politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories’ current odds-on status in Copeland doesn’t square

Sean_F said:

RepublicanTory said:

SeanT said:

NYT: Theresa May's global Britain is baloney

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/opinion/theresa-mays-global-britain-is-baloney.html

Written by a notorious europhile quisling. Really, we need to start burning these people at Smithfield*

*metaphorically, moderators, metaphorically

I think what REALLY worries some that voted Remain and who constantly equate all those that voted Leave with fascist idiots is that Brexit MIGHT actually work.

Who are the idiots then? Who are the wrecking crew now?

And it is a question to which i am not sure we have given any real coverage on here in terms of how it affects domestic politics.

If Brexit is seen to be a failure the Cons will clearly suffer badly, Labour will probably suffer as well-in part because they are clearly split on the issue.

The Libs will clearly be VERY big gainers-as will the SNP

BUT what if BREXIT is perceived to be a success.

Clearly the absolute level of success will be relevant-being slightly less shit than Europe will not be the same as Brexit being seen to be a clear success.

The Libs clearly will have some serious thinking to do-as will the SNP

But with Nuttall as leader Labour could have some seriously difficult times ahead-as someone said below- it is difficult to see how Hartlepool and Islington can be both represented by the same Labour party that was split over Brexit especially if Brexit turns out to be successful.

If Brexit turns out well, some people who post here will be furious.

It's not a possibility I spend much time contemplating. As tonight on here shows, the country is already degrading morally.

RobD said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

SeanT said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Curious how those fanatically opposed to free movement with the EU are wildly enthusiastic about free movement with the former white colonies of the British empire. I wonder why that might be.

Because they speak our language, share our laws, share our culture, are subject to the same Queen, are most unlikely to blow us up or immediately start selling the Big Issue, and they have similar or higher standards of living so won't be a burden.

There. Fixed that for you. Twat.

Touchy. I fear that your barely closeted racism and overt Islamophobia have made you terribly snowflaky.

We're either full up or we're not, aren't we?

Are people clamouring to move from Australia to the UK?

I did read somewhere (admittedly pre commodity boom) that Australians had a higher propensity to overstay their visas than other nationalities. Maybe more Australian illegal immigrants than from any other country?

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

I agree with everyone on the previous thread who said that free movement between Britain and Australia is fanciful. The Aussies would bitterly dismiss it as an attempt at re-colonization and resist it tooth and nail. There was also talk of creating a kind of British Israel in the Australian desert. I think that would only be viable if you worked out a way of fencing the British settlers in.

I expect most Aussies would be more than happy with free movement between London and Australia though!

Weren't the Aussies asking for this as part of a trade deal with the UK in the weeks after Brexit?

I know the queues and visa checks they face at the UK border are frustrating for them.

Most likely it will be looser visa restrictions for businesses purposes

Ignoring the comedy on this thread - almost certainly this is what is being talked about. Just as the proposed deal with the Indians - streamlined process for business/work visas. In the Indian case, the quid pro quo was them taking back illegal immigrants from India.

We may disagree on issues surrounding free movement, but I'm sure we can all agree that blockquotes suck.

MTimT said:

Tim_B said:

surbiton said:

Tim_B said:

Fox News and CNN reporting that Theresa May will be here next week.

Well, not 'here' exactly - I doubt I have enough bedrooms for the entire party. She'll be in DC.

Usual desperation of a small ex-power. Proof of how "important" we are.

If they were that desperate they would stay with me just to save money, although to be closer to DC TimT could put them up in a barn.

Apparently, more than one wedding has occurred in our bank barn (before we moved in). No room in the main barn - that's taken by the horses and barn cats, but the footing in the indoor arena is quite comfy.

The delegation can sleep in the hay in the barn

MTimT said:

Tim_B said:

surbiton said:

Tim_B said:

Fox News and CNN reporting that Theresa May will be here next week.

Well, not 'here' exactly - I doubt I have enough bedrooms for the entire party. She'll be in DC.

Usual desperation of a small ex-power. Proof of how "important" we are.

