RobD said:

Lowlander said:

May hardly has her problems to seek but it does seem that there is likely to
be some serious issues with the state of the Royal Navy. Apparently, during the furor over the Brexit campaign, it seems to have gone unnoticed that our expensive new Type 45 Destroyers don't actually work.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/07/destroyers-will-break-down-if-sent-to-middle-east-admits-royal-navy

And now it seems that the Type 26 are on an indefinite hold. Let's ignore how this is another broken promise from the Scottish referendum and just consider that it now means at least another 15 to 20 years of Type 23s providing the bulk of the Royal Navy.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/20/navy-fleet-global-combat-frigates-type-26-indefinitely-delayed-mod-mps-clyde-shipbuilding

Perhaps these considerations should have been more important before £31bn short term was committed to replace the Vanguard Fleet. I think the Astute hunter-killers still have some serious problems but let's assume they are working.

As things stand, in 10 years time, the Royal Navy will consist of one over-sized Aircraft Carrier which can't be deployed in the gulf (because the escort destroyers can't operate there), a destroyer fleet with serious issues, an aging backbone of light frigates of relatively limited functionality, hopefully a functional fleet of HK subs and a couple of old but useful Assault ships.

This does seem to be a somewhat weak fleet for the defence of an island which claims to be a global player.Have the Tories just given up on defence now they've agreed to a new generation of Trident which has no military function whatsoever, it is no use for counter-terrorism, can't be used in a real conflict, and isn't even viable as a deterrent.

How has it gone unnoticed if reported in the national press? *innocent face*

I mean it's been reported but not subject to any further debate or discussion. These issues appear to be quite important but they have (so far) been ignored in terms of in depth discussion in the media.

Moses_ said:

John_M said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I do miss IOS.

That was hubris writ large

Has he come back since May? And that other one, the toothpaste guy.

No he vanished, just like Ash (toothpaste guy).

The toothpaste guy. What an epitaph

I miss Ash.

He was the reason for my username.

I only delurked because I was so fed up with reading his posts and I wanted to vent my frustration at the latest bit of nonsense.

Would be interesting to hear what Ben_M had to say about the current situation. And IOS of course!!

surbiton said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/20/brexit-farm-labour-shortages-fruit-vegetable-harvests-national-farmers-union

Not that we did not know that this could be coming.

Dont worry - the max 2 kids on tax credits, unemployment benefit sanctions if you dont take offered work, self employed people on universal credit being assessed as if they are earning 30h week on minimum wage even if they are not and various other of Osbornes welfare cuts will see a replacement workforce. Hop picker special trains from London to Kent make a comeback.

Lowlander said:

RobD said:

Lowlander said:

May hardly has her problems to seek but it does seem that there is likely to
be some serious issues with the state of the Royal Navy. Apparently, during the furor over the Brexit campaign, it seems to have gone unnoticed that our expensive new Type 45 Destroyers don't actually work.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/07/destroyers-will-break-down-if-sent-to-middle-east-admits-royal-navy

And now it seems that the Type 26 are on an indefinite hold. Let's ignore how this is another broken promise from the Scottish referendum and just consider that it now means at least another 15 to 20 years of Type 23s providing the bulk of the Royal Navy.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/20/navy-fleet-global-combat-frigates-type-26-indefinitely-delayed-mod-mps-clyde-shipbuilding

Perhaps these considerations should have been more important before £31bn short term was committed to replace the Vanguard Fleet. I think the Astute hunter-killers still have some serious problems but let's assume they are working.

As things stand, in 10 years time, the Royal Navy will consist of one over-sized Aircraft Carrier which can't be deployed in the gulf (because the escort destroyers can't operate there), a destroyer fleet with serious issues, an aging backbone of light frigates of relatively limited functionality, hopefully a functional fleet of HK subs and a couple of old but useful Assault ships.

This does seem to be a somewhat weak fleet for the defence of an island which claims to be a global player.Have the Tories just given up on defence now they've agreed to a new generation of Trident which has no military function whatsoever, it is no use for counter-terrorism, can't be used in a real conflict, and isn't even viable as a deterrent.

