the best person for the job out of those who applied. Even Corbyn would have beaten Leadsom.

Lynton Crosby. Get him into the HoL.

I would have thought he would have been offered one already!

TravelJunkie

Are there any members of PB who are happy to kill millions of innocent people by using a nuclear weapon?

I just don't understand why voters want someone to drop a bomb that kills so many innocent people and the appetite and eagerness to see so much death and destruction.

Charles

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

Roger said:

FPT.

Dimbleby asked the telling question;

'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

"What's changed?"

The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

I didn't hear her say that last night?

She has said it a number of times during the campaign.

I've been busy working

Good for you. Here's the Tory manifesto:

https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto

Sorry - no time. Busy exporting.

Ha, ha!! If it's all down to you, Chas, you are not running a good business. Learn to delegate ;-)

My team is learning, but overstretched for the business we have - I'm reviewing stuff produced by someone 2 years out of university... Sadly my clients expect me to be involved!

We have someone else joining in 10 days, and are in the process of hiring another senior marketing guy as well

SouthamObserver

ydoethur said:

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best fitted to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

That's a Marxist society. Name me one Marxist society that has been just.

You are confusing justice and decency. A decent society cares for its weaker and less able members. A just society is one where everyone is rewarded according to their efforts.

It would be entirely reasonable to say on that basis our current system is neither fair nor decent. But Marxist societies are both deliberately unfair and deliberately indecent. They give out to their client groups by taking randomly from the ablest and brutally oppress the weakest. Hence two Soviet jokes: 'they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work' and 'if you tried Communism in the Sahara desert, you'd run out of sand.'

No society in modern times has ever been run on the principle of from each according to their means, to each according to their needs. The post-war welfare state was the closest we got to that in the UK and it certainly improved the lives of millions and millions of people. Outcomes changed dramatically for the better. Those who had been through the war understood that cooperation and solidarity were what mattered most.

As for Marxism, it's not a proscription for how to run a society, it's a deeply flawed economic theory based on an even more flawed interpretation of history. But one of its central theories - that unchecked capitalism is unsustainable - has been pretty much accepted across the world.

RobD

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

The whole point is deterrence, which Corbyn would completely nullify.

TravelJunkie

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

RobD

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

But it was stated in the context of a response to a question about higher rate taxation.

Because that's where taxes are going up in Labour's manifesto.

CarlottaVance

TravelJunkie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best suited to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

Is that from his red book

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

Voters do not trust Corbyn on security. That wins it for the Tories. But this campaign has shown that what comes next for them will not be pretty.

Doesn't look like Labour's going to give up Marxism and return to Methodism either....

Do you support dropping a bomb and killing millions of innocent people?

Yes.

RobD

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

I think your keyboard has broken.

TravelJunkie

CarlottaVance said:

TravelJunkie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best suited to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

Is that from his red book

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

Voters do not trust Corbyn on security. That wins it for the Tories. But this campaign has shown that what comes next for them will not be pretty.

Doesn't look like Labour's going to give up Marxism and return to Methodism either....

Do you support dropping a bomb and killing millions of innocent people?

Yes.

You have no concept or respect for human life.

Big_G_NorthWales

TravelJunkie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best suited to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

Is that from his red book

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

Voters do not trust Corbyn on security. That wins it for the Tories. But this campaign has shown that what comes next for them will not be pretty.

Doesn't look like Labour's going to give up Marxism and return to Methodism either....

Do you support dropping a bomb and killing millions of innocent people?

Of course not. That is twisting the argument. Corbyn lost it with the audience last night when he refused to confirm he would use the nuclear weapon if our Country was under nuclear threat.

Charles

daodao said:

Charles said:

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best suited to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

Since when has a tenet of Marxist philosophy been "the fundamental principle of a just society"?

If it's not equitable, it's not just.

Justice isn't to do with outcomes, it's to do with fairness. People should be rewarded for their efforts and contributions. Society has a duty to eliminate as many barriers to this as they can - ensuring an excellent education, preventing arbitrary discrimination, etc. Equality of opportunity is fair, not equality of outcome.

The second element (welfare, health provision, etc) is more about what type of society you want to live in rather than a matter of a "just society". I believe it behoves a decent society to care for the weak/unfortunate, but that's not a question of whether society is "just" or not.

