politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB only 7% behind according to YouGov but another, from TN
Comments
-
They are not stupid. If the UK and France wants to wave their 6 inches to show off how important they are 60 odd years after losing their respective empires, then others will get on the free ride.MaxPB said:
16% of EU GDP, around 14% including Turkey. Between the UK and France we account for around half of all NATO spending. Eastern Europe and Germany are the main culprits of underspending.JonathanD said:
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?John_M said:
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.taffys said:''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
The UK wants to feel "safe". Do the Europeans feel unsafe ? And the kind of thing they feel unsafe about cannot be taken care of by having 4 ridiculously overpriced boats.
As Sky showed us last week. All our Type 45 destroyers were in the docks at the same time. So much for rotation.
Basically, our Military-Industrial complex is taking us for an expensive ride.
http://news.sky.com/story/all-royal-navys-advanced-destroyers-in-port-105169910 -
328 all out.
When they were 74-4 and 110-5, that didn't look likely.
Look forward to the highlights.0 -
Thanks for the information.Animal_pb said:
Not just banking, but (re)insurance (particularly the major broking operations, which are potentially more exposed to the EU generally) and other FS sub-sectors are now, quietly, making just that point in the consultation exercises going on.MTimT said:
I am not really that well informed on banking issues, but my feeling is that, at some stage EU banking regulations will be an own goal, so it is important for the City to be governed not by EU regulations, but our own so that it will be well-positioned at that point to take advantage of the EU own goals.Animal_pb said:
TBH, equivalence is much more important for most financial services than passporting. The ease of using an EU domiciled subsidiary for any retail business makes it relatively unpainful. The key is ensuring the UK remains the most attractive site for the main FS activities; control of regulation (salary cap, anyone?), CFC rules and the like are much more significant in this regard.MTimT said:
That is precisely where my thinking is.Richard_Nabavi said:
Personally, I think the EEA route is a dead horse and we should bite the bullet and go for the full Monty Brexit. We should perhaps even give up on EU passporting as well, on the grounds that (a) we're probably not going to get it anyway, (b) if we were able to get it, it would mean the City continuing to be contaminated by EU financial regulation, the disadvantage of which may in the end outweigh the loss of revenue from EU passporting, and (c) speed of negotiation.0 -
It is uncanny how remarks like this come very soon before a wicket falls.FrancisUrquhart said:That's 30 added for 9th wicket ....keep going lads.
0 -
Mr. Surbiton, when a state takes its military security for granted based on prolonged peace and the absence of an external threat, it gets a rude awakening sooner or later.
Rome went from undisputed dominance to near collapse in less than a century.0 -
Didn't I read somewhere that they have to come back home to be recharged - rather like a Dyson automatic cleaning instrument.surbiton said:
They are not stupid. If the UK and France wants to wave their 6 inches to show off how important they are 60 odd years after losing their respective empires, then others will get on the free ride.MaxPB said:
16% of EU GDP, around 14% including Turkey. Between the UK and France we account for around half of all NATO spending. Eastern Europe and Germany are the main culprits of underspending.JonathanD said:
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?John_M said:
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.taffys said:''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
The UK wants to feel "safe". Do the Europeans feel unsafe ? And the kind of thing they feel unsafe about cannot be taken care of by having 4 ridiculously overpriced boats.
As Sky showed us last week. All our Type 45 destroyers were in the docks at the same time. So much for rotation.
Basically, our Military-Industrial complex is taking us for an expensive ride.
http://news.sky.com/story/all-royal-navys-advanced-destroyers-in-port-105169910 -
Wooophs....SouthamObserver said:
It is uncanny how remarks like this come very soon before a wicket falls.FrancisUrquhart said:That's 30 added for 9th wicket ....keep going lads.
0 -
How dare you - this is a timeless masterpiece!JackW said:
Credit cards !! ... how vulgar ...Charles said:Didn't they rebrand Access as MasterCard aeons ago anyway?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9pFUsOaZZA
0 -
I doubt those in the Baltic feel particularly safe.surbiton said:
They are not stupid. If the UK and France wants to wave their 6 inches to show off how important they are 60 odd years after losing their respective empires, then others will get on the free ride.MaxPB said:
16% of EU GDP, around 14% including Turkey. Between the UK and France we account for around half of all NATO spending. Eastern Europe and Germany are the main culprits of underspending.JonathanD said:
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?John_M said:
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.taffys said:''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
The UK wants to feel "safe". Do the Europeans feel unsafe ? And the kind of thing they feel unsafe about cannot be taken care of by having 4 ridiculously overpriced boats.
As Sky showed us last week. All our Type 45 destroyers were in the docks at the same time. So much for rotation.
Basically, our Military-Industrial complex is taking us for an expensive ride.
http://news.sky.com/story/all-royal-navys-advanced-destroyers-in-port-105169910 -
0
-
That's not necessarily the most helpful split (or, probably, the right total - it's hellishly difficult to capture a lot of these stats). At the risk of stating the obvious, the useful split is the proportion of all of the above related to direct provision (not, it should be noted, intermediation) of retail/personal lines products - that's what we need to move to (say) Dublin if the UK loses passporting. It will still be less than half the total, probably; it will certainly be the less profitable part of the whole.John_M said:
FWIW, the IFS SM report put the value of UK financial services exports to the EU at £23.1 billion, split £2.4billion insurance & pensions, remainder banking and investment services. Figures are from 2014 though.Animal_pb said:
Not just banking, but (re)insurance (particularly the major broking operations, which are potentially more exposed to the EU generally) and other FS sub-sectors are now, quietly, making just that point in the consultation exercises going on.MTimT said:
I am not really that well informed on banking issues, but my feeling is that, at some stage EU banking regulations will be an own goal, so it is important for the City to be governed not by EU regulations, but our own so that it will be well-positioned at that point to take advantage of the EU own goals.Animal_pb said:
TBH, equivalence is much more important for most financial services than passporting. The ease of using an EU domiciled subsidiary for any retail business makes it relatively unpainful. The key is ensuring the UK remains the most attractive site for the main FS activities; control of regulation (salary cap, anyone?), CFC rules and the like are much more significant in this regard.MTimT said:
That is precisely where my thinking is.Richard_Nabavi said:
Personally, I think the EEA route is a dead horse and we should bite the bullet and go for the full Monty Brexit. We should perhaps even give up on EU passporting as well, on the grounds that (a) we're probably not going to get it anyway, (b) if we were able to get it, it would mean the City continuing to be contaminated by EU financial regulation, the disadvantage of which may in the end outweigh the loss of revenue from EU passporting, and (c) speed of negotiation.0 -
In my youth anything over 300 was looked upon as reasonable and 400 was a very good score . Now anything less than 400 is looked upon as a collapse.ydoethur said:328 all out.