How has it gone unnoticed if reported in the national press? *innocent face*

I mean it's been reported but not subject to any further debate or discussion. These issues appear to be quite important but they have (so far) been ignored in terms of in depth discussion in the media.

and why do you view Trident as not being a viable deterrent? Is this the whole idea that the US have to authorise our use of it?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Bedfordshire, that's a disgraceful post about Germany. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

It's Gauleiter*.

Not if you are sitting in Greece...Although the Austro Hungarian Empire is a better comparison.

Lowlander said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Lowlander, the approach towards Defence has been dire as long as I can remember. I agree with you that this is a serious issue, though I have little confidence it'll be treated as such.

Anyway, off to flee the sauna, having got a modicum of work done.

Perhaps the Queen should ask for the "Royal" to be removed from the service's name. It hardly reflects any glory on the monarch in its current state.

The HMS Cornwall fiasco wasn't our most glorious moment either.

RobD said:

Lowlander said:

I mean it's been reported but not subject to any further debate or discussion. These issues appear to be quite important but they have (so far) been ignored in terms of in depth discussion in the media.

and why do you view Trident as not being a viable deterrent? Is this the whole idea that the US have to authorise our use of it?

Go to nukemap. Detonate a 100kt W76 warhead anywhere you want. Look at the kill zone. Then consider that the UK has at most 70 of these warheads available for use at any one time. Russia has a lot more than 70 military bases. Even if you only targetting civilian population centres by population (and didn't use multiple warheads on the largest) you would not hit a single Russian city with a populaiton under 250,000.

FF43 said:

Merkel seems keen to stress it will be a UK/EU relationship, not a UK/German relationship. Playing Article 50 by the book, I guess.

Of course she will. Every time May wants something, Merkel will say that, yes she'd love to agree but one of the other countries wouldn't agree. Perfect good cop, bad cop.

JonathanD said:

John_M said:

JonathanD said:

John_M said:

surbiton said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/20/brexit-farm-labour-shortages-fruit-vegetable-harvests-national-farmers-union

Not that we did not know that this could be coming.

I live on the Herefordshire border. We've had seasonal workers coming over for the harvest since well before I was born and certainly before the EEC was even a thing.

I suspect now we will just ship the strawberries in from abroad rather than bother with seasonal workers who just bump up the immigration figures.

Short term immigration isn't included in the net migration figures.

You missed reading the Sun, Daily Telegraph and Mail then during the Referendum and their exclusives on the ONS hiding the true migration figures them.

Plus by the time these guys have paid health insurance, I doubt it will be worth their while.

Like most adults, I believe very little of what the newspapers write for clickbait. I have to believe the ONS.

Bottom line, short term visas are already a thing across several classes of worker (charities, creative & sporting, exchanges, religious workers and youth mobility).

However, I'm guessing you voted Remain. So everything is just too hard to solve. There might be actual paperwork or something.

Lowlander said:

RobD said:

Lowlander said:

RobD said:

Lowlander said:

I mean it's been reported but not subject to any further debate or discussion. These issues appear to be quite important but they have (so far) been ignored in terms of in depth discussion in the media.

and why do you view Trident as not being a viable deterrent? Is this the whole idea that the US have to authorise our use of it?

Go to nukemap. Detonate a 100kt W76 warhead anywhere you want. Look at the kill zone. Then consider that the UK has at most 70 of these warheads available for use at any one time. Russia has a lot more than 70 military bases. Even if you only targetting civilian population centres by population (and didn't use multiple warheads on the largest) you would not hit a single Russian city with a populaiton under 250,000.

But you'd hit all Russian cities with a population of other 250,000? Fair enough. And if it was an all-out engagement with the Russians, the Americans would probably also be involved.

To be honest, I doubt any population centre is targetted other than perhaps four warheads to provide double coverage for command and control in Moscow.

But you make a very important point as to why Trident is so pointless.

the Americans would probably also be involved

The UK is covered by the shield of American MAD deterrence. As such it is completely and utterly unnecessary for the UK to maintain an independent deterrent. Which is how most of NATO operates (to be honest its how all of NATO operates as the US weapons hosted in the Netherlands, Belgium, Turkey etc are of rather questionable worth.

So we can act independently if and when the situation arises. The Falklands show that the US may not immediately act in our interests.

RobD said:

Lowlander said:

RobD said:

Lowlander said:

RobD said:

Lowlander said:

I mean it's been reported but not subject to any further debate or discussion. These issues appear to be quite important but they have (so far) been ignored in terms of in depth discussion in the media.

and why do you view Trident as not being a viable deterrent? Is this the whole idea that the US have to authorise our use of it?