(But then I am a fan of Aquinas)

RobD

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TravelJunkie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best suited to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

Is that from his red book

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

Voters do not trust Corbyn on security. That wins it for the Tories. But this campaign has shown that what comes next for them will not be pretty.

Doesn't look like Labour's going to give up Marxism and return to Methodism either....

Do you support dropping a bomb and killing millions of innocent people?

Of course not. That is twisting the argument. Corbyn lost it with the audience last night when he refused to confirm he would use the nuclear weapon if our Country was under nuclear threat.

Not just threat, actual attack.

TravelJunkie

RobD said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

The whole point is deterrence, which Corbyn would completely nullify.

No. Anyone willing to use a nuclear weapon has no respect for humanity and THE INNOCENT people that will die.

Innocent people die. I don't understand why people want innocent people to die.

Destroy the planet for the ego.

Big_G_NorthWales

daodao said:

Charles said:

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best suited to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

Since when has a tenet of Marxist philosophy been "the fundamental principle of a just society"?

If it's not equitable, it's not just.

It is not just to tax people who work hard, create jobs and wealth, to assuage a feeling of envy

MarqueeMark

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

We have intelligence that ISIS has acquired ten suitcase size nuclear bombs. They are currently in Raqqa. In 2 hours they will be dispersed by agents seeking to send them to destroy 10 western cities. In that case, I would deploy a nuke. Fuck yes.

SouthamObserver

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

Voters do not trust Corbyn on security. That wins it for the Tories. But this campaign has shown that what comes next for them will not be pretty.

Doesn't look like Labour's going to give up Marxism and return to Methodism either....

Labour could conceivably win from the left if May's Brexit does not deliver the prosperity she promises - but only with a leader who is trusted on security. I have no idea how Labour will react to its impending defeat, but I'd be surprised if Corbyn were still leader in 2022.

RobD

TravelJunkie said:

RobD said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

The whole point is deterrence, which Corbyn would completely nullify.

No. Anyone willing to use a nuclear weapon has no respect for humanity and THE INNOCENT people that will die.

Innocent people die. I don't understand why people want innocent people to die.

Destroy the planet for the ego.

You don't actually have to use it for it to be a successful deterrent.

AlastairMeeks

On topic, a decent overall majority would be a decent overall majority. How it was achieved would soon be forgotten. Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory but it is still a route to victory.

And it might yet be quite a bit more than decent.

Charles

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

It's very unlikely. But if the fear that we might be insane enough to do so deters France, for example, from invading the UK then it is a good thing.

AlastairMeeks

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

I'm in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament but when I read such nonsense partisan posts I have an urge to obliterate the entire planet with H bombs in the hope that in 65 million years or so we might get some intelligent life.

The concept of nuclear deterrence (which belongs to a bygone age in my opinion) is that state actors with nuclear technology will be deterred from using it by the credible threat that another nuclear power is also willing to use it. It breaks down because first it assumes that nuclear technology is inevitably exclusively going to be in the hands of state actors and secondly it assumes those state actors have a minimum level of rationality. But those advocating it aren't genocidal maniacs. Far from seeking nuclear obliteration, they are trying by their words now to prevent precisely what appals you from being carried out by others.

archer101au

It is not just deterrent. It was always stated in the Cold War that if the USSR attacked Western Europe and it became clear that conventional forces could not hold them back, the West would use nuclear weapons. And this was (and is) quite correct. If the attacker does not think that you will use them and you do (for example in a very limited way) it re-establishes the deterrent.

If, in the future, NK obtained ballistic missile technology and it was believed that they might launch a weapon against the West, a pre-emptive nuclear attack on their military targets would be quite justified if it was determined that conventional weapons cannot do the job.

Then there are tactical nuclear weapons to consider.

Nuclear weapons are primarily a deterrent, but there are circumstances in which they should absolutely be used.

RobD said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

The whole point is deterrence, which Corbyn would completely nullify.

TravelJunkie

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TravelJunkie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best suited to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

Is that from his red book

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

Voters do not trust Corbyn on security. That wins it for the Tories. But this campaign has shown that what comes next for them will not be pretty.

Doesn't look like Labour's going to give up Marxism and return to Methodism either....

Do you support dropping a bomb and killing millions of innocent people?

