Instead of reading PB this evening, I watched the Manchester gig, and despite not knowing some of the acts and many of the songs, it was fucking brilliant!
As for Jezzbollah, and his sudden conversion, this is awkward
And on police funding, is anyone seriously claiming that last night they needed more personnel or equipment to take down 3 attackers in 8 minutes
The sun have a tape of a private Milne/Corbyn phone conversation?
How?
Maybe there is a patriot in Labour HQ?
Anyone who thinks that nuclear weapons keep us safe is not a patriot but an idiot. Name one situation where the PM would use them, or one scenario where they keep us safer?
Were they not a factor in keeping the peace during the Cold War?
I don't think the Russians were at all deterred by our few nuclear weapons. In general yes they did but we should be reducing them.
A Trident sub has 256 warheads as I recall, so more than a few.
During the Cold War there may have been an argument for Trident, but it has been an anachronism and distraction since 1990.
£6 billion per year would do a hell of a lot more elsewhere in our defense budget.
Where we are now with Russia certainly has the potential to get cooler even if we're not at Cold War temperatures yet. Also once we disarm (nuclear-wise), that's us done, effectively for ever. That gives North Korea or any other state prepared to make the nuclear investment a bigger stick than we have. It's all in the word "deterrent" although I accept that North Korea may be an outrider in that respect.
Why do we think North Korea and Israel are not attacked?
Ukraine gave their nukes up..........
So did South Africa. So did Kazakhstan. If North Korea were attacked, it could obliterate nearby Seoul with conventional weapons.
Instead of reading PB this evening, I watched the Manchester gig, and despite not knowing some of the acts and many of the songs, it was fucking brilliant!
As for Jezzbollah, and his sudden conversion, this is awkward
And on police funding, is anyone seriously claiming that last night they needed more personnel or equipment to take down 3 attackers in 8 minutes
The sun have a tape of a private Milne/Corbyn phone conversation?
How?
Maybe there is a patriot in Labour HQ?
Anyone who thinks that nuclear weapons keep us safe is not a patriot but an idiot. Name one situation where the PM would use them, or one scenario where they keep us safer?
Were they not a factor in keeping the peace during the Cold War?
I don't think the Russians were at all deterred by our few nuclear weapons. In general yes they did but we should be reducing them.
A Trident sub has 256 warheads as I recall, so more than a few.
During the Cold War there may have been an argument for Trident, but it has been an anachronism and distraction since 1990.
£6 billion per year would do a hell of a lot more elsewhere in our defense budget.
IIRC the Blair government reduced the number of warheads to 160 approximately, Personally, I think we should increase them back up to the full complement.
Why? For what purpose? Is destroying 160 cities with perhaps 50 million dead not sufficient for you?
And the person who pressed the button against us safe in a deep bunker.
We have to deter the principals in a very personal way, not murder millions of civilians. That's why I'm in favour of multiple autonomous drones with biomarker data on the human target.
Instead of reading PB this evening, I watched the Manchester gig, and despite not knowing some of the acts and many of the songs, it was fucking brilliant!
As for Jezzbollah, and his sudden conversion, this is awkward
And on police funding, is anyone seriously claiming that last night they needed more personnel or equipment to take down 3 attackers in 8 minutes
The sun have a tape of a private Milne/Corbyn phone conversation?
How?
Maybe there is a patriot in Labour HQ?
Anyone who thinks that nuclear weapons keep us safe is not a patriot but an idiot.
That's an awful lot of the county you think are idiots.
Go on then, answer the questions and show us your wisdom.
I didn't say I supported keeping our nuclear weapons - in fact I am deeply conflicted about the best approach and used to support unilateralism, but right now am very wishy washy on the whole business - but it is telling that you immediately get all snippy and demand I defend a position I didn't put forward.
All I did was point out the fact that as a lot of people support it, you are calling a lot of people idiots.
So why don't you explain in less insulting and patronising terms why keeping our nuclear weapons is a bad idea, rather than just dismiss a majority of the country? I'm open to being convinced.
Or you could act like a complete arsehole and call the electorate idiots. Again.
Yes support for nuclear weapons is idiotic - it's an utter no brainer.
Well that's me off the fence and convinced.
In all seriousness, you don't have to convince me of course, but just spraying out 'it's idiotic' is not going to help advance promoting that policy on the doorstep anytime soon is it? The Tories have spent weeks telling people how silly it is to vote Labour under Corbyn, and it's only made more people want to do it.
Makes you feel better though, no doubt.
It doesn't at all. The argument is that us having nuclear weapons makes the world a safer place. I have to admit that I cannot conceive of a more idiotic conceit.