Go to nukemap. Detonate a 100kt W76 warhead anywhere you want. Look at the kill zone. Then consider that the UK has at most 70 of these warheads available for use at any one time. Russia has a lot more than 70 military bases. Even if you only targetting civilian population centres by population (and didn't use multiple warheads on the largest) you would not hit a single Russian city with a populaiton under 250,000.

But you'd hit all Russian cities with a population of other 250,000? Fair enough. And if it was an all-out engagement with the Russians, the Americans would probably also be involved.

To be honest, I doubt any population centre is targetted other than perhaps four warheads to provide double coverage for command and control in Moscow.

But you make a very important point as to why Trident is so pointless.

the Americans would probably also be involved

The UK is covered by the shield of American MAD deterrence. As such it is completely and utterly unnecessary for the UK to maintain an independent deterrent. Which is how most of NATO operates (to be honest its how all of NATO operates as the US weapons hosted in the Netherlands, Belgium, Turkey etc are of rather questionable worth.

So we can act independently if and when the situation arises. The Falklands show that the US may not immediately act in our interests.

The £31bn just comitted for Vanguard replacement would pay for the UK to build two complete Aircraft Carrier squadrons, with full compliments of Lighning IIs and full escort. From a purely functional point of view, it does seem that this would be a much better use for the money in terms of value to NATO.

I do accept there are some political considerations which mean the United States, at least in public, support the renewal of Trident. But that is clearly not a decision based on the military value of the spend.

Casino_Royale said:

Lowlander said:

May hardly has her problems to seek but it does seem that there is likely to
be some serious issues with the state of the Royal Navy. Apparently, during the furor over the Brexit campaign, it seems to have gone unnoticed that our expensive new Type 45 Destroyers don't actually work.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/07/destroyers-will-break-down-if-sent-to-middle-east-admits-royal-navy

And now it seems that the Type 26 are on an indefinite hold. Let's ignore how this is another broken promise from the Scottish referendum and just consider that it now means at least another 15 to 20 years of Type 23s providing the bulk of the Royal Navy.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/20/navy-fleet-global-combat-frigates-type-26-indefinitely-delayed-mod-mps-clyde-shipbuilding

Perhaps these considerations should have been more important before £31bn short term was committed to replace the Vanguard Fleet. I think the Astute hunter-killers still have some serious problems but let's assume they are working.

As things stand, in 10 years time, the Royal Navy will consist of one over-sized Aircraft Carrier which can't be deployed in the gulf (because the escort destroyers can't operate there), a destroyer fleet with serious issues, an aging backbone of light frigates of relatively limited functionality, hopefully a functional fleet of HK subs and a couple of old but useful Assault ships.

This does seem to be a somewhat weak fleet for the defence of an island which claims to be a global player.Have the Tories just given up on defence now they've agreed to a new generation of Trident which has no military function whatsoever, it is no use for counter-terrorism, can't be used in a real conflict, and isn't even viable as a deterrent.

The 2010 defence review was the reason I suspended my (until then) lifelong membership of the Tory party.

I didn't officially rejoin until last year.

I hope May takes a look at this.

Whilst I accept that he inherited a mess of epic proportions it seemed to me that Hammond did remarkably little as Defence Secretary to sort this out. To take an obvious example having 1 admiral to supervise such a modest little navy might well be thought to be excessive. All bar 1 should have been retired and their staff redeployed.

RobD said:

Lowlander said:

The £31bn just comitted for Vanguard replacement would pay for the UK to build two complete Aircraft Carrier squadrons, with full compliments of Lighning IIs and full escort. From a purely functional point of view, it does seem that this would be a much better use for the money in terms of value to NATO.

I do accept there are some political considerations which mean the United States, at least in public, support the renewal of Trident. But that is clearly not a decision based on the military value of the spend.

Just because it is expensive doesn't mean it isn't a viable deterrent. Yeah, there may be other things we could spend it on, but perhaps that should be done in addition to not instead of.

All funded by the Magic Money Tree, right?