Of course not. That is twisting the argument. Corbyn lost it with the audience last night when he refused to confirm he would use the nuclear weapon if our Country was under nuclear threat.

Very simple

Do you have respect for innocent people? If not, press the button and kill millions of innocent people that have done nothing wrong.

Anyone willing to kill just one innocent person should be thrown in jail for life, but for anyone to say I'm willing to kill millions of innocent people, there isn't a sentence worthy enough to justify the complete inhuman action that you've just taken.

I'm totally disgusted that people in this country advocate and promote the killing of innocent people and if your not willing to kill innocent people that makes you unfit to be pm.

Anyone willing to drop nuclear weapons on innocent weapons is a disgrace to human and has no respect for human life. I'm so appalled that people in this country have a belief that killing innocent people can be justified.

philiph

@Charles

The chariity I chair has a request to visit the Fore Trust to discuss our application and bid.

The application was good in itself, as one of the objectives is to fund 'transformative' applications. Very good for the charity to look at itself in these terms regardless of the result.

Thanks for the heads up to apply.

RobD

archer101au said:

It is not just deterrent. It was always stated in the Cold War that if the USSR attacked Western Europe and it became clear that conventional forces could not hold them back, the West would use nuclear weapons. And this was (and is) quite correct. If the attacker does not think that you will use them and you do (for example in a very limited way) it re-establishes the deterrent.

If, in the future, NK obtained ballistic missile technology and it was believed that they might launch a weapon against the West, a pre-emptive nuclear attack on their military targets would be quite justified if it was determined that conventional weapons cannot do the job.

Then there are tactical nuclear weapons to consider.

Nuclear weapons are primarily a deterrent, but there are circumstances in which they should absolutely be used.

RobD said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

The whole point is deterrence, which Corbyn would completely nullify.

That sounds like a scenario suitable for a cruise missile strike. I don't see many scenarios where a first strike would be necessary.

TravelJunkie

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

It's very unlikely. But if the fear that we might be insane enough to do so deters France, for example, from invading the UK then it is a good thing.

Why would we drop a nuclear weapon on France? Can't we use something else.

RobD

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

It's very unlikely. But if the fear that we might be insane enough to do so deters France, for example, from invading the UK then it is a good thing.

Why would we drop a nuclear weapon on France? Can't we use something else.

Who said we would? They just have to think we would.

And enforcement of the Treaty of Troyes, of course.

SouthamObserver

Charles said:

daodao said:

Charles said:

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best suited to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

Since when has a tenet of Marxist philosophy been "the fundamental principle of a just society"?

If it's not equitable, it's not just.

Justice isn't to do with outcomes, it's to do with fairness. People should be rewarded for their efforts and contributions. Society has a duty to eliminate as many barriers to this as they can - ensuring an excellent education, preventing arbitrary discrimination, etc. Equality of opportunity is fair, not equality of outcome.

The second element (welfare, health provision, etc) is more about what type of society you want to live in rather than a matter of a "just society". I believe it behoves a decent society to care for the weak/unfortunate, but that's not a question of whether society is "just" or not.

(But then I am a fan of Aquinas)

Justice, fairness and outcomes are pretty intertwined. As you say, equality of opportunity is absolutely key. The issue is how best you ensure this.

JackW

TravelJunkie said:

Are there any members of PB who are happy to kill millions of innocent people by using a nuclear weapon?

I just don't understand why voters want someone to drop a bomb that kills so many innocent people and the appetite and eagerness to see so much death and destruction.

Throughout history the unscrupulous strong have preyed on the weak. You cannot dis-invent nuclear weapons.

The threat of MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction is the key to not reaching for the red button.

Charles

philiph said:

@Charles

The chariity I chair has a request to visit the Fore Trust to discuss our application and bid.

The application was good in itself, as one of the objectives is to fund 'transformative' applications. Very good for the charity to look at itself in these terms regardless of the result.

Thanks for the heads up to apply.

Great news. The process is designed to be helpful in itself in that it forces charities to really focus on what they are trying to achieve, so I am glad it is working as planned.

Let me know if I can be helpful.

SouthamObserver

AlastairMeeks said:

On topic, a decent overall majority would be a decent overall majority. How it was achieved would soon be forgotten. Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory but it is still a route to victory.