When they were 74-4 and 110-5, that didn't look likely.
Look forward to the highlights.
(In 1976 IIRC the West Indies were castigated for bowling less than 100 overs a day - I can remember Ritchie complaining when fewer than 100 balls an hour were delivered.)0 -
0
-
You're labouring under a delusional level of paranoia. What madness do you think the EUcrats are going to get up to?MaxPB said:
And give the unelected Eurocrats an expeditionary force? Madness.JonathanD said:
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.RobD said:
15% of EU, (but that doesn't include Turkey)JonathanD said:
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?John_M said:
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.taffys said:''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
Edit: actually it doesn't make much difference, 14.7%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
The 90's and 00's golden age of the liberal West being the dominant force in the world are ending and there is far worse than Brussels out there. The US is pivoting to be able deal with China so Europe needs to be more in charge of its own fate with respect to Russia, North Africa and the near middle east at least.0 -
It shows no-one wants to vote for either candidate.nunu said:
What these polls show despite the large national leads this race is still close as f.Speedy said:Busy day for american polling, 4 PPP polls in 2 days:
N.Carolina
Trump 43
Hillary 41
S.Carolina
Trump 41
Hillary 39
N.H.
Hillary 50
Trump 37
Florida
Hillary 46
Trump 43
Also 2 polls from Gravis:
Maine
Hillary 43
Trump 33
Georgia
Trump 43
Hillary 39
And one from Suffolk:
Iowa
Trump 37
Hillary 36
The very uneven picture of the Trump Collapse continues.
S.Carolina and Maine join the list of states recording it, Georgia maybe moving out of the list.0 -
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.JonathanD said:
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.RobD said:
15% of EU, (but that doesn't include Turkey)JonathanD said:
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?John_M said:
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.taffys said:''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
Edit: actually it doesn't make much difference, 14.7%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%0 -
WIIIIIIICCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKETTTTTTTTTTTTT....0
-
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with thatsurbiton said:
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.JonathanD said:
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.RobD said:
15% of EU, (but that doesn't include Turkey)JonathanD said:
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?John_M said:
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.taffys said:''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
Edit: actually it doesn't make much difference, 14.7%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%
0 -
Should have used a night watchmanFrancisUrquhart said:WIIIIIIICCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKETTTTTTTTTTTTT....
0 -
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.RobD said:
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with thatsurbiton said:
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.JonathanD said:
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.RobD said:
15% of EU, (but that doesn't include Turkey)JonathanD said:
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?John_M said:
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.taffys said:''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
Edit: actually it doesn't make much difference, 14.7%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%0 -
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.RobD said:
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with thatsurbiton said:
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.JonathanD said:
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.RobD said:
15% of EU, (but that doesn't include Turkey)JonathanD said:
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?John_M said:
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.taffys said:''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
Edit: actually it doesn't make much difference, 14.7%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%0 -
So they let them spend more than 2% of their GDP on defence.RobD said:
I doubt those in the Baltic feel particularly safe.surbiton said:
They are not stupid. If the UK and France wants to wave their 6 inches to show off how important they are 60 odd years after losing their respective empires, then others will get on the free ride.MaxPB said:
16% of EU GDP, around 14% including Turkey. Between the UK and France we account for around half of all NATO spending. Eastern Europe and Germany are the main culprits of underspending.JonathanD said:
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?John_M said:
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.taffys said:''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
The UK wants to feel "safe". Do the Europeans feel unsafe ? And the kind of thing they feel unsafe about cannot be taken care of by having 4 ridiculously overpriced boats.
As Sky showed us last week. All our Type 45 destroyers were in the docks at the same time. So much for rotation.
Basically, our Military-Industrial complex is taking us for an expensive ride.
http://news.sky.com/story/all-royal-navys-advanced-destroyers-in-port-105169910 -
I can't imagine Europe being overly inclined to trust the Germans with too big an armoury. They have form.surbiton said:
They are not stupid. If the UK and France wants to wave their 6 inches to show off how important they are 60 odd years after losing their respective empires, then others will get on the free ride.MaxPB said:
16% of EU GDP, around 14% including Turkey. Between the UK and France we account for around half of all NATO spending. Eastern Europe and Germany are the main culprits of underspending.JonathanD said:
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?John_M said:
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.taffys said:''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
The UK wants to feel "safe". Do the Europeans feel unsafe ? And the kind of thing they feel unsafe about cannot be taken care of by having 4 ridiculously overpriced boats.
As Sky showed us last week. All our Type 45 destroyers were in the docks at the same time. So much for rotation.
Basically, our Military-Industrial complex is taking us for an expensive ride.
http://news.sky.com/story/all-royal-navys-advanced-destroyers-in-port-105169910 -
I mean the fact that they have only one land border (US), and are many miles from another country (excluding that tiny french island in Newfoundland). Less need for an expansive army.surbiton said:
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.RobD said:
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with thatsurbiton said:
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.JonathanD said:
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.RobD said:
15% of EU, (but that doesn't include Turkey)JonathanD said:
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?John_M said:
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.taffys said:''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
Edit: actually it doesn't make much difference, 14.7%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%0 -
Great. So we do it for them. Meanwhile they spend on R&D and become the most powerful industrial power.chestnut said:
I can't imagine Europe being overly inclined to trust the Germans with too big an armoury. They have form.surbiton said:
They are not stupid. If the UK and France wants to wave their 6 inches to show off how important they are 60 odd years after losing their respective empires, then others will get on the free ride.MaxPB said:
16% of EU GDP, around 14% including Turkey. Between the UK and France we account for around half of all NATO spending. Eastern Europe and Germany are the main culprits of underspending.JonathanD said:
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?John_M said:
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.taffys said:''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
The UK wants to feel "safe". Do the Europeans feel unsafe ? And the kind of thing they feel unsafe about cannot be taken care of by having 4 ridiculously overpriced boats.
As Sky showed us last week. All our Type 45 destroyers were in the docks at the same time. So much for rotation.