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

Lowlander said:

May hardly has her problems to seek but it does seem that there is likely to
be some serious issues with the state of the Royal Navy. Apparently, during the furor over the Brexit campaign, it seems to have gone unnoticed that our expensive new Type 45 Destroyers don't actually work.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/07/destroyers-will-break-down-if-sent-to-middle-east-admits-royal-navy

And now it seems that the Type 26 are on an indefinite hold. Let's ignore how this is another broken promise from the Scottish referendum and just consider that it now means at least another 15 to 20 years of Type 23s providing the bulk of the Royal Navy.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/20/navy-fleet-global-combat-frigates-type-26-indefinitely-delayed-mod-mps-clyde-shipbuilding

Perhaps these considerations should have been more important before £31bn short term was committed to replace the Vanguard Fleet. I think the Astute hunter-killers still have some serious problems but let's assume they are working.

As things stand, in 10 years time, the Royal Navy will consist of one over-sized Aircraft Carrier which can't be deployed in the gulf (because the escort destroyers can't operate there), a destroyer fleet with serious issues, an aging backbone of light frigates of relatively limited functionality, hopefully a functional fleet of HK subs and a couple of old but useful Assault ships.

This does seem to be a somewhat weak fleet for the defence of an island which claims to be a global player.Have the Tories just given up on defence now they've agreed to a new generation of Trident which has no military function whatsoever, it is no use for counter-terrorism, can't be used in a real conflict, and isn't even viable as a deterrent.

The 2010 defence review was the reason I suspended my (until then) lifelong membership of the Tory party.

I didn't officially rejoin until last year.

I hope May takes a look at this.

Whilst I accept that he inherited a mess of epic proportions it seemed to me that Hammond did remarkably little as Defence Secretary to sort this out. To take an obvious example having 1 admiral to supervise such a modest little navy might well be thought to be excessive. All bar 1 should have been retired and their staff redeployed.

UK Defence policy these days does seem to be based around the model first used by Adolf Hitler. In his bunker days.

MyBurningEars said:

Moses_ said:

John_M said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I do miss IOS.

That was hubris writ large

Has he come back since May? And that other one, the toothpaste guy.

No he vanished, just like Ash (toothpaste guy).

The toothpaste guy. What an epitaph

I miss Ash.

He was the reason for my username.

I only delurked because I was so fed up with reading his posts and I wanted to vent my frustration at the latest bit of nonsense.

Would be interesting to hear what Ben_M had to say about the current situation. And IOS of course!!

Yeah he was a character.

Ben M as well but occasionally came out with good posts

As for IOS well he was still shouting about the incredible Labour Ground game as Cameron's tank rolled passed the window at 10pm on election night.

Philip_Thompson said:

Lowlander said:

RobD said:

Lowlander said:

The £31bn just comitted for Vanguard replacement would pay for the UK to build two complete Aircraft Carrier squadrons, with full compliments of Lighning IIs and full escort. From a purely functional point of view, it does seem that this would be a much better use for the money in terms of value to NATO.

I do accept there are some political considerations which mean the United States, at least in public, support the renewal of Trident. But that is clearly not a decision based on the military value of the spend.

Just because it is expensive doesn't mean it isn't a viable deterrent. Yeah, there may be other things we could spend it on, but perhaps that should be done in addition to not instead of.

All funded by the Magic Money Tree, right?

No all funded with just 2% of GDP, so within budget.

We borrow about a tenth of our public sector spend. So there's a little bit of the magic money tree in there.

Lowlander said:

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

Lowlander said:

May hardly has her problems to seek but it does seem that there is likely to
be some serious issues with the state of the Royal Navy. Apparently, during the furor over the Brexit campaign, it seems to have gone unnoticed that our expensive new Type 45 Destroyers don't actually work.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/07/destroyers-will-break-down-if-sent-to-middle-east-admits-royal-navy

And now it seems that the Type 26 are on an indefinite hold. Let's ignore how this is another broken promise from the Scottish referendum and just consider that it now means at least another 15 to 20 years of Type 23s providing the bulk of the Royal Navy.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/20/navy-fleet-global-combat-frigates-type-26-indefinitely-delayed-mod-mps-clyde-shipbuilding

Perhaps these considerations should have been more important before £31bn short term was committed to replace the Vanguard Fleet. I think the Astute hunter-killers still have some serious problems but let's assume they are working.