And it might yet be quite a bit more than decent.

The Tories will win very easily. But I doubt the campaign will be forgotten. The deep flaws in May that it has exposed will become even more apparent over the coning years as Brexit does not deliver the prosperity she has promised.

Icarus

Nuclear deterrence is based on WW2 - If you bomb London we will bomb Berlin. In 21st century this just doesn't work.

TravelJunkie

RobD said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

It's very unlikely. But if the fear that we might be insane enough to do so deters France, for example, from invading the UK then it is a good thing.

Why would we drop a nuclear weapon on France? Can't we use something else.

Who said we would? They just have to think we would.

And enforcement of the Treaty of Troyes, of course.

No-one cares if we've got nuclear weapons.

I've done lots of work with defence companies; Northrup Grumman, Thales, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, BAE and there all trying to spend money or sell products to the Saudis, UAE, Qataris because they can afford to buy their technology. These companies have some incredibly smart people and make products that can do so much damage. We don't need nuclear weapons.

If someone drops a nuclear weapon on your state you can't react because you should be dead.

Polruan

MarqueeMark said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

We have intelligence that ISIS has acquired ten suitcase size nuclear bombs. They are currently in Raqqa. In 2 hours they will be dispersed by agents seeking to send them to destroy 10 western cities. In that case, I would deploy a nuke. Fuck yes.

Seems hard to imagine intel that's certain enough to justify the killing of (at least) hundreds of thousands of innocent people but too vague to allow you to prevent the departure of the individual agents.

Would it still be the same answer if they'd assembled in a western city before travelling to ten others?

RobD

Icarus said:

Nuclear deterrence is based on WW2 - If you bomb London we will bomb Berlin. In 21st century this just doesn't work.

You have to wonder, what with North Korea trying to develop ICBMs.

Charles

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

It's very unlikely. But if the fear that we might be insane enough to do so deters France, for example, from invading the UK then it is a good thing.

Why would we drop a nuclear weapon on France? Can't we use something else.

My preference would be to use something else.

But you can't exclude circumstances in which it might be appropriate to deploy nuclear weapons.

SouthamObserver

MarqueeMark said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

We have intelligence that ISIS has acquired ten suitcase size nuclear bombs. They are currently in Raqqa. In 2 hours they will be dispersed by agents seeking to send them to destroy 10 western cities. In that case, I would deploy a nuke. Fuck yes.

Why would it need to be a nuke?

RobD

TravelJunkie said:

RobD said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

It's very unlikely. But if the fear that we might be insane enough to do so deters France, for example, from invading the UK then it is a good thing.

Why would we drop a nuclear weapon on France? Can't we use something else.

Who said we would? They just have to think we would.

And enforcement of the Treaty of Troyes, of course.

No-one cares if we've got nuclear weapons.

I've done lots of work with defence companies; Northrup Grumman, Thales, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, BAE and there all trying to spend money or sell products to the Saudis, UAE, Qataris because they can afford to buy their technology. These companies have some incredibly smart people and make products that can do so much damage. We don't need nuclear weapons.

If someone drops a nuclear weapon on your state you can't react because you should be dead.

Chain of command, letters of last resort. There is a reason we use subs and not silos.

philiph

TravelJunkie said:

RobD said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

The whole point is deterrence, which Corbyn would completely nullify.

No. Anyone willing to use a nuclear weapon has no respect for humanity and THE INNOCENT people that will die.

Innocent people die. I don't understand why people want innocent people to die.

Destroy the planet for the ego.

Do you support the war against and defeat of Germany in WW11?

foxinsoxuk

SouthamObserver said:

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

Voters do not trust Corbyn on security. That wins it for the Tories. But this campaign has shown that what comes next for them will not be pretty.

Doesn't look like Labour's going to give up Marxism and return to Methodism either....

Labour could conceivably win from the left if May's Brexit does not deliver the prosperity she promises - but only with a leader who is trusted on security. I have no idea how Labour will react to its impending defeat, but I'd be surprised if Corbyn were still leader in 2022.

Apart from anything else, Jezza would be too old in 2022 to run for another 5 years. Theresa too for that matter, not that she would want another one.

Charles

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

daodao said:

Charles said:

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best suited to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

Since when has a tenet of Marxist philosophy been "the fundamental principle of a just society"?