Well apparently millions of people don't get it and we should just write them off as not worthy of even an attempt at enlightenment, and should just be told what idiots they are until they see the light that way.
Instead of reading PB this evening, I watched the Manchester gig, and despite not knowing some of the acts and many of the songs, it was fucking brilliant!
As for Jezzbollah, and his sudden conversion, this is awkward
And on police funding, is anyone seriously claiming that last night they needed more personnel or equipment to take down 3 attackers in 8 minutes
The sun have a tape of a private Milne/Corbyn phone conversation?
How?
Maybe there is a patriot in Labour HQ?
Anyone who thinks that nuclear weapons keep us safe is not a patriot but an idiot. Name one situation where the PM would use them, or one scenario where they keep us safer?
Were they not a factor in keeping the peace during the Cold War?
I don't think the Russians were at all deterred by our few nuclear weapons. In general yes they did but we should be reducing them.
A Trident sub has 256 warheads as I recall, so more than a few.
During the Cold War there may have been an argument for Trident, but it has been an anachronism and distraction since 1990.
£6 billion per year would do a hell of a lot more elsewhere in our defense budget.
IIRC the Blair government reduced the number of warheads to 160 approximately, Personally, I think we should increase them back up to the full complement.
Why? For what purpose? Is destroying 160 cities with perhaps 50 million dead not sufficient for you?
He said he would do anything for Islam even kill his mother. (So says the person who reported him)
That's a pretty low threshold for fanaticism, lots of people say stuff like "I'd die for X", or "I'd kill for Y". What you are looking for is the person who says that frequently, or shows signs of turning word into deed.
Both he and the Manchester attacker seem to have been banned by their mosques by mainstream imams for their political outbursts.
Perhaps that is a weekly occurrence, or perhaps it should be a major red flag. Being banned from places of worship is unknown in my church, though we do occassionally need to get elders to calm worshippers down.
There you go again. 'elders' 'worshippers'
WORSHIPPERS!!!
Don't you think enough is enough?
I was referring to my own church with those terms.
We all agree that "Enough is Enough" in that tautological way that Mrs "Brexit means Brexit" uses.
It is a meaningless and vacuous soundbite, that explains nothing of what she has in mind, only her frustration.
That's a bogus excuse. Mealy mouthed in the - no sick pun intended - extreme. Changes to how we view and operate our security need thought and discussipn. But it is quite fair to say that we might just need to make those changes. And of course such changes will not be without some problems controversy pain difficulty. Which is why they get regularly brushed under the carpet. And this is not just a govt responsibility. Its the ready hearing that the sanctimonious protest industry gets, cheerleaded on by Labours new whitewash brush artist.
Instead of reading PB this evening, I watched the Manchester gig, and despite not knowing some of the acts and many of the songs, it was fucking brilliant!
As for Jezzbollah, and his sudden conversion, this is awkward
And on police funding, is anyone seriously claiming that last night they needed more personnel or equipment to take down 3 attackers in 8 minutes
The sun have a tape of a private Milne/Corbyn phone conversation?
How?
Maybe there is a patriot in Labour HQ?
Anyone who thinks that nuclear weapons keep us safe is not a patriot but an idiot. Name one situation where the PM would use them, or one scenario where they keep us safer?
Were they not a factor in keeping the peace during the Cold War?
I don't think the Russians were at all deterred by our few nuclear weapons. In general yes they did but we should be reducing them.
A Trident sub has 256 warheads as I recall, so more than a few.
During the Cold War there may have been an argument for Trident, but it has been an anachronism and distraction since 1990.
£6 billion per year would do a hell of a lot more elsewhere in our defense budget.
IIRC the Blair government reduced the number of warheads to 160 approximately, Personally, I think we should increase them back up to the full complement.
Why? For what purpose? Is destroying 160 cities with perhaps 50 million dead not sufficient for you?
I would mark Lab and SNP down slightly, largely to the benefit of Cons.
I hope you're right. I'd hope for something like
Con 370 Lab 190 (low enough that I think Corbyn would be forced out and his successor not being of his choosing) SNP 43 (well really I'd hope for even fewer, but one has to keep a sense of realism) LD 15 (holding most current areas, and gaining more than just in Scotland)
Unfortunately my hope is mathematically impossible, as I'd like Corbyn to be reduced enough to go, without the Tories having an unassailable majority, but without massive LD gains, only a Con landslide can get Corbyn out.
I'm struggling to get the LibDems up as high as 15. I'm starting to think the opposite: that they might get well and truly baxtered.
I think the range is something like 4-13, with the lower end more likely than the top end.