As things stand, in 10 years time, the Royal Navy will consist of one over-sized Aircraft Carrier which can't be deployed in the gulf (because the escort destroyers can't operate there), a destroyer fleet with serious issues, an aging backbone of light frigates of relatively limited functionality, hopefully a functional fleet of HK subs and a couple of old but useful Assault ships.

This does seem to be a somewhat weak fleet for the defence of an island which claims to be a global player.Have the Tories just given up on defence now they've agreed to a new generation of Trident which has no military function whatsoever, it is no use for counter-terrorism, can't be used in a real conflict, and isn't even viable as a deterrent.

The 2010 defence review was the reason I suspended my (until then) lifelong membership of the Tory party.

I didn't officially rejoin until last year.

I hope May takes a look at this.

Whilst I accept that he inherited a mess of epic proportions it seemed to me that Hammond did remarkably little as Defence Secretary to sort this out. To take an obvious example having 1 admiral to supervise such a modest little navy might well be thought to be excessive. All bar 1 should have been retired and their staff redeployed.

UK Defence policy these days does seem to be based around the model first used by Adolf Hitler. In his bunker days.

Fortunately Hitler never managed to make Nuke tipped V2s or V3s (intercontinental version to be fired at the US and Russia) or it could have turned the course of the war as late as March 1945

Mr Bedfordshire - Nonsense, by that stage the war was over. All it would have done is prolonged the agony. Unless you subscribe to History Channel nonsense about aliens and Die Glocke

Lowlander said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

We are still ranked fourth most powerful navy.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-five-most-powerful-navies-the-planet-10610?page=3

Not sure that article makes much sense. For example it seems to base its judgement on future capability as much as present and it completely misunderstands future capability.

The Royal Navy will soon receive a quantum leap in capability with the construction of two new aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. The two carriers, each weighing up to 70,000 tons fully loaded, will be the largest ships ever to sail in the Royal Navy. The carriers will each be capable of embarking up to 36 F-35B fighter-bombers and a number of helicopters.

The RN will not have two aircraft carriers, it will have one with the second immediately being mothballed. The one that is active will also have nowhere near 36 Lightning IIs.

I thought the position of the second carrier had changed, and it now wouldn't be mothballed?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29075307

Lowlander said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

We are still ranked fourth most powerful navy.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-five-most-powerful-navies-the-planet-10610?page=3

Not sure that article makes much sense. For example it seems to base its judgement on future capability as much as present and it completely misunderstands future capability.

The Royal Navy will soon receive a quantum leap in capability with the construction of two new aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. The two carriers, each weighing up to 70,000 tons fully loaded, will be the largest ships ever to sail in the Royal Navy. The carriers will each be capable of embarking up to 36 F-35B fighter-bombers and a number of helicopters.

The RN will not have two aircraft carriers, it will have one with the second immediately being mothballed. The one that is active will also have nowhere near 36 Lightning IIs.

Also the idea that the RN can rank above the Japanese MSDF is comical. Check out their materiel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Japan_Maritime_Self-Defense_Force_ships

No SSBNs, no SSNs, no supercarriers - that's what makes the RN a greater navy (Japan's is roled for defence locally v. China... ours is a small but global force).

"I know this is the Daily Mail but 260 Captains, 19 warships, 40 admirals. This is about as far from a well run organisation as it would be possible to get. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2465608/Royal-Navys-260-captains-just-19-warships-Defence-cuts-15-times-commanding-officers-vessels.html"


The thing is that not all the captains are actually captains of ships. In fact many are not they just hold the rank. I once saw in my early navy days a captain medical officer . I was so surprised I almost forgot to salute. Admirals are of course the same but hold a lot of other positions unrelated to direct naval operations and of course political positions unrelated to actually being in command of a fleet at sea.

Lowlander said:

DavidL said:

Lowlander said:

UK Defence policy these days does seem to be based around the model first used by Adolf Hitler. In his bunker days.

I know this is the Daily Mail but 260 Captains, 19 warships, 40 admirals. This is about as far from a well run organisation as it would be possible to get. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2465608/Royal-Navys-260-captains-just-19-warships-Defence-cuts-15-times-commanding-officers-vessels.html

Just incredible. More than 2 admirals per active warship.

Presumably all the piddling minehunters and even the RN speed boats have an actual captain.

No they are normally commanded by Lieutenants but are addressed as Captain as they hold the position on the vessel. They are still 2 ringers though.

