Let's wait and see if Iran has been shown to be developing its nuke and missile technolgy outside Iran.
Say, in North Korea....
Yes, let's do that. AFAIK, there's minimal evidence of that - unless you count Fox News speculation. Should the US escalate conflict with Iran it is, of course, entirely conceivable that they'll seek to purchase weapons tech from N Korea.
Fox News. Or the New York Post:
"Americans and others have long observed cooperation between these two rogue regimes. You don’t need to be a trained missile expert to notice the design similarities between North Korea’s home-built Rodong and its Iranian clone, the Shahab 3. Or the Rodong B and Shahab 4.
Iranian nuclear scientists were present at Pyongyang’s first nuclear test. Iran-allied Syria modeled its nuclear plant (later eliminated by Israel) on a similar North Korean one. Rather than violating the Obama deal by experimenting at home, Iran can advance its nuclear program by observing North Korea’s and contributing to its progress.
The mullahs have what Kim Jong-un needs most: cash. Pyongyang’s only foreign-currency-worthy export is weapons and knowing how to build and use them, which Iran craves. It’s a match made in hell."
From watching the news you'd think this Weinstein person has already been found guilty in a court of law.
What he has already admitted to is way beyond what any reasonable person would consider acceptable. I have no idea if the rape stuff is true of course and he denies all of that (I do hope it isn't true although that then raises more questions) but even without that he has behaved in an atrocious manner and deserves to be out of a job.
Agreed. This is about abuse of power and treating women like they were his property. As I say what he has already admitted to is way beyond acceptable.
Not too bad for mid-term elections.......as with everything else very little evidence of movement....
But we are nowhere near midterm!
The politics is mid-term even if the dates are not.
Not so close to the previous election! We are barely 7% of the way through this Parliament. Midterm hardly arises before the 30% point.
There has been a Tory led government for 7 years, the Tories have already been in power longer than Attlee's 1945-1951 government, Wilson's 1964-1970 and 1974-1979 governments and Heath's 1970-1974 government. That is midterm enough
That does not hold true at all. Re-elected Governments typically enjoy a polling boost in their first year or so in the new Parliament. We saw this in the 1959 Parliament when Macmillan's Government enjoyed a lead over Labour until Autumn 1961 despite having been in office for 8 years. Thatcher enjoyed big poll leads following re-election in 1983 and 1987 until 1985 and 1989 respectively.Likewise Blair on re-election in 2001 had big poll leads until Summer 2003.
Macmillan and Thatcher both won landslides in 1959 and 1983 and 1987 as did Blair in 2001 so the opposition had a mountain to climb after those defeats. Blair in 2005 did not and was trailing in the polls by the end of the year as was Major by the end of 1992 after a narrow win earlier in the year and Thatcher by the end of 1979 was also trailing Labour having won a majority under 50. The same holds true of the Tories in 2010 who were at best neck and neck with Labour after failing to win a majority that May. Wilson in October 1974 only won a tiny majority after failing to win outright in February. All the latter examples are closer to what happened in June when May lost her majority albeit won most seats.
Macmillan , Thatcher and Blair were enjoying bigger poll leads at this stage in the 1959, 1983, 1987 and 2001 Parliaments than at the previous election - ie the polls were implying a further swing in the re-elected Government's favour. That is not true today.
From watching the news you'd think this Weinstein person has already been found guilty in a court of law.
What he has already admitted to is way beyond what any reasonable person would consider acceptable. I have no idea if the rape stuff is true of course and he denies all of that (I do hope it isn't true although that then raises more questions) but even without that he has behaved in an atrocious manner and deserves to be out of a job.
Agreed. This is about abuse of power and treating women like they were his property. As I say what he has already admitted to is way beyond acceptable.
From watching the news you'd think this Weinstein person has already been found guilty in a court of law.
What he has already admitted to is way beyond what any reasonable person would consider acceptable. I have no idea if the rape stuff is true of course and he denies all of that (I do hope it isn't true although that then raises more questions) but even without that he has behaved in an atrocious manner and deserves to be out of a job.
Agreed. This is about abuse of power and treating women like they were his property. As I say what he has already admitted to is way beyond acceptable.