If it's not equitable, it's not just.

Justice isn't to do with outcomes, it's to do with fairness. People should be rewarded for their efforts and contributions. Society has a duty to eliminate as many barriers to this as they can - ensuring an excellent education, preventing arbitrary discrimination, etc. Equality of opportunity is fair, not equality of outcome.

The second element (welfare, health provision, etc) is more about what type of society you want to live in rather than a matter of a "just society". I believe it behoves a decent society to care for the weak/unfortunate, but that's not a question of whether society is "just" or not.

(But then I am a fan of Aquinas)

Justice, fairness and outcomes are pretty intertwined. As you say, equality of opportunity is absolutely key. The issue is how best you ensure this.

I suspect we agree on more than you want to admit

TravelJunkie

MarqueeMark said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

We have intelligence that ISIS has acquired ten suitcase size nuclear bombs. They are currently in Raqqa. In 2 hours they will be dispersed by agents seeking to send them to destroy 10 western cities. In that case, I would deploy a nuke. Fuck yes.

I bet your dead proud of yourself that you killed millions of innocent people because you couldn't get your ego out of the way of showing any kind of respect towards human life.

Icarus

MarqueeMark said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

We have intelligence that ISIS has acquired ten suitcase size nuclear bombs. They are currently in Raqqa. In 2 hours they will be dispersed by agents seeking to send them to destroy 10 western cities. In that case, I would deploy a nuke. Fuck yes.

Oh sorry, wrong city, they were in Raqqe.

TravelJunkie

philiph said:

TravelJunkie said:

RobD said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

The whole point is deterrence, which Corbyn would completely nullify.

No. Anyone willing to use a nuclear weapon has no respect for humanity and THE INNOCENT people that will die.

Innocent people die. I don't understand why people want innocent people to die.

Destroy the planet for the ego.

Do you support the war against and defeat of Germany in WW11?

Of course I do but some of the actions were not justified. I don't support the holocaust or the dropping of bombs from the germans and british of german/british cities that killed thousands of innocent people.

CarlottaVance

TravelJunkie said:

CarlottaVance said:

TravelJunkie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best suited to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

Is that from his red book

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

Voters do not trust Corbyn on security. That wins it for the Tories. But this campaign has shown that what comes next for them will not be pretty.

Doesn't look like Labour's going to give up Marxism and return to Methodism either....

Do you support dropping a bomb and killing millions of innocent people?

Yes.

You have no concept or respect for human life.

And you want to make the UK more vulnerable to nuclear attack. As Nye Bevan said

....you call that statesmanship? I call it an emotional spasm

Charles

foxinsoxuk said:

SouthamObserver said:

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

Voters do not trust Corbyn on security. That wins it for the Tories. But this campaign has shown that what comes next for them will not be pretty.

Doesn't look like Labour's going to give up Marxism and return to Methodism either....

Labour could conceivably win from the left if May's Brexit does not deliver the prosperity she promises - but only with a leader who is trusted on security. I have no idea how Labour will react to its impending defeat, but I'd be surprised if Corbyn were still leader in 2022.

Apart from anything else, Jezza would be too old in 2022 to run for another 5 years. Theresa too for that matter, not that she would want another one.

That's my expectation.

I was told once that each PM has one "big achievement" in them - that's pretty much all they can really hope to do. I'd imagine that May will negotiate a departure from the EU, and then hand over (possibly towards the end of 2020) to allow a new Conservative PM to bed in before calling an election in 2021.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Saw a tiny bit of the QT nonsense. Enjoyed watching Corbyn have a rough time over nukes, but it was also apparent that whilst the audience was balanced, as far as I could see, some were fanboys of him [didn't see May].

Mr. Junkie, and you could feel proud of your moral superiority when mushroom clouds were rising over London, New York and Paris.

Nukes are never a good option, but sometimes they are necessary. In that scenario, doing nothing would lead to more people being killed.

TravelJunkie

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

It's very unlikely. But if the fear that we might be insane enough to do so deters France, for example, from invading the UK then it is a good thing.

Why would we drop a nuclear weapon on France? Can't we use something else.

My preference would be to use something else.

But you can't exclude circumstances in which it might be appropriate to deploy nuclear weapons.