But in an absolutely idea situation - something like the polls not picking up some uptick in LD support, and that support clustering in key seats, and Labour not surging as much as the polls say, and some good tactical voting, and the lack of UKIP in target seats not hurting them as much as thought - then if they could hold all or almost all their current seats, they could then pick up a couple in London, Cambridge, maybe a West Country seat, and say 4-5 seats in Scotland, and you can get up to 15.
But it is a lot of things needing to go right for them to get that many. As it is, despite 2015 like others I still think they will outperform the polls in their remaining seats to some extent, and that tactical voting could see a couple of gains in Scotland, if they are lucky enough to offset some likely losses. Maybe a London seat to make up for probable losses in England.
Now I think on it, 9 is probably a bit optimistic for them though.
The biggest hope that the LDs have is the supposed 20% of the electorate who will consider voting tactically as mentioned in a thread header a couple of days ago. If we to see a significant increase in tactical voting, as encouraged by OGH, and which something that is going to been seen in large chunks of Scotland anyway, then we could see a few more splodges of Gold on the map come the morning of the 9th.
Why doesn't Farron say that if the LibDems hold the balance of power he will support a Labour government, as Sturgeon has said about the SNP? Part of the reason the LibDems are polling so badly is that people remember how they helped the Tories for five years.
Because the LDs had hoped to get the votes of Labour and Tory remainers, not all of whom will despise the Coalition. If they will only ever support one side, they really are just a junior version of that party, and since they obviously could not back the Tories again in a generation, ruling out any cooperation was probably seen as the most sensible course.
?? I thought they hadn't ruled out cooperating with either of the two larger parties. I agree with LibDem policy on the EU, but this has turned out not to be a Brexit election.
Ok, not ruled out 'any' cooperation, ruled out coalition. But let's face it - if they 'cooperated' with the Tories that would be called by Labour and others as the same level of sin as doing a formal deal, and the same would said if they worked with Labour.
I wonder what would happen if Farron were to announce some time during the next three days that if there is a hung parliament he will seek to form a coalition with Labour. That might win him sufficient tactical votes to take Twickenham, Kingston & Surbiton, and Sutton & Cheam. He could say May went to the country on whether or not the British people support her government, so let's give her an answer. Especially now that her leadership rating has fallen so drastically.
Instead of reading PB this evening, I watched the Manchester gig, and despite not knowing some of the acts and many of the songs, it was fucking brilliant!
As for Jezzbollah, and his sudden conversion, this is awkward
And on police funding, is anyone seriously claiming that last night they needed more personnel or equipment to take down 3 attackers in 8 minutes
The sun have a tape of a private Milne/Corbyn phone conversation?
How?
Maybe there is a patriot in Labour HQ?
Anyone who thinks that nuclear weapons keep us safe is not a patriot but an idiot. Name one situation where the PM would use them, or one scenario where they keep us safer?
Were they not a factor in keeping the peace during the Cold War?
I don't think the Russians were at all deterred by our few nuclear weapons. In general yes they did but we should be reducing them.
A Trident sub has 256 warheads as I recall, so more than a few.
During the Cold War there may have been an argument for Trident, but it has been an anachronism and distraction since 1990.
£6 billion per year would do a hell of a lot more elsewhere in our defense budget.
IIRC the Blair government reduced the number of warheads to 160 approximately, Personally, I think we should increase them back up to the full complement.
Why? For what purpose? Is destroying 160 cities with perhaps 50 million dead not sufficient for you?
And the person who pressed the button against us safe in a deep bunker.
We have to deter the principals in a very personal way, not murder millions of civilians. That's why I'm in favour of multiple autonomous drones with biomarker data on the human target.
Not exactly workable your plan though is it?
The technology is available. But our leaders might not like a personal tit for tat.
Discussion on Westminster Hour about extremists' use of Youtube and social media. It's probably fair to say that May can't fight back effectively against terrorism without better control of these media.
You will never be able to eliminate these things from the internet. The internet is uncontrollable by any government. May knows this, but it won't stop her from establishing wholesale government censorship of the internet.
The internet could be controlled if the world's most powerful countries got together and agreed on what is and isn't acceptable.
Instead of reading PB this evening, I watched the Manchester gig, and despite not knowing some of the acts and many of the songs, it was fucking brilliant!
As for Jezzbollah, and his sudden conversion, this is awkward
And on police funding, is anyone seriously claiming that last night they needed more personnel or equipment to take down 3 attackers in 8 minutes
The sun have a tape of a private Milne/Corbyn phone conversation?
How?
Maybe there is a patriot in Labour HQ?
Anyone who thinks that nuclear weapons keep us safe is not a patriot but an idiot. Name one situation where the PM would use them, or one scenario where they keep us safer?