Could not agree more. Utterly disgraceful behaviour, for which there can be no excuse, whether he is guilty or not of any specific crime.
Let's wait and see if Iran has been shown to be developing its nuke and missile technolgy outside Iran.
Say, in North Korea....
Yes, let's do that. AFAIK, there's minimal evidence of that - unless you count Fox News speculation. Should the US escalate conflict with Iran it is, of course, entirely conceivable that they'll seek to purchase weapons tech from N Korea.
Fortunately politicians have never invented links between groups to justify military action in the past.
Let's wait and see if Iran has been shown to be developing its nuke and missile technolgy outside Iran.
Say, in North Korea....
Yes, let's do that. AFAIK, there's minimal evidence of that - unless you count Fox News speculation. Should the US escalate conflict with Iran it is, of course, entirely conceivable that they'll seek to purchase weapons tech from N Korea.
Fox News. Or the New York Post:
"Americans and others have long observed cooperation between these two rogue regimes. You don’t need to be a trained missile expert to notice the design similarities between North Korea’s home-built Rodong and its Iranian clone, the Shahab 3. Or the Rodong B and Shahab 4.
Iranian nuclear scientists were present at Pyongyang’s first nuclear test. Iran-allied Syria modeled its nuclear plant (later eliminated by Israel) on a similar North Korean one. Rather than violating the Obama deal by experimenting at home, Iran can advance its nuclear program by observing North Korea’s and contributing to its progress.
The mullahs have what Kim Jong-un needs most: cash. Pyongyang’s only foreign-currency-worthy export is weapons and knowing how to build and use them, which Iran craves. It’s a match made in hell."
There is clearly some evidence around missile technology - but as far as nuclear weapons are concerned (which is what is at issue in Trump's latest piece of incontinence), none of those links provide any more evidence than I suggested. Indeed. the CNN one includes several rebuttals.
Not too bad for mid-term elections.......as with everything else very little evidence of movement....
But we are nowhere near midterm!
The politics is mid-term even if the dates are not.
Not so close to the previous election! We are barely 7% of the way through this Parliament. Midterm hardly arises before the 30% point.
There has been a Tory led government for 7 years, the Tories have already been in power longer than Attlee's 1945-1951 government, Wilson's 1964-1970 and 1974-1979 governments and Heath's 1970-1974 government. That is midterm enough
That does not hold true at all. Re-elected Governments typically enjoy a polling boost in their first year or so in the new Parliament. We saw this in the 1959 Parliament when Macmillan's Government enjoyed a lead over Labour until Autumn 1961 despite having been in office for 8 years. Thatcher enjoyed big poll leads following re-election in 1983 and 1987 until 1985 and 1989 respectively.Likewise Blair on re-election in 2001 had big poll leads until Summer 2003.
Macmillan and Thatcher both won landslides in 1959 and 1983 and 1987 as did Blair in 2001 so the opposition had a mountain to climb after those defeats. Blair in 2005 did not and was trailing in the polls by the end of the year as was Major by the end of 1992 after a narrow win earlier in the year and Thatcher by the end of 1979 was also trailing Labour having won a majority under 50. The same holds true of the Tories in 2010 who were at best neck and neck with Labour after failing to win a majority that May. Wilson in October 1974 only won a tiny majority after failing to win outright in February. All the latter examples are closer to what happened in June when May lost her majority albeit won most seats.
Macmillan , Thatcher and Blair were enjoying bigger poll leads at this stage in the 1959, 1983, 1987 and 2001 Parliaments than at the previous election - ie the polls were implying a further swing in the re-elected Government's favour. That is not true today.
They all won landslides and got a big bounce from that, May did not even get a majority so there is no comparison between them. A far closer comparison on that basis is 2010 where Labour led many polls by the end of the year after the Tories were largest party in a hung parliament or 1992 where Labour also led polls by the end of the year after the Tories narrowly won a majority of 21 in April.
I'm confused. Is Phil Hammond a saboteur for his lobster-eating, or a hero for his astute identification of the enemies?
I think the Mail is miffed because he's dining with the editor of a rival publication.
It's a wonderfully thin article, filled out with a bit of old freezer-gossip and some rehashed Nadine. One can't but admire their professionalism in managing to make an entire front-page out of it.