Occasionally it might be a Lt . Commander but only if it he was close to retirement or he had been *cough* naughty *cough* somewhere else in the service

In my day anyway

SimonStClare said:

psst, new thread!

Doing God's work....

404 on new thread...

New thread

There it was.. Gone

IOS's last post on the following thread from 6th May 2015:

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/05/06/another-3-polls-have-it-neck-and-neck/

AndyJS said:

IOS's last post on the following thread from 6th May 2015:

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/05/06/another-3-polls-have-it-neck-and-neck/

Oh there are some gems on there!

John_M said:

Is there nothing Jeremy Corbyn can't do?

See if we had only voted remain we would never have had these problems with new threads.

Is Rodcrosby banned? Why?

kle4 said:

Speedy said:

RobD said:

Lowlander said:

May hardly has her problems to seek but it does seem that there is likely to
be some serious issues with the state of the Royal Navy. Apparently, during the furor over the Brexit campaign, it seems to have gone unnoticed that our expensive new Type 45 Destroyers don't actually work.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/07/destroyers-will-break-down-if-sent-to-middle-east-admits-royal-navy

And now it seems that the Type 26 are on an indefinite hold. Let's ignore how this is another broken promise from the Scottish referendum and just consider that it now means at least another 15 to 20 years of Type 23s providing the bulk of the Royal Navy.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/20/navy-fleet-global-combat-frigates-type-26-indefinitely-delayed-mod-mps-clyde-shipbuilding

Perhaps these considerations should have been more important before £31bn short term was committed to replace the Vanguard Fleet. I think the Astute hunter-killers still have some serious problems but let's assume they are working.

As things stand, in 10 years time, the Royal Navy will consist of one over-sized Aircraft Carrier which can't be deployed in the gulf (because the escort destroyers can't operate there), a destroyer fleet with serious issues, an aging backbone of light frigates of relatively limited functionality, hopefully a functional fleet of HK subs and a couple of old but useful Assault ships.

This does seem to be a somewhat weak fleet for the defence of an island which claims to be a global player.Have the Tories just given up on defence now they've agreed to a new generation of Trident which has no military function whatsoever, it is no use for counter-terrorism, can't be used in a real conflict, and isn't even viable as a deterrent.

How has it gone unnoticed if reported in the national press? *innocent face*

Are there votes in defence ?
I wonder where all the money in the defence budget goes since Britain has no functional navy or an army of size, does the RAF still exist or is it a sticker now on model airplanes ?

The money goes on very expensive equipment. We will probably end up with one ship, one plane and one tank, by my gods they will be the most expensive single vehicles on the market.

I read that in an american defence review years ago.

The solution was also found in a computer simulation and in an Arthur C. Clarke novel.
It's better to have millions of smaller ones, than one single large one that if it's disabled then it's game over.

Why Labour deserve their problems:

Flag Quote · Off Topic
Tony_MTony_M Posts: 55
May 2015
Just bumped into one of my neighbours at the local Morrisons on Sheppey. Matt is an elderly Labour activist. He told me he'd been telling at one of the local polling stations.

I enquired as to activity and he said voting had been brisk (I was told the same at the station I voted in). I enquired as to how it was going for his bloke and he just shrugged and said "ok". He then added they thought they may trail in 3rd behind the Tories and UKIP. Must admit I was surprised to hear that.

As an aside I told him I dreaded the thought of a Miliband led government. His response; "he's just an ordinary, comprehensive schooled bloke, just like us". I clearly looked shocked, as he asked why I'd pulled the face. I explained I didn't think living in a £2M house was particularly ordinary. His respone; "you're talking rubbish, son".

They clearly don't like facts in the Labour party....

MyBurningEars said:

Moses_ said:

John_M said:

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I do miss IOS.

That was hubris writ large

Has he come back since May? And that other one, the toothpaste guy.

No he vanished, just like Ash (toothpaste guy).

The toothpaste guy. What an epitaph

I miss Ash.

He was the reason for my username.

I only delurked because I was so fed up with reading his posts and I wanted to vent my frustration at the latest bit of nonsense.

Would be interesting to hear what Ben_M had to say about the current situation. And IOS of course!!

Is that Ben_M of the magic money tree, who believed that governments can always print as much money as they liked with no consequence?

.