Were they not a factor in keeping the peace during the Cold War?
I don't think the Russians were at all deterred by our few nuclear weapons. In general yes they did but we should be reducing them.
A Trident sub has 256 warheads as I recall, so more than a few.
During the Cold War there may have been an argument for Trident, but it has been an anachronism and distraction since 1990.
£6 billion per year would do a hell of a lot more elsewhere in our defense budget.
IIRC the Blair government reduced the number of warheads to 160 approximately, Personally, I think we should increase them back up to the full complement.
Why? For what purpose? Is destroying 160 cities with perhaps 50 million dead not sufficient for you?
Instead of reading PB this evening, I watched the Manchester gig, and despite not knowing some of the acts and many of the songs, it was fucking brilliant!
As for Jezzbollah, and his sudden conversion, this is awkward
And on police funding, is anyone seriously claiming that last night they needed more personnel or equipment to take down 3 attackers in 8 minutes
The sun have a tape of a private Milne/Corbyn phone conversation?
How?
Maybe there is a patriot in Labour HQ?
Anyone who thinks that nuclear weapons keep us safe is not a patriot but an idiot. Name one situation where the PM would use them, or one scenario where they keep us safer?
Were they not a factor in keeping the peace during the Cold War?
I don't think the Russians were at all deterred by our few nuclear weapons. In general yes they did but we should be reducing them.
A Trident sub has 256 warheads as I recall, so more than a few.
During the Cold War there may have been an argument for Trident, but it has been an anachronism and distraction since 1990.
£6 billion per year would do a hell of a lot more elsewhere in our defense budget.
IIRC the Blair government reduced the number of warheads to 160 approximately, Personally, I think we should increase them back up to the full complement.
Why? For what purpose? Is destroying 160 cities with perhaps 50 million dead not sufficient for you?
Both Cameron and May poll above their party and Miliband and Corbyn poll below theirs and that is still the case even now despite May's poll dip, however the difference is that May will now have UKIP voters and a handful of Labour Brexit voters to add onto the vast majority of Cameron's 37% and that will probably make the difference to ensure she increases her majority to around 50-80 or so from Cameron's 12. Brown of course would probably have won in 2007, narrowly, had he gone ahead with the election and certainly had he been facing a weaker Tory leader than Cameron
How on earth can you empathise with someone wanting to support a group that kills, rapes and butchers innocent people who were just trying to get on with their lives? Non religious people who may have lost their way in life do not generally start joining groups and murdering people for ideological reasons. Westerners who have lost their way tend to do things to themselves such as drinking or drugs, not just kill others for their beliefs.
Any person running for public office has to meet the standards expected which includes having a 'clean' online history. She clearly fails on that standard. I welcomed her by-election gain for the record but she was wrong on this.
So, we're not allowed to try and "get into the heads" of our enemies, and must regard them simply as a foreign species to be exterminated?
We have spent quite a long time trying to do just that haven't we?
How do you actually get into the heads of people who regard us, you me and the bloke next door, as a foreign species to be exterminated?
I see the point being made by the woman but don't you think it is a bit fatuous? Well to be honest a lot fatuous to the point of downright crass?
On the contrary, being able to starve the Islamists of recruits is a vital part of defeating them. Understanding the motivations of recruits is part of the answer to reforming them.
Though we should get a lot more serious about Islamism in our jails, which is a major recruitment and radicalisation space.
All I get from that is you dont know how to get into their heads.
And I repeat ... its not as if we have not been trying
Instead of reading PB this evening, I watched the Manchester gig, and despite not knowing some of the acts and many of the songs, it was fucking brilliant!
As for Jezzbollah, and his sudden conversion, this is awkward
And on police funding, is anyone seriously claiming that last night they needed more personnel or equipment to take down 3 attackers in 8 minutes
The sun have a tape of a private Milne/Corbyn phone conversation?
How?
Maybe there is a patriot in Labour HQ?
Anyone who thinks that nuclear weapons keep us safe is not a patriot but an idiot. Name one situation where the PM would use them, or one scenario where they keep us safer?
Were they not a factor in keeping the peace during the Cold War?
I don't think the Russians were at all deterred by our few nuclear weapons. In general yes they did but we should be reducing them.
A Trident sub has 256 warheads as I recall, so more than a few.
During the Cold War there may have been an argument for Trident, but it has been an anachronism and distraction since 1990.
£6 billion per year would do a hell of a lot more elsewhere in our defense budget.
IIRC the Blair government reduced the number of warheads to 160 approximately, Personally, I think we should increase them back up to the full complement.