Basically, our Military-Industrial complex is taking us for an expensive ride.
http://news.sky.com/story/all-royal-navys-advanced-destroyers-in-port-10516991
I wonder who won the war ?0 -
Yes but we are still 3 months from polling day and of course Remain started the EUref campaign with a 15% lead, bigger than Hillary had even immediately after the DNC conventionAlistair said:
Of the last 19 polls before the EU referendum 8 had Leave in the lead.Indigo said:
Are we entirely discounting the possibility that Trump will pick up a fat pile of blue collar voters that generally don't vote or reply to opinion polls, analogous to what was demonstrated so recently in the EU Referendum ?williamglenn said:
It entirely depends where the votes are cast. Hillary looks likely to do well in states she isn't likely to win and Trump looks likely to do worst in states which he would lose in any case. There's no evidence that Hillary's vote will be distributed more efficiently.Alistair said:
You do realise Trump probably needs to get more votes than Clinton to win?williamglenn said:
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.JackW said:National - UPI/CVoter
Clinton 48.1 .. Trump 45.9
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/08/11/UPICVoter-poll-Trump-cuts-Clintons-lead-to-pre-convention-levels/2971470852071/?spt=hts&or=2
Of the last 19 US Presidential polls 0 have Trump in the lead.0 -
They = then? I agree they should chip in their fair share, although also see the point about economies of scale.surbiton said:
So they let them spend more than 2% of their GDP on defence.RobD said:
I doubt those in the Baltic feel particularly safe.surbiton said:
They are not stupid. If the UK and France wants to wave their 6 inches to show off how important they are 60 odd years after losing their respective empires, then others will get on the free ride.MaxPB said:
16% of EU GDP, around 14% including Turkey. Between the UK and France we account for around half of all NATO spending. Eastern Europe and Germany are the main culprits of underspending.JonathanD said:
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?John_M said:
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.taffys said:''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
The UK wants to feel "safe". Do the Europeans feel unsafe ? And the kind of thing they feel unsafe about cannot be taken care of by having 4 ridiculously overpriced boats.
As Sky showed us last week. All our Type 45 destroyers were in the docks at the same time. So much for rotation.
Basically, our Military-Industrial complex is taking us for an expensive ride.
http://news.sky.com/story/all-royal-navys-advanced-destroyers-in-port-105169910 -
The USA must be defending themselves from a Mexican invasion. Wait a minute.........someone should tell that idiot that there is no need to build a wall. The Mexicans can be nuked !RobD said:
I mean the fact that they have only one land border (US), and are many miles from another country (excluding that tiny french island in Newfoundland). Less need for an expansive army.surbiton said:
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.RobD said:
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with thatsurbiton said:
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.JonathanD said:
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.RobD said:
15% of EU, (but that doesn't include Turkey)JonathanD said:
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?John_M said:
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.taffys said:''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
Edit: actually it doesn't make much difference, 14.7%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%0 -
Who knows why the US spends so much on their military, but the Canadians get a good deal out of it.surbiton said:
The USA must be defending themselves from a Mexican invasion. Wait a minute.........RobD said:
I mean the fact that they have only one land border (US), and are many miles from another country (excluding that tiny french island in Newfoundland). Less need for an expansive army.surbiton said:
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.RobD said:
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with thatsurbiton said:
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.JonathanD said:
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.RobD said:
15% of EU, (but that doesn't include Turkey)JonathanD said:
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?John_M said:
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.taffys said:''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
Edit: actually it doesn't make much difference, 14.7%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%
0 -
There is if 2012 is a guide, Obama won 51% of the popular vote but 62% of Electoral College votes. Even if Trump wins all the Romney states and adds Nevada, Iowa, Florida and Ohio, Hillary would still win 273-265williamglenn said:
It entirely depends where the votes are cast. Hillary looks likely to do well in states she isn't likely to win and Trump looks likely to do worst in states which he would lose in any case. There's no evidence that Hillary's vote will be distributed more efficiently.Alistair said:
You do realise Trump probably needs to get more votes than Clinton to win?williamglenn said:
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.JackW said:National - UPI/CVoter
Clinton 48.1 .. Trump 45.9
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/08/11/UPICVoter-poll-Trump-cuts-Clintons-lead-to-pre-convention-levels/2971470852071/?spt=hts&or=20 -
Like that is ever going to happen. How many European countries who are members of NATO currently fulfill their existing obligations in terms of defence expenditure? The idea that Europe is ever going to be more in charge of its own fate as regards defence belongs in Wolkenkuckucksheim.JonathanD said:
You're labouring under a delusional level of paranoia. What madness do you think the EUcrats are going to get up to?MaxPB said:
And give the unelected Eurocrats an expeditionary force? Madness.JonathanD said:
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.RobD said:
15% of EU, (but that doesn't include Turkey)JonathanD said:
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?John_M said:
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.taffys said:''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
Edit: actually it doesn't make much difference, 14.7%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
The 90's and 00's golden age of the liberal West being the dominant force in the world are ending and there is far worse than Brussels out there. The US is pivoting to be able deal with China so Europe needs to be more in charge of its own fate with respect to Russia, North Africa and the near middle east at least.0 -
Silver in the two man punting.0
-
The Senate may not be sympathetic to Trump, a GOP controlled House would be far more so, Republicans in the House initially voted against the bank bailout in 2008 after all and are very tough on immigrationIndigo said:
I don't. But I would be nervous about putting much on Hillary because it smells like a EU Ref re-run with Trump getting a significant boost from previous non-voters, and the polls are not far enough apart to discount it.rcs1000 said:
Why do you think a protectionist USA would be good for the UK?Indigo said:
It wasn't for LEAVE, so I am cautious.logical_song said:
You guys think that Trump will have efficiently distributed votes (link please) and that he will get non-voters to vote this time (link please).Indigo said:
Are we entirely discounting the possibility that Trump will pick up a fat pile of blue collar voters that generally don't vote or reply to opinion polls, analogous to what was demonstrated so recently in the EU Referendum ?williamglenn said:
It entirely depends where the votes are cast. Hillary looks likely to do well in states she isn't likely to win and Trump looks likely to do worst in states which he would lose in any case. There's no evidence that Hillary's vote will be distributed more efficiently.Alistair said:
You do realise Trump probably needs to get more votes than Clinton to win?williamglenn said:
If Trump is still within 2.2% of Clinton after the last few weeks it must be worrying for anyone backing her.JackW said:National - UPI/CVoter
Clinton 48.1 .. Trump 45.9
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/08/11/UPICVoter-poll-Trump-cuts-Clintons-lead-to-pre-convention-levels/2971470852071/?spt=hts&or=2
Could that be wishful thinking?