If they were that desperate they would stay with me just to save money, although to be closer to DC TimT could put them up in a barn.

Apparently, more than one wedding has occurred in our bank barn (before we moved in). No room in the main barn - that's taken by the horses and barn cats, but the footing in the indoor arena is quite comfy.

Perfect - they could have their own dog and pony show

It beats the alternative - "This way, Mr President. The Prime Minister is in the barn. Be careful because cat scratches can get infected."

@SeanT said:

Fuck off to Nazi Hungary then. How often do we need to say this. YOU'RE NOT WANTED.

As ever, it is not the Remainers that are FURIOUS!!

RobD said:

MTimT said:

Tim_B said:

surbiton said:

Tim_B said:

Fox News and CNN reporting that Theresa May will be here next week.

Well, not 'here' exactly - I doubt I have enough bedrooms for the entire party. She'll be in DC.

Usual desperation of a small ex-power. Proof of how "important" we are.

If they were that desperate they would stay with me just to save money, although to be closer to DC TimT could put them up in a barn.

Apparently, more than one wedding has occurred in our bank barn (before we moved in). No room in the main barn - that's taken by the horses and barn cats, but the footing in the indoor arena is quite comfy.

The delegation can sleep in the hay in the barn

This time of the year, the bank barn is pretty full of hay, but if they want to climb about 6 bales high, there'll be room.

surbiton said:

Stark_Dawning said:

SouthamObserver said:

For the record, I think we should definitely have a freedom of movement deal with the Aussies and Kiwis. They are our brothers. Not sure they'd want it though.

Thinking about it further, I wouldn't want the Aussies here: all we'd get are endless whinges about how crap our weather is compared to that of their 'island paradise'. They all do it. No, give me Poles and Latvians any day - they are all our climatic brethren.

I would support FoM with Aussies, Kiwis [ in every sense ], Poles, Latvians or for that matter from anywhere. Including Cornwall.

The Cornish would never agree free movement from Britain.

Tim_B said:

MTimT said:

Tim_B said:

surbiton said:

Tim_B said:

Fox News and CNN reporting that Theresa May will be here next week.

Well, not 'here' exactly - I doubt I have enough bedrooms for the entire party. She'll be in DC.

Usual desperation of a small ex-power. Proof of how "important" we are.

If they were that desperate they would stay with me just to save money, although to be closer to DC TimT could put them up in a barn.

Apparently, more than one wedding has occurred in our bank barn (before we moved in). No room in the main barn - that's taken by the horses and barn cats, but the footing in the indoor arena is quite comfy.

Perfect - they could have their own dog and pony show

It beats the alternative - "This way, Mr President. The Prime Minister is in the barn. Be careful because cat scratches can get infected."

The image of Trump prancing and neighing as he Monty Python clip clops over some cavaletti poles is bizarrely springing to mind.

Tim_B said:

MTimT said:

RobD said:

MTimT said:

Tim_B said:

surbiton said:

Tim_B said:

Fox News and CNN reporting that Theresa May will be here next week.

Well, not 'here' exactly - I doubt I have enough bedrooms for the entire party. She'll be in DC.

Usual desperation of a small ex-power. Proof of how "important" we are.

If they were that desperate they would stay with me just to save money, although to be closer to DC TimT could put them up in a barn.

Apparently, more than one wedding has occurred in our bank barn (before we moved in). No room in the main barn - that's taken by the horses and barn cats, but the footing in the indoor arena is quite comfy.

The delegation can sleep in the hay in the barn

This time of the year, the bank barn is pretty full of hay, but if they want to climb about 6 bales high, there'll be room.

Corbyn would claim that May wants a bale out.....

Oh dear

SeanT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Pulpstar said:

SouthamObserver said:

For the record, I think we should definitely have a freedom of movement deal with the Aussies and Kiwis. They are our brothers. Not sure they'd want it though.

New Zealand has a pop density of 17.5/sq km. Heaven.

It is a lovely country, but heavily urbanised. Downtown Auckland at night was pretty scary, and there are some major social problems (not least migration to Australia - NZ is consistently one of the leading sources of Australian immigration).