Why? For what purpose? Is destroying 160 cities with perhaps 50 million dead not sufficient for you?
Instead of reading PB this evening, I watched the Manchester gig, and despite not knowing some of the acts and many of the songs, it was fucking brilliant!
As for Jezzbollah, and his sudden conversion, this is awkward
And on police funding, is anyone seriously claiming that last night they needed more personnel or equipment to take down 3 attackers in 8 minutes
The sun have a tape of a private Milne/Corbyn phone conversation?
How?
Maybe there is a patriot in Labour HQ?
:
Were they not a factor in keeping the peace during the Cold War?
I don't think the Russians were at all deterred by our few nuclear weapons. In general yes they did but we should be reducing them.
A Trident sub has 256 warheads as I recall, so more than a few.
During the Cold War there may have been an argument for Trident, but it has been an anachronism and distraction since 1990.
£6 billion per year would do a hell of a lot more elsewhere in our defense budget.
Where we are now with Russia certainly has the potential to get cooler even if we're not at Cold War temperatures yet. Also once we disarm (nuclear-wise), that's us done, effectively for ever. That gives North Korea or any other state prepared to make the nuclear investment a bigger stick than we have. It's all in the word "deterrent" although I accept that North Korea may be an outrider in that respect.
I often wonder why it is imperative to so many people that we have nuclear weapons when Germany seems to manage just fine without them. And if Russia did decide to take us of the map with a nuclear strike it is not much of a consolation to know that we will have taken out a few of their cities just before we are all dead!
The Germans essentially subcontracted their nuclear umbrella from NATO. One point of NATO is nuclear protection without proliferation.
The point about Trident is this, by the way. It is accurate enough (even without GPS) and has enough warheads to defeat ABM systems and take out a deep buried hard target. Accuracy is more important than warhead yield. Once systems get accurate to a certain level, there is essentially no level of hardening that protects the target. This is why the Americans have essentially decommissioned much of the Cheyenne Mountain complex.
Trident means (among other things) that you can reach out and touch a particular someone, no matter where they are and how deeply buried they are.
THIS FROM ELECTORAL CALCULUS. YOU MAY BE QUITE HAPPY HYUFD BUT MANY WILL BELIEVE THAT MIKE HAS CROSSED A LINE FROM WHICH THERE IS NO TURNING BACK. RESPECTED WEBSITES ARE NOT PROPAGANDA LEAFLETS NOR SHOULD NOT BE. ELECTIONS COME AND GO BUT REPUTATION IS MORE DIFFICULT TO SUSTAIN. IF MIKE WANTS TO BACK THE LIBS THEN SO BE IT BUT TO DO IT IN THIS WAY IS AT BEST QUESTIONABLE.
THIS FROM ELECTORAL CALCULUS. YOU MAY BE QUITE HAPPY HYUFD BUT MANY WILL BELIEVE THAT MIKE HAS CROSSED A LINE FROM WHICH THERE IS NO TURNING BACK. RESPECTED WEBSITES ARE NOT PROPAGANDA LEAFLETS NOR SHOULD NOT BE. ELECTIONS COME AND GO BUT REPUTATION IS MORE DIFFICULT TO SUSTAIN. IF MIKE WANTS TO BACK THE LIBS THEN SO BE IT BUT TO DO IT IN THIS WAY IS AT BEST QUESTIONABLE.
On today's Comres the LDs would take East Dunbartonshire, just but as you chart shows it needs Tory and Labour and UKIP voters to tactically vote LD to do so, the fact he is getting under your skin only reinforces the fact he is on the right track. OGH has always been a LD backer and has never hid it and is doing nothing illegal, if you want to hold the seat I suggest you nats work a bit harder to ensure you do rather than snapping at Our Genial Host. Goodnight
THIS FROM ELECTORAL CALCULUS. YOU MAY BE QUITE HAPPY HYUFD BUT MANY WILL BELIEVE THAT MIKE HAS CROSSED A LINE FROM WHICH THERE IS NO TURNING BACK. RESPECTED WEBSITES ARE NOT PROPAGANDA LEAFLETS NOR SHOULD NOT BE. ELECTIONS COME AND GO BUT REPUTATION IS MORE DIFFICULT TO SUSTAIN. IF MIKE WANTS TO BACK THE LIBS THEN SO BE IT BUT TO DO IT IN THIS WAY IS AT BEST QUESTIONABLE.
On today's Comres the LDs would take East Dunbartonshire, just but as you chart shows it needs Tory and Labour and UKIP voters to tactically vote LD to do so, the fact he is getting under your skin only reinforces the fact he is on the right track. OGH has always been a LD backer and has never hid it and is doing nothing illegal, if you want to hold the seat I suggest you nats work a bit harder to ensure you do rather than snapping at Our Genial Host. Goodnight
The tory and labour voters in that seat know what they must do.