How could you sleep at night knowing your responsible for killing millions of innocent people that did nothing to you.

philiph

Charles said:

philiph said:

@Charles

The chariity I chair has a request to visit the Fore Trust to discuss our application and bid.

The application was good in itself, as one of the objectives is to fund 'transformative' applications. Very good for the charity to look at itself in these terms regardless of the result.

Thanks for the heads up to apply.

Great news. The process is designed to be helpful in itself in that it forces charities to really focus on what they are trying to achieve, so I am glad it is working as planned.

Let me know if I can be helpful.

Thanks. No doubt I'll be in touch!

SouthamObserver

Polruan said:

MarqueeMark said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

We have intelligence that ISIS has acquired ten suitcase size nuclear bombs. They are currently in Raqqa. In 2 hours they will be dispersed by agents seeking to send them to destroy 10 western cities. In that case, I would deploy a nuke. Fuck yes.

Seems hard to imagine intel that's certain enough to justify the killing of (at least) hundreds of thousands of innocent people but too vague to allow you to prevent the departure of the individual agents.

Would it still be the same answer if they'd assembled in a western city before travelling to ten others?

With the level of intelligence the scenario implies there would be plenty of non-nuclear options.

I am no scientist, but what would be the overall impact of dropping a nuclear bomb on 10 nuclear devices?

Big_G_NorthWales

TravelJunkie said:

MarqueeMark said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

We have intelligence that ISIS has acquired ten suitcase size nuclear bombs. They are currently in Raqqa. In 2 hours they will be dispersed by agents seeking to send them to destroy 10 western cities. In that case, I would deploy a nuke. Fuck yes.

I bet your dead proud of yourself that you killed millions of innocent people because you couldn't get your ego out of the way of showing any kind of respect towards human life.

So how would you disarm the nucleur threat

SquareRoot

TravelJunkie said:

philiph said:

TravelJunkie said:

RobD said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

The whole point is deterrence, which Corbyn would completely nullify.

No. Anyone willing to use a nuclear weapon has no respect for humanity and THE INNOCENT people that will die.

Innocent people die. I don't understand why people want innocent people to die.

Destroy the planet for the ego.

Do you support the war against and defeat of Germany in WW11?

Of course I do but some of the actions were not justified. I don't support the holocaust or the dropping of bombs from the germans and british of german/british cities that killed thousands of innocent people.

You will grow up one day and learn about life.

SouthamObserver

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

daodao said:

Charles said:

daodao said:

MaxPB said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

He said "across the whole income spectrum" in the interview.

The whole approach of the Tories is contrary to the fundamental principle of a just society, namely "from each according to his/her means, to each according to his/her needs". It is much simpler and fairer to have universal benefits and recover the funds from the better off by higher taxation on them. The person who is best suited to be CoE post 8/6/17 made this explicitly clear in a recent radio interview.

Since when has a tenet of Marxist philosophy been "the fundamental principle of a just society"?

If it's not equitable, it's not just.

Justice isn't to do with outcomes, it's to do with fairness. People should be rewarded for their efforts and contributions. Society has a duty to eliminate as many barriers to this as they can - ensuring an excellent education, preventing arbitrary discrimination, etc. Equality of opportunity is fair, not equality of outcome.

The second element (welfare, health provision, etc) is more about what type of society you want to live in rather than a matter of a "just society". I believe it behoves a decent society to care for the weak/unfortunate, but that's not a question of whether society is "just" or not.

(But then I am a fan of Aquinas)

Justice, fairness and outcomes are pretty intertwined. As you say, equality of opportunity is absolutely key. The issue is how best you ensure this.

I suspect we agree on more than you want to admit

I am certain of it. Though I suspect we are irreconcilable on the impact of Brexit!

RobD

SouthamObserver said:

Polruan said:

MarqueeMark said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

We have intelligence that ISIS has acquired ten suitcase size nuclear bombs. They are currently in Raqqa. In 2 hours they will be dispersed by agents seeking to send them to destroy 10 western cities. In that case, I would deploy a nuke. Fuck yes.

Seems hard to imagine intel that's certain enough to justify the killing of (at least) hundreds of thousands of innocent people but too vague to allow you to prevent the departure of the individual agents.

Would it still be the same answer if they'd assembled in a western city before travelling to ten others?