I can recommend the excellent "Once Were Warriors" if anyone wants to see the underside of Auckland.

https://youtu.be/I7_oQ__Svmo

I've never been to NZ, would love to go. All I know is that the Kiwis of my acquaintance tend to be massive drunkards or hugely enterprising, or both. They also have an inferiority complex about Australia (which they admit).

It's just too far away from anywhere else. If and when they invent hypersonic travel (not far away) then its prospects will be transformed and its time to go long long white cloud.

And on that note, goodnight from Bangkok

I bought a rather random book the other day (clearly when looking for yours)

It's about Britain's space programme. Now obliviously that came to very little. However the book contains lots of (somewhat turgid, but interesting) stuff about all the work that was done. If you've ever been to RAF Cosford museum you'll see all sorts of fantastic British airplanes which worked mostly. The budgets were rather small, but there were many competing projects.

I saw the discussion earlier about our defence budget and the bang-for-the buck. It seems to me that we have very little defence capability now, and that we pay through the nose for it.

I think it would be beneficial to return to the many mad-cap ideas approach - which hopefully produces one good one, rather than the totally-planned, totally-perfect, and turns out not-so-good way we do things now.

Chelsea are 4/9 for the title. That looks value to me.

surbiton said:

RobD said:

surbiton said:

Pulpstar said:

SouthamObserver said:

For the record, I think we should definitely have a freedom of movement deal with the Aussies and Kiwis. They are our brothers. Not sure they'd want it though.

New Zealand has a pop density of 17.5/sq km. Heaven.

"Remote rural areas with a density of less than 1 person per square kilometre account for about 14 percent of the rural population.[21]"

You are sure ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_Zealand

It says at the top of the link, 17.5/sq km.

That's for the whole country. Even 17.5 means ,say, 4-5 houses in a whole sq.kilometer. I would go bananas! Now I understand, why they are bananas.

Do NZ rural people also live on milking subsidies like our lot do ?

Apparently not

https://www.google.com/amp/dailysignal.com/2016/09/22/what-happened-when-new-zealand-got-rid-of-government-subsidies-for-farmers/amp/?client=safari

MTimT said:

Tim_B said:

MTimT said:

Tim_B said:

surbiton said:

Tim_B said:

Fox News and CNN reporting that Theresa May will be here next week.

Well, not 'here' exactly - I doubt I have enough bedrooms for the entire party. She'll be in DC.

Usual desperation of a small ex-power. Proof of how "important" we are.

If they were that desperate they would stay with me just to save money, although to be closer to DC TimT could put them up in a barn.

Apparently, more than one wedding has occurred in our bank barn (before we moved in). No room in the main barn - that's taken by the horses and barn cats, but the footing in the indoor arena is quite comfy.

Perfect - they could have their own dog and pony show

It beats the alternative - "This way, Mr President. The Prime Minister is in the barn. Be careful because cat scratches can get infected."

The image of Trump prancing and neighing as he Monty Python clip clops over some cavaletti poles is bizarrely springing to mind.

pantomime horses - nature's ultimate example of perfect evolution....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqkvuVIIQso

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkLsdQhZsw0

RobD said:

Tim_B said:

MTimT said:

RobD said:

MTimT said:

Tim_B said:

surbiton said:

Tim_B said:

Fox News and CNN reporting that Theresa May will be here next week.

Well, not 'here' exactly - I doubt I have enough bedrooms for the entire party. She'll be in DC.

Usual desperation of a small ex-power. Proof of how "important" we are.

If they were that desperate they would stay with me just to save money, although to be closer to DC TimT could put them up in a barn.

Apparently, more than one wedding has occurred in our bank barn (before we moved in). No room in the main barn - that's taken by the horses and barn cats, but the footing in the indoor arena is quite comfy.

The delegation can sleep in the hay in the barn

This time of the year, the bank barn is pretty full of hay, but if they want to climb about 6 bales high, there'll be room.

Corbyn would claim that May wants a bale out.....