I am dubious about how protectionist the USA will be anyway unless there is a massive Trump landslide, the limits of executive power might get tested quite rapidly against a pro-business, or at least pro-profit, congress. Trump scraping over the line by a fraction of a percent won't have the mandate to carry congress with him, a Trump landslide of 60%+ might, but is vanishingly unlikely.0 -
Not if they hit Alaska first!surbiton said:
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.RobD said:
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with thatsurbiton said:
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.JonathanD said:
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.RobD said:
15% of EU, (but that doesn't include Turkey)JonathanD said:
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?John_M said:
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.taffys said:''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
Edit: actually it doesn't make much difference, 14.7%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%0 -
Snow worries.HYUFD said:
Not if they hit Alaska first!surbiton said:
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.RobD said:
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with thatsurbiton said:
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.JonathanD said:
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.RobD said:
15% of EU, (but that doesn't include Turkey)JonathanD said:
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?John_M said:
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.taffys said:''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
Edit: actually it doesn't make much difference, 14.7%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%0 -
Were those the 3 that ran away that the BBC / Guardian kept telling us they were all innocent and came from good families, until a video emerged of one of their fathers involved in extremist supporting demo?SeanT said:One of those East London ISIS schoolgirls is dead
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/11/london-schoolgirl-kadiza-sultana-who-joined-isis-believed-killed-in-syria-airstrike
Nice details: "A European woman who recently tried to flee Syria was publicly beaten to death by ISIS"
Prediction: ISIS in its death throes will be like the Khmer Rouge, a devouring of the revolution's children, where everyone denounce everyone else as spies; a crescendo of cruelty and a final orgy of desperate killing....
Then silence0 -
Her foreign policy expertise rested on the fact that the missiles would go over Alaska. That was her "experience" to become the Commander-in-Chief.HYUFD said:
Not if they hit Alaska first!surbiton said:
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.RobD said:
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with thatsurbiton said:
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.JonathanD said:
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.RobD said:
15% of EU, (but that doesn't include Turkey)JonathanD said:
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?John_M said:
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.taffys said:''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
Edit: actually it doesn't make much difference, 14.7%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%
Given a choice between Palin and Trump, I might go with the former.0 -
Provided they avoid AnchorageOmnium said:
Snow worries.HYUFD said:
Not if they hit Alaska first!surbiton said:
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.RobD said:
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with thatsurbiton said:
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.JonathanD said:
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.RobD said:
15% of EU, (but that doesn't include Turkey)JonathanD said:
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?John_M said:
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.taffys said:''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
Edit: actually it doesn't make much difference, 14.7%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%0 -
Mr. T, I largely agree (congrats on your forthcoming Spectator article, incidentally. Seems to be all the rage these days for PBers), but would add a significant postscript. The geographical 'country' will be defeated, but the more common terrorism is here to stay. IS will go from being a nation that can be fought to an idea, a philosophy of madmen.0
-
Didn't the families also initially try to lay all the blame with the authorities? But, I am guessing taking your daughter on an extremist march doesn't have any impact on them.SeanT said:
Yep. A gruesome justice has been served.FrancisUrquhart said:
Were those the 3 that ran away that the BBC / Guardian kept telling us they were all innocent and came from good families, until a video emerged of one of their fathers involved in extremist supporting demo?SeanT said:One of those East London ISIS schoolgirls is dead
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/11/london-schoolgirl-kadiza-sultana-who-joined-isis-believed-killed-in-syria-airstrike
Nice details: "A European woman who recently tried to flee Syria was publicly beaten to death by ISIS"
Prediction: ISIS in its death throes will be like the Khmer Rouge, a devouring of the revolution's children, where everyone denounce everyone else as spies; a crescendo of cruelty and a final orgy of desperate killing....
Then silence0 -
Mr. Urquhart, indeed.0
-
And then they kill some ice. Alaska has nothing to fear from a bit of random warming.HYUFD said:
Provided they avoid AnchorageOmnium said:
Snow worries.HYUFD said:
Not if they hit Alaska first!surbiton said:
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.RobD said:
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with thatsurbiton said:
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.JonathanD said:
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.RobD said:
15% of EU, (but that doesn't include Turkey)JonathanD said:
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?John_M said:
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.taffys said:''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
Edit: actually it doesn't make much difference, 14.7%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%
Similarly Russia has always had places like Siberia as a defence. Lighting it up with stuff makes it better.
We have Scotland - it should be much the same, but the locals like it dowdy.
0 -
5-0 down in the sevens at half time...but we have the wind behind for the second.0
-
Oh no. What a shame. I'm astonished.SeanT said:One of those East London ISIS schoolgirls is dead
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/11/london-schoolgirl-kadiza-sultana-who-joined-isis-believed-killed-in-syria-airstrike
Nice details: "A European woman who recently tried to flee Syria was publicly beaten to death by ISIS"
Prediction: ISIS in its death throes will be like the Khmer Rouge, a devouring of the revolution's children, where everyone denounce everyone else as spies; a crescendo of cruelty and a final orgy of desperate killing....
Then silence0 -
I blame the police, MI5, MI6, the turks, the government, the Daily Mail, the Islamophobic brits...MaxPB said:
Oh no. What a shame. I'm astonished.SeanT said:One of those East London ISIS schoolgirls is dead
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/11/london-schoolgirl-kadiza-sultana-who-joined-isis-believed-killed-in-syria-airstrike
Nice details: "A European woman who recently tried to flee Syria was publicly beaten to death by ISIS"
Prediction: ISIS in its death throes will be like the Khmer Rouge, a devouring of the revolution's children, where everyone denounce everyone else as spies; a crescendo of cruelty and a final orgy of desperate killing....
Then silence0 -
Mr. T, ideas are ephemeral and will flourish online. Money will still come from the places that fund IS/Daesh. I agree it'll be a blow but the lunatics, but, unlike the Khmer Rouge, it'll be more like the ending of an act rather than the final curtain.
Also worrying to see the way Turkey's going.0 -
GB tryyyyyyyyyy......0
-
It is really interesting that so many Team GB 7's players are failed 15 aside players. You would have thought somebody like Dan Norton would be lethal weapon in 15s.0
-
If ISIS is destroyed, or at least becomes so weak it is no longer a threat, Assad will then turn his attention to crushing the FSA and remaining more moderate rebels, which with Russian support he will most likely achieve. It would be too late for Hillary or Obama to do anything effective to prop them up short of a full scale Cold War 2 and Trump if he wins would largely agree with Putin anyway. In a post Brexit world with Putin having given backing to Erdogan during his recent coup and being closer to the Chinese leadership than the US president it would confirm Putin as effectively the most powerful man in the world at present, at least in foreign policy and military termsSeanT said:
Sure. But the terrorism will lack a heartland, and a source of bombs, arms, ideas, money, recruits; and a place to train. And the whole concept of Islamism will have taken a severe knock: as the Caliphate is seen to be defeated.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. T, I largely agree (congrats on your forthcoming Spectator article, incidentally. Seems to be all the rage these days for PBers), but would add a significant postscript. The geographical 'country' will be defeated, but the more common terrorism is here to stay. IS will go from being a nation that can be fought to an idea, a philosophy of madmen.
With luck we will eventually go back to a pre 9/11 situation, where Islamic terrorism was a threat but quite sporadic, and ineffective.