Let's wait and see if Iran has been shown to be developing its nuke and missile technolgy outside Iran.
Say, in North Korea....
Yes, let's do that. AFAIK, there's minimal evidence of that - unless you count Fox News speculation. Should the US escalate conflict with Iran it is, of course, entirely conceivable that they'll seek to purchase weapons tech from N Korea.
Fox News. Or the New York Post:
"Americans and others have long observed cooperation between these two rogue regimes. You don’t need to be a trained missile expert to notice the design similarities between North Korea’s home-built Rodong and its Iranian clone, the Shahab 3. Or the Rodong B and Shahab 4.
Iranian nuclear scientists were present at Pyongyang’s first nuclear test. Iran-allied Syria modeled its nuclear plant (later eliminated by Israel) on a similar North Korean one. Rather than violating the Obama deal by experimenting at home, Iran can advance its nuclear program by observing North Korea’s and contributing to its progress.
The mullahs have what Kim Jong-un needs most: cash. Pyongyang’s only foreign-currency-worthy export is weapons and knowing how to build and use them, which Iran craves. It’s a match made in hell."
Not too bad for mid-term elections.......as with everything else very little evidence of movement....
But we are nowhere near midterm!
The politics is mid-term even if the dates are not.
Not so close to the previous election! We are barely 7% of the way through this Parliament. Midterm hardly arises before the 30% point.
There has been a Tory led government for 7 years, the Tories have already been in power longer than Attlee's 1945-1951 government, Wilson's 1964-1970 and 1974-1979 governments and Heath's 1970-1974 government. That is midterm enough
That does not hold true at all. Re-elected Governments typically enjoy a polling boost in their first year or so in the new Parliament. We saw this in the 1959 Parliament when Macmillan's Government enjoyed a lead over Labour until Autumn 1961 despite having been in office for 8 years. Thatcher enjoyed big poll leads following re-election in 1983 and 1987 until 1985 and 1989 respectively.Likewise Blair on re-election in 2001 had big poll leads until Summer 2003.
Macmillan , Thatcher and Blair were enjoying bigger poll leads at this stage in the 1959, 1983, 1987 and 2001 Parliaments than at the previous election - ie the polls were implying a further swing in the re-elected Government's favour. That is not true today.
They all won landslides and got a big bounce from that, May did not even get a majority so there is no comparison between them. A far closer comparison on that basis is 2010 where Labour led many polls by the end of the year after the Tories were largest party in a hung parliament or 1992 where Labour also led polls by the end of the year after the Tories narrowly won a majority of 21 in April.
At this stage in the 1992 Parliament the Tories were still ahead in the polls. In 1959 the Tories only had a 5% lead in vote share and their majority was exaggerated by the fact that the 12 Ulster Unionists then took the Tory whip. Had they been excluded , Macmillan's majority would have been 77 - ie a good win but more comparable to Blair's 2005 result.
Comments
"Americans and others have long observed cooperation between these two rogue regimes. You don’t need to be a trained missile expert to notice the design similarities between North Korea’s home-built Rodong and its Iranian clone, the Shahab 3. Or the Rodong B and Shahab 4.
Iranian nuclear scientists were present at Pyongyang’s first nuclear test. Iran-allied Syria modeled its nuclear plant (later eliminated by Israel) on a similar North Korean one. Rather than violating the Obama deal by experimenting at home, Iran can advance its nuclear program by observing North Korea’s and contributing to its progress.
The mullahs have what Kim Jong-un needs most: cash. Pyongyang’s only foreign-currency-worthy export is weapons and knowing how to build and use them, which Iran craves. It’s a match made in hell."
http://nypost.com/2017/08/01/its-time-to-take-on-the-iran-north-korea-nuke-alliance/
Or CNN:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/14/politics/north-korea-iran-nuclear-weapons-program/index.html
Or this Sunday Telegraph "Exclusive":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/09/exclusive-north-korea-secretly-helped-iran-gain-nuclear-weapons/
Or CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/10/its-not-just-north-korea-iran-may-pose-a-nuclear-problem-for-donald-trump.html
Or The Diplomat:
https://thediplomat.com/2017/05/a-closer-look-at-iran-and-north-koreas-missile-cooperation/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41614820