THIS FROM ELECTORAL CALCULUS. YOU MAY BE QUITE HAPPY HYUFD BUT MANY WILL BELIEVE THAT MIKE HAS CROSSED A LINE FROM WHICH THERE IS NO TURNING BACK. RESPECTED WEBSITES ARE NOT PROPAGANDA LEAFLETS NOR SHOULD NOT BE. ELECTIONS COME AND GO BUT REPUTATION IS MORE DIFFICULT TO SUSTAIN. IF MIKE WANTS TO BACK THE LIBS THEN SO BE IT BUT TO DO IT IN THIS WAY IS AT BEST QUESTIONABLE.
All very shouty with the block capitals. I do not for one second think that Electoral Calculus accounts for the tactical voting that is going to take place in Scotland. The SNP (rather cleverly I admit) have produced leaflets saying that it is between them and the Tories in NE Fife based on a calculation from Electoral Calculus with the LDs on about 20% similar to the above for E.Dunbartonshire.
I will happy wager with you that in neither seat will the Tories finish 1st or 2nd and also, if the SNP vote falls that much in E. Dunb. then Nicolson is toast and Jo will be returned back to Westminster.
Were they not a factor in keeping the peace during the Cold War?
I don't think the Russians were at all deterred by our few nuclear weapons. In general yes they did but we should be reducing them.
A Trident sub has 256 warheads as I recall, so more than a few.
During the Cold War there may have been an argument for Trident, but it has been an anachronism and distraction since 1990.
£6 billion per year would do a hell of a lot more elsewhere in our defense budget.
Where we are now with Russia certainly has the potential to get cooler even if we're not at Cold War temperatures yet. Also once we disarm (nuclear-wise), that's us done, effectively for ever. That gives North Korea or any other state prepared to make the nuclear investment a bigger stick than we have. It's all in the word "deterrent" although I accept that North Korea may be an outrider in that respect.
I often wonder why it is imperative to so many people that we have nuclear weapons when Germany seems to manage just fine without them. And if Russia did decide to take us of the map with a nuclear strike it is not much of a consolation to know that we will have taken out a few of their cities just before we are all dead!
The Germans essentially subcontracted their nuclear umbrella from NATO. One point of NATO is nuclear protection without proliferation.
The point about Trident is this, by the way. It is accurate enough (even without GPS) and has enough warheads to defeat ABM systems and take out a deep buried hard target. Accuracy is more important than warhead yield. Once systems get accurate to a certain level, there is essentially no level of hardening that protects the target. This is why the Americans have essentially decommissioned much of the Cheyenne Mountain complex.
Trident means (among other things) that you can reach out and touch a particular someone, no matter where they are and how deeply buried they are.
Is that the same Trident that when test fired by the RN recently headed off towards Florida (and not Ascension Island, the opposite direction)? The fact is Trident is completely unproven - unless you believe everything the manufacturers/owners tell you.
Is that the same Trident that when test fired by the RN recently headed off towards Florida (and not Ascension Island, the opposite direction)? The fact is Trident is completely unproven - unless you believe everything the manufacturers/owners tell you.
In the June 2016 test that went tits up the Trident system worked fine, it was just given the wrong data. It's still a complete waste of money though.
Is that the same Trident that when test fired by the RN recently headed off towards Florida (and not Ascension Island, the opposite direction)? The fact is Trident is completely unproven - unless you believe everything the manufacturers/owners tell you.
In the June 2016 test that went tits up the Trident system worked fine, it was just given the wrong data. It's still a complete waste of money though.
Was it fed the secret plan for a UK invasion of the US?
Is that the same Trident that when test fired by the RN recently headed off towards Florida (and not Ascension Island, the opposite direction)? The fact is Trident is completely unproven - unless you believe everything the manufacturers/owners tell you.
In the June 2016 test that went tits up the Trident system worked fine, it was just given the wrong data. It's still a complete waste of money though.
Was it fed the secret plan for a UK invasion of the US?
There was such a plan. I think there still is, albeit nominally. The scenario is in response to a US/Canada border dispute, for which there are historical precedents. The equivalent US plan for an invasion of the UK would be in response to a UK invasion of Ireland.
I hate to be pedantic, but the helicopter is a Aérospatiale Dauphin 2. Blue Thunder (film and TV) was a modified Aérospatiale Gazelle. Airwolf was a Bell 222.
Instead of reading PB this evening, I watched the Manchester gig, and despite not knowing some of the acts and many of the songs, it was fucking brilliant!