Eventually. Maybe.
Even if it doesn't it's good to see ISIS being utterly exterminated. Apparently there are just 15,000 ISIS soldiers left, down from 60,000 at the peak. Tens of thousands have been slaughtered.
Yay.0 -
300,000 people live in Anchorage and the surrounding areaOmnium said:
And then they kill some ice. Alaska has nothing to fear from a bit of random warming.HYUFD said:
Provided they avoid AnchorageOmnium said:
Snow worries.HYUFD said:
Not if they hit Alaska first!surbiton said:
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.RobD said:
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with thatsurbiton said:
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.JonathanD said:
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.RobD said:
15% of EU, (but that doesn't include Turkey)JonathanD said:
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?John_M said:
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.taffys said:''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
Edit: actually it doesn't make much difference, 14.7%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%
Similarly Russia has always had places like Siberia as a defence. Lighting it up with stuff makes it better.
We have Scotland - it should be much the same, but the locals like it dowdy.0 -
It would be a tough choicesurbiton said:
Her foreign policy expertise rested on the fact that the missiles would go over Alaska. That was her "experience" to become the Commander-in-Chief.HYUFD said:
Not if they hit Alaska first!surbiton said:
Is it hugely different from the USA ? As Sarah Palin would have said, the missiles have to go over Canada to hit the USA.RobD said:
Canada's geographical position may have something to do with thatsurbiton said:
Logically, that is correct. There has to be a pooling of resources for the big stuff. Just paying salaries to personnel does not make the country safer.JonathanD said:
Hmm, I hadn't realised our GDP was that low a percentage.RobD said:
15% of EU, (but that doesn't include Turkey)JonathanD said:
UK is about 20% of total European GDP?John_M said:
The 2016 NATO defence expenditures came out recently. The UK accounts for about a quarter of European NATO defence spend.taffys said:''The news from Ukraine is getting progressively more ominous by the hour. I fear we may wake to a Russian invation one morning soon.''
More importantly, what are the Germans going to do about it.
Give the only western European nation with decent armed forces a giant kicking on trade, apparently.
Edit: actually it doesn't make much difference, 14.7%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
Ultimately there are too many small armies in the EU to have decent military effectiveness. Alot of them seem to be job creation schemes rather than actual combat units. The sooner an EU army happens the better.
BTW, Canada only spends 1% of GDP on defence. Fascist Hungary spends 0.9%
Given a choice between Palin and Trump, I might go with the former.0 -
There is moderate FSA left. They are all islamists. The moderate types are all dead already, they've been killed by the islamists and Assad/Russia.HYUFD said:
If ISIS is destroyed, or at least becomes so weak it is no longer a threat, Assad will then turn his attention to crushing the FSA and remaining more moderate rebels, which with Russian support he will most likely achieve. It would be too late for Hillary or Obama to do anything effective to prop them up short of a full scale Cold War 2 and Trump if he wins would largely agree with Putin anyway. In a post Brexit world with Putin having given backing to Erdogan during his recent coup and being closer to the Chinese leadership than the US president it would confirm Putin as effectively the most powerful man in the world at present, at least in foreign policy and military termsSeanT said:
Sure. But the terrorism will lack a heartland, and a source of bombs, arms, ideas, money, recruits; and a place to train. And the whole concept of Islamism will have taken a severe knock: as the Caliphate is seen to be defeated.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. T, I largely agree (congrats on your forthcoming Spectator article, incidentally. Seems to be all the rage these days for PBers), but would add a significant postscript. The geographical 'country' will be defeated, but the more common terrorism is here to stay. IS will go from being a nation that can be fought to an idea, a philosophy of madmen.
With luck we will eventually go back to a pre 9/11 situation, where Islamic terrorism was a threat but quite sporadic, and ineffective.
Eventually. Maybe.
Even if it doesn't it's good to see ISIS being utterly exterminated. Apparently there are just 15,000 ISIS soldiers left, down from 60,000 at the peak. Tens of thousands have been slaughtered.
Yay.0 -
The worry is not the soldiers in Syria/ Iraq/ Libya but 'sleepers' in the EU and UK.SeanT said:One of those East London ISIS schoolgirls is dead
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/11/london-schoolgirl-kadiza-sultana-who-joined-isis-believed-killed-in-syria-airstrike
Nice details: "A European woman who recently tried to flee Syria was publicly beaten to death by ISIS"
Prediction: ISIS in its death throes will be like the Khmer Rouge, a devouring of the revolution's children, where everyone denounce everyone else as spies; a crescendo of cruelty and a final orgy of desperate killing....
Then silence0 -
15s left......can't watch....0
-
Well whatever they are they will not have much chance when they are the last ones standing against Assad and PutinMaxPB said:
There is moderate FSA left. They are all islamists. The moderate types are all dead already, they've been killed by the islamists and Assad/Russia.HYUFD said:
If ISIS is destroyed, or at least becomes so weak it is no longer a threat, Assad will then turn his attention to crushing the FSA and remaining more moderate rebels, which with Russian support he will most likely achieve. It would be too late for Hillary or Obama to do anything effective to prop them up short of a full scale Cold War 2 and Trump if he wins would largely agree with Putin anyway. In a post Brexit world with Putin having given backing to Erdogan during his recent coup and being closer to the Chinese leadership than the US president it would confirm Putin as effectively the most powerful man in the world at present, at least in foreign policy and military termsSeanT said:
Sure. But the terrorism will lack a heartland, and a source of bombs, arms, ideas, money, recruits; and a place to train. And the whole concept of Islamism will have taken a severe knock: as the Caliphate is seen to be defeated.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. T, I largely agree (congrats on your forthcoming Spectator article, incidentally. Seems to be all the rage these days for PBers), but would add a significant postscript. The geographical 'country' will be defeated, but the more common terrorism is here to stay. IS will go from being a nation that can be fought to an idea, a philosophy of madmen.
With luck we will eventually go back to a pre 9/11 situation, where Islamic terrorism was a threat but quite sporadic, and ineffective.
Eventually. Maybe.
Even if it doesn't it's good to see ISIS being utterly exterminated. Apparently there are just 15,000 ISIS soldiers left, down from 60,000 at the peak. Tens of thousands have been slaughtered.