With the level of intelligence the scenario implies there would be plenty of non-nuclear options.

I am no scientist, but what would be the overall impact of dropping a nuclear bomb on 10 nuclear devices?

They wouldn't detonate as a nuclear explosion, if that is what you mean. It is a very specific mechanism that is required to trigger the fusion/fission that triggers the bomb.

Theuniondivvie

MarqueeMark said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

We have intelligence that ISIS has acquired ten suitcase size nuclear bombs. They are currently in Raqqa. In 2 hours they will be dispersed by agents seeking to send them to destroy 10 western cities. In that case, I would deploy a nuke. Fuck yes.

Marvellous, geopolitics based on pishy TV screenplays.
Though tbf that's probably the whole foundation of Trump's foreign policy.

MarqueeMark

TravelJunkie said:

MarqueeMark said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

We have intelligence that ISIS has acquired ten suitcase size nuclear bombs. They are currently in Raqqa. In 2 hours they will be dispersed by agents seeking to send them to destroy 10 western cities. In that case, I would deploy a nuke. Fuck yes.

I bet your dead proud of yourself that you killed millions of innocent people because you couldn't get your ego out of the way of showing any kind of respect towards human life.

Well done, your principles have just killed everyone in London, Manchester, Glasgow, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Amsterdam, Berlin, San Francisco and New York.

You must be very proud of your moral stand.

Jeremy Corbyn would likewise have condemned those ten cities to their fate. Because of his moral stand.

RobD

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Saw a tiny bit of the QT nonsense. Enjoyed watching Corbyn have a rough time over nukes, but it was also apparent that whilst the audience was balanced, as far as I could see, some were fanboys of him [didn't see May].

Mr. Junkie, and you could feel proud of your moral superiority when mushroom clouds were rising over London, New York and Paris.

Nukes are never a good option, but sometimes they are necessary. In that scenario, doing nothing would lead to more people being killed.

Exactly. If they have no fear of retaliation, they can continue.

TravelJunkie

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TravelJunkie said:

MarqueeMark said:

TravelJunkie said:

Charles said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.

WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!

We have intelligence that ISIS has acquired ten suitcase size nuclear bombs. They are currently in Raqqa. In 2 hours they will be dispersed by agents seeking to send them to destroy 10 western cities. In that case, I would deploy a nuke. Fuck yes.

I bet your dead proud of yourself that you killed millions of innocent people because you couldn't get your ego out of the way of showing any kind of respect towards human life.

So how would you disarm the nucleur threat

Precision bombing of facilities to start with through international co-operation.

Morris_Dancer

FPT: just skimming, but glad to see Mr. Pulpstar say the worm has gone. That was one of the worst aspects of debates.

Also, I have a betting question: at this stage, are the odds on ye olde bookies like Ladbrokes effectively set by book-balancing? ie driven by weight of money rather than determined by the actual chances of a given event occurring.

asjohnstone

SouthamObserver said:

daodao said:

It could get worse for the Tories. What effect will Fallon's promise not to raise taxes on those with higher incomes have on voting intention? It sends the message "for the few, not the many" and will repel more voters than it attracts.

Voters do not trust Corbyn on security. That wins it for the Tories. But this campaign has shown that what comes next for them will not be pretty.

Remind us where "security" is ranked polling when voters are asked what matters to them?

Omnium

Having nukes and saying that you're not prepared to use them is probably the worst of all the choices.

Big_G_NorthWales

TravelJunkie said:

philiph said:

TravelJunkie said:

RobD said:

TravelJunkie said:

What I learnt from the debate last night

1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

The whole point is deterrence, which Corbyn would completely nullify.

No. Anyone willing to use a nuclear weapon has no respect for humanity and THE INNOCENT people that will die.

Innocent people die. I don't understand why people want innocent people to die.

Destroy the planet for the ego.

Do you support the war against and defeat of Germany in WW11?

Of course I do but some of the actions were not justified. I don't support the holocaust or the dropping of bombs from the germans and british of german/british cities that killed thousands of innocent people.

No one supports war but war happens and innocent lives are lost

SouthamObserver

This seems to have a lot going for it as a theory about why the polls are almost certainly wrong:
https://twitter.com/stronglozenges/status/870721473887051776