As for Jezzbollah, and his sudden conversion, this is awkward
And on police funding, is anyone seriously claiming that last night they needed more personnel or equipment to take down 3 attackers in 8 minutes
The sun have a tape of a private Milne/Corbyn phone conversation?
How?
Maybe there is a patriot in Labour HQ?
Anyone who thinks that nuclear weapons keep us safe is not a patriot but an idiot. Name one situation where the PM would use them, or one scenario where they keep us safer?
Were they not a factor in keeping the peace during the Cold War?
I don't think the Russians were at all deterred by our few nuclear weapons. In general yes they did but we should be reducing them.
A Trident sub has 256 warheads as I recall, so more than a few.
During the Cold War there may have been an argument for Trident, but it has been an anachronism and distraction since 1990.
£6 billion per year would do a hell of a lot more elsewhere in our defense budget.
I hate to be pedantic, but the helicopter is a Aérospatiale Dauphin 2. Blue Thunder (film and TV) was a modified Aérospatiale Gazelle. Airwolf was a Bell 222.
Are we expecting anymore polls now before Thursday?
Not sure. It makes everything a bit more nerve-racking if not.
We are expecting a Survation on Monday night for Good Morning Britain on tuesday morning. They decided to keep it in field for another day to gauge any reaction to the attack in London.
Are we expecting anymore polls now before Thursday?
Not sure. It makes everything a bit more nerve-racking if not.
We are expecting a Survation on Monday night for Good Morning Britain on tuesday morning. They decided to keep it in field for another day to gauge any reaction to the attack in London.
Did they? Or did they just delay publication? I don't think their tweet was clear.
The Germans essentially subcontracted their nuclear umbrella from NATO. One point of NATO is nuclear protection without proliferation.
It's said that the reason the USSR started to help China develop nukes was because the US was considering helping Germany and that the USSR stopped (with a sigh of relief) when the US did. Nukes were a major factor in the Sino-Soviet split.
The point about Trident is this, by the way. It is accurate enough (even without GPS) and has enough warheads to defeat ABM systems and take out a deep buried hard target. Accuracy is more important than warhead yield. Once systems get accurate to a certain level, there is essentially no level of hardening that protects the target. This is why the Americans have essentially decommissioned much of the Cheyenne Mountain complex.
Trident means (among other things) that you can reach out and touch a particular someone, no matter where they are and how deeply buried they are.
Was that discovered before or after the Cheyenne bunker complex was built?
Computers on the four Vanguard submarines that carry Britain's Trident missiles run on Windows XP, according to Private Eye 1444.
Let us remember the tories had an 11% in the local elections just a few weeks back. This was largely due to ukip switching to the tories. I can't see why ukippers would vote tory in the locals but not the GE. That helps my wobbles.
Let us remember the tories had an 11% in the local elections just a few weeks back. This was largely due to ukip switching to the tories. I can't see why ukippers would vote tory in the locals but not the GE. That helps my wobbles.
Let us remember the tories had an 11% in the local elections just a few weeks back. This was largely due to ukip switching to the tories. I can't see why ukippers would vote tory in the locals but not the GE. That helps my wobbles.
See the regional analysis, Labour piling on votes where it doesn't matter.
This is pure horseshit ! His entire crap is built on non-weighted regional subsets. In statistics, you cannot get an aggregate of garbage and then think the average will be OK.
The best contradiction comes with the received wisdom that the overwhelming portion of UKIP transfers are going to Conservative. Yet in those "regional" graph , in many regions, Labour is the beneficiary.
Let us remember the tories had an 11% in the local elections just a few weeks back. This was largely due to ukip switching to the tories. I can't see why ukippers would vote tory in the locals but not the GE. That helps my wobbles.
You have made a very good point. But there has been a swing to Labour since May 4th, so the lead will be much lower . If it is lower than 6.5%, the swing will be to Labour.
Comments
https://twitter.com/frankieboyle/status/870744050676236288
Changes to how we view and operate our security need thought and discussipn. But it is quite fair to say that we might just need to make those changes. And of course such changes will not be without some problems controversy pain difficulty. Which is why they get regularly brushed under the carpet.
And this is not just a govt responsibility. Its the ready hearing that the sanctimonious protest industry gets, cheerleaded on by Labours new whitewash brush artist.
Vote Corbyn and the economic shambles coming our way will make £10 the maximum wage, not the minimum.
Night all.
If we to see a significant increase in tactical voting, as encouraged by OGH, and which something that is going to been seen in large chunks of Scotland anyway, then we could see a few more splodges of Gold on the map come the morning of the 9th.