Yay.0 -
F##king disgraceful decision...0
-
Another medal on the way.....will it be gold or silver...0
-
BREAKING NEWS: One woman killed and at least 10 injured in Thailand – including foreign tourists - after two bombs explode at a beach hotspot
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3735034/At-12-injured-Thailand-two-motorbike-bombs-explode-tourist-hotspot.html0 -
Andy Murray playing like a Scotsman....Has lost 8 games in a row and looks like he is going to lose.0
-
He is certainly better than ISIS but more dangerous and powerful than Erdogan. If Trump wins the presidency or even if Hillary wins (in the lame duck period of Obama's presidency) I would not rule out him creating an incident in the Baltics to justify a Russian invasion, he is an ex KGB man after all and he clearly wants to restore Russia to the strength it had when it was the USSR. He knows Trump will do nothing to protect the Baltics and Obama would be too weak to do anythingSeanT said:
I don't feel the expected dread about Putin. He's a ruthless, charmless autocrat - but no worse (and arguably better) than our supposed ally Erdogan.HYUFD said:
If ISIS is destroyed, or at least becomes so weak it is no longer a threat, Assad will then turn his attention to crushing the FSA and remaining more moderate rebels, which with Russian support he will most likely achieve. It would be too late for Hillary or Obama to do anything effective to prop them up short of a full scale Cold War 2 and Trump if he wins would largely agree with Putin anyway. In a post Brexit world with Putin having given backing to Erdogan during his recent coup and being closer to the Chinese leadership than the US president it would confirm Putin as effectively the most powerful man in the world at present, at least in foreign policy and military termsSeanT said:
Sure. But the terrorism will lack a heartland, and a source of bombs, arms, ideas, money, recruits; and a place to train. And the whole concept of Islamism will have taken a severe knock: as the Caliphate is seen to be defeated.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. T, I largely agree (congrats on your forthcoming Spectator article, incidentally. Seems to be all the rage these days for PBers), but would add a significant postscript. The geographical 'country' will be defeated, but the more common terrorism is here to stay. IS will go from being a nation that can be fought to an idea, a philosophy of madmen.
With luck we will eventually go back to a pre 9/11 situation, where Islamic terrorism was a threat but quite sporadic, and ineffective.
Eventually. Maybe.
Even if it doesn't it's good to see ISIS being utterly exterminated. Apparently there are just 15,000 ISIS soldiers left, down from 60,000 at the peak. Tens of thousands have been slaughtered.
Yay.
He is no threat to the UK, unless he attacks the Baltics and destabilises NATO, which I don't think he will (what's the point)0 -
Murray breaks back in 3rd set. Going to the wire, by the look of it.FrancisUrquhart said:Andy Murray playing like a Scotsman....Has lost 8 games in a row and looks like he is going to lose.
0 -
Georgia .. New York .. Maine - Gravis
GA - Clinton 44 .. Trump 45
NY - Clinton 53 .. Trump 36
ME - Clinton 46 .. Trump 36
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Gravis.GA.8-8-16.pdf
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Gravis.NY.8-8-16.pdf
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Gravis.ME.8-8-16.pdf
0 -
Sad news and another popular holiday destination moves off the tourist listFrancisUrquhart said:BREAKING NEWS: One woman killed and at least 10 injured in Thailand – including foreign tourists - after two bombs explode at a beach hotspot
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3735034/At-12-injured-Thailand-two-motorbike-bombs-explode-tourist-hotspot.html0 -
Dangerous to who exactly?HYUFD said:
He is certainly better than ISIS but more dangerous and powerful than Erdogan. If Trump wins the presidency or even if Hillary wins (in the lame duck period of Obama's presidency) I would not rule out him creating an incident in the Baltics to justify a Russian invasion, he is an ex KGB man after all and he clearly wants to restore Russia to the strength it had when it was the USSRSeanT said:
I don't feel the expected dread about Putin. He's a ruthless, charmless autocrat - but no worse (and arguably better) than our supposed ally Erdogan.HYUFD said:
If ISIS is destroyed, or at least becomes so weak it is no longer a threat, Assad will then turn his attention to crushing the FSA and remaining more moderate rebels, which with Russian support he will most likely achieve. It would be too late for Hillary or Obama to do anything effective to prop them up short of a full scale Cold War 2 and Trump if he wins would largely agree with Putin anyway. In a post Brexit world with Putin having given backing to Erdogan during his recent coup and being closer to the Chinese leadership than the US president it would confirm Putin as effectively the most powerful man in the world at present, at least in foreign policy and military termsSeanT said:
Sure. But the terrorism will lack a heartland, and a source of bombs, arms, ideas, money, recruits; and a place to train. And the whole concept of Islamism will have taken a severe knock: as the Caliphate is seen to be defeated.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. T, I largely agree (congrats on your forthcoming Spectator article, incidentally. Seems to be all the rage these days for PBers), but would add a significant postscript. The geographical 'country' will be defeated, but the more common terrorism is here to stay. IS will go from being a nation that can be fought to an idea, a philosophy of madmen.
With luck we will eventually go back to a pre 9/11 situation, where Islamic terrorism was a threat but quite sporadic, and ineffective.
Eventually. Maybe.
Even if it doesn't it's good to see ISIS being utterly exterminated. Apparently there are just 15,000 ISIS soldiers left, down from 60,000 at the peak. Tens of thousands have been slaughtered.
Yay.
He is no threat to the UK, unless he attacks the Baltics and destabilises NATO, which I don't think he will (what's the point)
And for all people like to demonise Russia, remember our political masters are allied to the likes of the Saudis...0 -
History repeating itself?
Back in 1986, brimming with the socialist passions I had partly soaked up from such musicians as Billy Bragg and Paul Weller, I co-founded a branch of the Labour party’s youth wing in the well-known socialist hotbed of Tatton – then represented by the soon to be disgraced MP Neil Hamilton, and these days the adopted home turf of George Osborne. But the Labour Party Young Socialists, as it was known, was then controlled by Militant, and soon enough a few of their troops popped up in the constituency, quickly gaining control of the branch and the two seats it was granted on the local Labour general management committee. God knows what they were thinking: today Wilmslow, Knutsford and Northwich; tomorrow the world?
What happened to me in the interim was grim: repeatedly being accused of “not knowing my history” (true: I was 16) and becoming so miserable about a mixture of unpleasant behaviour and ulterior motives that one night I got home from yet another meeting and burst into tears. That was me done: after a last blast of activism in a nearby constituency where Militant was apparently not active, I jacked in the Labour party for the best part of 15 years.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/11/trotskyists-on-the-march-chaos-ahead0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZaAkuXTIz4SeanT said:One of those East London ISIS schoolgirls is dead
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/11/london-schoolgirl-kadiza-sultana-who-joined-isis-believed-killed-in-syria-airstrike
Nice details: "A European woman who recently tried to flee Syria was publicly beaten to death by ISIS"
Prediction: ISIS in its death throes will be like the Khmer Rouge, a devouring of the revolution's children, where everyone denounce everyone else as spies; a crescendo of cruelty and a final orgy of desperate killing....
Then silence0 -
Watching a spot of the cricket this afternoon, I was struck by the tv adverts for £199 holidays to Turkey....I can safely say I will be giving that tempting offer a miss.HYUFD said:
Sad news and another popular holiday destination moves off the tourist listFrancisUrquhart said:BREAKING NEWS: One woman killed and at least 10 injured in Thailand – including foreign tourists - after two bombs explode at a beach hotspot
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3735034/At-12-injured-Thailand-two-motorbike-bombs-explode-tourist-hotspot.html0 -
By invading Iraq, we started a war that resulted in the deaths over a million people and which, in the form of ISIS, still continues. Many will see the crushing of ISIS as yet another act of gross injustice against the Muslim (especially Sunni) people. Is it really any wonder that our actions are arousing hatred and providing fertile ground for extremism?weejonnie said:
The worry is not the soldiers in Syria/ Iraq/ Libya but 'sleepers' in the EU and UK.SeanT said:One of those East London ISIS schoolgirls is dead
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/11/london-schoolgirl-kadiza-sultana-who-joined-isis-believed-killed-in-syria-airstrike
Nice details: "A European woman who recently tried to flee Syria was publicly beaten to death by ISIS"
Prediction: ISIS in its death throes will be like the Khmer Rouge, a devouring of the revolution's children, where everyone denounce everyone else as spies; a crescendo of cruelty and a final orgy of desperate killing....
Then silence
The more we kill over there, the more sleepers we will create over here.0 -
As will most but the beach resorts in the south of the country are still reasonably safe on the wholeFrancisUrquhart said:
Watching a spot of the cricket this afternoon, I was struck by the tv adverts for £199 holidays to Turkey....I can safely say I will be giving that tempting offer a miss.HYUFD said:
Sad news and another popular holiday destination moves off the tourist listFrancisUrquhart said:BREAKING NEWS: One woman killed and at least 10 injured in Thailand – including foreign tourists - after two bombs explode at a beach hotspot
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3735034/At-12-injured-Thailand-two-motorbike-bombs-explode-tourist-hotspot.html0 -
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania most prominently and I am no great fan of the Saudis either but Saudi Arabia does not have the military power of Russia even if it does have some rather dubious dealingsbrokenwheel said:
Dangerous to who exactly?HYUFD said:
He is certainly better than ISIS but more dangerous and powerful than Erdogan. If Trump wins the presidency or even if Hillary wins (in the lame duck period of Obama's presidency) I would not rule out him creating an incident in the Baltics to justify a Russian invasion, he is an ex KGB man after all and he clearly wants to restore Russia to the strength it had when it was the USSRSeanT said:
I don't feel the expected dread about Putin. He's a ruthless, charmless autocrat - but no worse (and arguably better) than our supposed ally Erdogan.HYUFD said:
If ISIS is destroyed, or at least becomes so weak it is no longer a threat, Assad will then turn his attention to crushing the FSA and remaining more moderate rebels, which with Russian support he will most likely achieve. It would be too late for Hillary or Obama to do anything effective to prop them up short of a full scale Cold War 2 and Trump if he wins would largely agree with Putin anyway. In a post Brexit world with Putin having given backing to Erdogan during his recent coup and being closer to the Chinese leadership than the US president it would confirm Putin as effectively the most powerful man in the world at present, at least in foreign policy and military termsSeanT said:
Sure. But the terrorism will lack a heartland, and a source of bombs, arms, ideas, money, recruits; and a place to train. And the whole concept of Islamism will have taken a severe knock: as the Caliphate is seen to be defeated.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. T, I largely agree (congrats on your forthcoming Spectator article, incidentally. Seems to be all the rage these days for PBers), but would add a significant postscript. The geographical 'country' will be defeated, but the more common terrorism is here to stay. IS will go from being a nation that can be fought to an idea, a philosophy of madmen.
With luck we will eventually go back to a pre 9/11 situation, where Islamic terrorism was a threat but quite sporadic, and ineffective.
Eventually. Maybe.
Even if it doesn't it's good to see ISIS being utterly exterminated. Apparently there are just 15,000 ISIS soldiers left, down from 60,000 at the peak. Tens of thousands have been slaughtered.
Yay.
He is no threat to the UK, unless he attacks the Baltics and destabilises NATO, which I don't think he will (what's the point)
And for all people like to demonise Russia, remember our political masters are allied to the likes of the Saudis...0 -
Nah, Murray has begun to fire again. Should be favourite for the gold.FrancisUrquhart said:Andy Murray playing like a Scotsman....Has lost 8 games in a row and looks like he is going to lose.
0 -
7's is a very different game to 15-a-side.FrancisUrquhart said:It is really interesting that so many Team GB 7's players are failed 15 aside players. You would have thought somebody like Dan Norton would be lethal weapon in 15s.
0 -
There is a Labour hustings underway...
@tnewtondunn: Corbyn at Labour hustings: "Our message to the rest of the world is... oh, the lights have gone out!". Beyond irony.0 -
Florida .. New Hampshire - PPP
FL - Clinton 46 .. Trump 43
NH - Clinton 50 .. Trump 37
http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/files/2016/08/Polling-Memo.pdf0 -
Georgia is a bit interesting - Trump seems to be rebounding there.JackW said:Georgia .. New York .. Maine - Gravis
GA - Clinton 44 .. Trump 45
NY - Clinton 53 .. Trump 36
ME - Clinton 46 .. Trump 36
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Gravis.GA.8-8-16.pdf
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Gravis.NY.8-8-16.pdf
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Gravis.ME.8-8-16.pdf
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/georgia/
And NY has one of the lowest Clinton Leads ever :
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/new-york/
Looks like pollgate may be coming to an end.0 -
@PeterMannionMP: The lights are going out all over the #LabourLeadership hustings. We may not see them lit again in our lifetime..0
-
Yes I know...and past few years has become increasingly specalised. And it is particularly noticeable with the forwards, they are a totally different shape to modern 15 forwards.Alistair said:
7's is a very different game to 15-a-side.FrancisUrquhart said:It is really interesting that so many Team GB 7's players are failed 15 aside players. You would have thought somebody like Dan Norton would be lethal weapon in 15s.
But all that been said, a 6ft winger will rocket boosters for legs you would think would be able to play wing in 15s, no?0 -
Meanwhile, Labour determined to die in Scotland...
@JournoStephen: Labour: Deal with SNP 'a price worth paying' to stop Tories https://t.co/HU3QICX7iL https://t.co/pSbNDcQILx0 -
This was immediately stamped on by Dugdale allies in SLab. If Jezza wins, I'd expect a leadership challenge to Kez from the left quite quickly.Scott_P said:Meanwhile, Labour determined to die on Scotland...