Meanwhile:
https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/871447636653600769
Surveys ending 29 May to 4 June.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017
'Have I Got A Crappy Load Of Nonsense For You'
And I repeat ... its not as if we have not been trying
The point about Trident is this, by the way. It is accurate enough (even without GPS) and has enough warheads to defeat ABM systems and take out a deep buried hard target. Accuracy is more important than warhead yield. Once systems get accurate to a certain level, there is essentially no level of hardening that protects the target. This is why the Americans have essentially decommissioned much of the Cheyenne Mountain complex.
Trident means (among other things) that you can reach out and touch a particular someone, no matter where they are and how deeply buried they are.
MP at 2015: John Nicolson (SNP)
County/Area: Glasgow area (West Scotland)
Electorate: 66,966
Turnout: 81.9% 2015
Votes 2015
Share Predicted
Votes
SNP 22,093 40.3% 33.8%
LIB 19,926 36.3% 25.9%
LAB 6,754 12.3% 10.9%
CON 4,727 8.6% 29.0%
Gree 804 1.5% 0.0%
UKIP 567 1.0% 0.0%
OTH 0 0.0% 0.4%
NAT Majority 2,167 3.9% Pred Maj 4.8%
THIS FROM ELECTORAL CALCULUS. YOU MAY BE QUITE HAPPY HYUFD BUT MANY WILL BELIEVE THAT MIKE HAS CROSSED A LINE FROM WHICH THERE IS NO TURNING BACK. RESPECTED WEBSITES ARE NOT PROPAGANDA LEAFLETS NOR SHOULD NOT BE. ELECTIONS COME AND GO BUT REPUTATION IS MORE DIFFICULT TO SUSTAIN. IF MIKE WANTS TO BACK THE LIBS THEN SO BE IT BUT TO DO IT IN THIS WAY IS AT BEST QUESTIONABLE.
I do not for one second think that Electoral Calculus accounts for the tactical voting that is going to take place in Scotland. The SNP (rather cleverly I admit) have produced leaflets saying that it is between them and the Tories in NE Fife based on a calculation from Electoral Calculus with the LDs on about 20% similar to the above for E.Dunbartonshire.
I will happy wager with you that in neither seat will the Tories finish 1st or 2nd and also, if the SNP vote falls that much in E. Dunb. then Nicolson is toast and Jo will be returned back to Westminster.
Were they not a factor in keeping the peace during the Cold War?
I don't think the Russians were at all deterred by our few nuclear weapons. In general yes they did but we should be reducing them.
A Trident sub has 256 warheads as I recall, so more than a few.
During the Cold War there may have been an argument for Trident, but it has been an anachronism and distraction since 1990.
£6 billion per year would do a hell of a lot more elsewhere in our defense budget.
Where we are now with Russia certainly has the potential to get cooler even if we're not at Cold War temperatures yet. Also once we disarm (nuclear-wise), that's us done, effectively for ever. That gives North Korea or any other state prepared to make the nuclear investment a bigger stick than we have. It's all in the word "deterrent" although I accept that North Korea may be an outrider in that respect.
I often wonder why it is imperative to so many people that we have nuclear weapons when Germany seems to manage just fine without them.
And if Russia did decide to take us of the map with a nuclear strike it is not much of a consolation to know that we will have taken out a few of their cities just before we are all dead!
The Germans essentially subcontracted their nuclear umbrella from NATO. One point of NATO is nuclear protection without proliferation.
The point about Trident is this, by the way. It is accurate enough (even without GPS) and has enough warheads to defeat ABM systems and take out a deep buried hard target. Accuracy is more important than warhead yield. Once systems get accurate to a certain level, there is essentially no level of hardening that protects the target. This is why the Americans have essentially decommissioned much of the Cheyenne Mountain complex.
Trident means (among other things) that you can reach out and touch a particular someone, no matter where they are and how deeply buried they are.
Is that the same Trident that when test fired by the RN recently headed off towards Florida (and not Ascension Island, the opposite direction)? The fact is Trident is completely unproven - unless you believe everything the manufacturers/owners tell you.
https://candidates.democracyclub.org.uk/numbers/election/parl.2017-06-08/parties
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_AS365_Dauphin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aérospatiale_Gazelle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Thunder_(helicopter)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_222/230
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airwolf_(helicopter)
Politics goes in cycles.
Computers on the four Vanguard submarines that carry Britain's Trident missiles run on Windows XP, according to Private Eye 1444.
See the regional analysis, Labour piling on votes where it doesn't matter.
The best contradiction comes with the received wisdom that the overwhelming portion of UKIP transfers are going to Conservative. Yet in those "regional" graph , in many regions, Labour is the beneficiary.