@JournoStephen: Labour: Deal with SNP 'a price worth paying' to stop Tories https://t.co/HU3QICX7iL https://t.co/pSbNDcQILx0 -
Sir Peter Mannion MP @PeterMannionMP - With annual leadership elections, fee hikes, and evermore left membership, Labour will become the wealthiest unelectable cult in the world.Scott_P said:@PeterMannionMP: The lights are going out all over the #LabourLeadership hustings. We may not see them lit again in our lifetime..
0 -
Scottish Andy has been replaced with British Andy..break up now ;-)0
-
Murray wins .... phew0
-
Murray wraps it up to go through to the quarter finals.0
-
@iainjwatson: The mood changes as @OwenSmith_MP says Labours popularity ratings are 'desperate' and consistently behind in polls
@paulwaugh: Corbyn says 'we got ahead of the Tories in the local elections'. Smith quick to pick him up on it. Lab lost seats0 -
Do you have to pay to reach a levels closer to going clear and be able to fully understand Corbyn's greatness?SimonStClare said:
Sir Peter Mannion MP @PeterMannionMP - With annual leadership elections, fee hikes, and evermore left membership, Labour will become the wealthiest unelectable cult in the world.Scott_P said:@PeterMannionMP: The lights are going out all over the #LabourLeadership hustings. We may not see them lit again in our lifetime..
0 -
Another candidate for the purge...
@lisanandy: Sticking our fingers in our ears and pretending we're winning lets down every single person who needs a Labour Government #labourleadership0 -
Technically they did win more than the Tories, 1326 vs 842Scott_P said:@iainjwatson: The mood changes as @OwenSmith_MP says Labours popularity ratings are 'desperate' and consistently behind in polls
@paulwaugh: Corbyn says 'we got ahead of the Tories in the local elections'. Smith quick to pick him up on it. Lab lost seats 0 -
On available statistical evidence, Murray appeared to be playing like an Englishman.FrancisUrquhart said:Andy Murray playing like a Scotsman....Has lost 8 games in a row and looks like he is going to lose.
Still, he managed to get that out of his system.0 -
If Trump +1 in Georgia and heading down the pan in New York is considered a bounce then I don't fancy the chances of Donald's dead cat ....weejonnie said:
Georgia is a bit interesting - Trump seems to be rebounding there.JackW said:Georgia .. New York .. Maine - Gravis
GA - Clinton 44 .. Trump 45
NY - Clinton 53 .. Trump 36
ME - Clinton 46 .. Trump 36
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Gravis.GA.8-8-16.pdf
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Gravis.NY.8-8-16.pdf
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Gravis.ME.8-8-16.pdf
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/georgia/
And NY has one of the lowest Clinton Leads ever :
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/new-york/
Looks like pollgate may be coming to an end.0 -
So not our problem then.HYUFD said:
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania most prominently and I am no great fan of the Saudis either but Saudi Arabia does not have the military power of Russia even if it does have some rather dubious dealingsbrokenwheel said:
Dangerous to who exactly?HYUFD said:
He is certainly better than ISIS but more dangerous and powerful than Erdogan. If Trump wins the presidency or even if Hillary wins (in the lame duck period of Obama's presidency) I would not rule out him creating an incident in the Baltics to justify a Russian invasion, he is an ex KGB man after all and he clearly wants to restore Russia to the strength it had when it was the USSR
And for all people like to demonise Russia, remember our political masters are allied to the likes of the Saudis...
The problem with Saudi is ideological, they are a far bigger threat to us than Russia will ever be.0 -
@Labourpaul: This is from the Leadership Contest: the one in 1988 when Corbyn tried to oust an elected Leader. https://t.co/0GM1Z57HhI0
-
So, Labour guy, let me get this right. You want to retain your Europhilia, (goodbye North of England) and do a deal with the Scots (goodbye everywhere but London). Well played, sir, well played.Scott_P said:Meanwhile, Labour determined to die in Scotland...
@JournoStephen: Labour: Deal with SNP 'a price worth paying' to stop Tories https://t.co/HU3QICX7iL https://t.co/pSbNDcQILx0 -
Interesting...
@HTScotPol: Going by the clap-o-meter at the SNP hustings tonight, @AngusRobertson should be worried about the challenge from @TommySheppard0 -
But he would have to play for 80 minutes, have to catch a rugby ball coming down "with snow on it" and face guys weighing 20st.FrancisUrquhart said:
Yes I know...and past few years has become increasingly specalised. And it is particularly noticeable with the forwards, they are a totally different shape to modern 15 forwards.Alistair said:
7's is a very different game to 15-a-side.FrancisUrquhart said:It is really interesting that so many Team GB 7's players are failed 15 aside players. You would have thought somebody like Dan Norton would be lethal weapon in 15s.
But all that been said, a 6ft winger will rocket boosters for legs you would think would be able to play wing in 15s, no?
0 -
and won like a Brit.Theuniondivvie said:
On available statistical evidence, Murray appeared to be playing like an Englishman.FrancisUrquhart said:Andy Murray playing like a Scotsman....Has lost 8 games in a row and looks like he is going to lose.
Still, he managed to get that out of his system.0 -
70 current and former GOP officials urge the RNC to halt funding to Trump and utilize the money for down ticket defence :
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/republicans-urge-rnc-cut-funds-trump-226918
0 -
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/georgia/weejonnie said:
Georgia is a bit interesting - Trump seems to be rebounding there.JackW said:Georgia .. New York .. Maine - Gravis
GA - Clinton 44 .. Trump 45
NY - Clinton 53 .. Trump 36
ME - Clinton 46 .. Trump 36
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Gravis.GA.8-8-16.pdf
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Gravis.NY.8-8-16.pdf
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Gravis.ME.8-8-16.pdf
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/georgia/
And NY has one of the lowest Clinton Leads ever :
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/new-york/
Looks like pollgate may be coming to an end.0 -
Fair point. There is also a fair amount of tactical stuff even for wingers. I know that Varndell was never really considered good enough for England 15s despite being the fastest winger on the planet, mainly because no amount of coaching managed to ensure he was in the right positions defensively.No_Offence_Alan said:
But he would have to play for 80 minutes, have to catch a rugby ball coming down "with snow on it" and face guys weighing 20st.FrancisUrquhart said:
Yes I know...and past few years has become increasingly specalised. And it is particularly noticeable with the forwards, they are a totally different shape to modern 15 forwards.Alistair said:
7's is a very different game to 15-a-side.FrancisUrquhart said:It is really interesting that so many Team GB 7's players are failed 15 aside players. You would have thought somebody like Dan Norton would be lethal weapon in 15s.
But all that been said, a 6ft winger will rocket boosters for legs you would think would be able to play wing in 15s, no?0