Oh dear

or it could be a straw man argument......

Omnium said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Omnium said:

Mr Meeks' posts this evening somehow remind me of the Monty Python 'arguments are next door' thing. Oddly though for once this wasn't the location of 'Abuse'

I wasn't expecting the overt racism to surface quite so quickly on pb after Trump's inauguration. I thought we might get a few months' grace,

Oh tosh - you were at least in part baiting.

However there's nothing wrong in a good argument, and although you were baiting I do think that it's an interesting point about why we (or whatever group) might be more pro CanAusNZ than perhaps we might be towards SA, or Poland. Is there xenophobia or racism, both or neither. I don't personally think I'm racist, but I do give myself pause for thought sometimes.

Ir's a non-trivial question. A few years ago I had to look at various countries and the "Old" and "New" Commonwealth distinction cropped up. I don't know when the term was invented but it was mentioned in the sixties/seventies during a time when migration into the UK from non-white parts of the Empire (Jamaica et al) was becoming noted. It was a way of politely (and in some cases impolitely) differentiating between white and non-white migration. Broadly speaking it was the old Dominions and so included apartheid South Africa.

Fast-forward forty years. It's now trivariate and includes language, religion as well as colour: the whiter, more Anglophone and more Christian you are, the more likely you are to be included in the concept. Conversely, the blacker, less Anglophone and more Muslim you are, the less likely. South Africa (which is now seen as mostly black) tends not to be mentioned any more. The cutoff point is India, which is (mostly) non-white, Anglophone and Hindu. I'd be interested to see people's interpretations of Nigeria (non-white, Anglophone, Christian/Muslim mixed) and Jamaica (non-white, Anglophone, Christian), and Islamic Pakistan.

The situation is rendered more complex by people's perceptions, which may not match the reality. But then again, when did it ever...

foxinsoxuk said:

Omnium said:

SeanT said:

Omnium said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Omnium said:

Mr Meeks' posts this evening somehow remind me of the Monty Python 'arguments are next door' thing. Oddly though for once this wasn't the location of 'Abuse'

I wasn't expecting the overt racism to surface quite so quickly on pb after Trump's inauguration. I thought we might get a few months' grace,

Oh tosh - you were at least in part baiting.

However there's nothing wrong in a good argument, and although you were baiting I do think that it's an interesting point about why we (or whatever group) might be more pro CanAusNZ than perhaps we might be towards SA, or Poland. Is there xenophobia or racism, both or neither. I don't personally think I'm racist, but I do give myself pause for thought sometimes.

Everyone is racist. By the time they are a year old, babies show fear of faces that are the "wrong" shape or colour. Its a sensible evolved response to obvious genetic outsiders, who are less likely to deem your survival as important. This is true of all babies, black brown or white. So let's get over it. We're all born racist.

The more interesting question is how you act on these instinctive impulses. That is the test for an adult.

Yep - that's just the unfamiliar though. And of course any racism that you or I might have in us was almost certainly germinated by unfamiliarity.

Peoples experiences in life can of course also be important - If I was a black Jamaican lady and I got treated badly by a group of white English people then I might form a certain mental bias. The more we mix though the less we might see identity as anything to do with colour or nation - the same black Jamaican lady at some point in the future might form a prejudice against the same English people, but that'd be based on them having purple hair maybe.

My experience of children is that they are extremely tolerant of differences, even gross ones like colour, paraplegia, cerebral palsy, cranio-facial disorders, etc. White children react to a black person with much the same reaction they show to a black as opposed to ginger cat, not really thinking it remarkeable.

It is only at the age of 7-8 that children start to fear difference, and bullying begins. They have to learn it from grown ups.

You're probably just seeing a fear of bullying rather than a fear of difference. (If you're different then you might get bullied because of that so you fear difference)

Bullying itself has to just be a survival thing. You make sure there's a very obvious target so that even if you become weak you're not the obvious target.

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

surbiton said:

RepublicanTory said:

Casino_Royale said:

SeanT said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Curious how those fanatically opposed to free movement with the EU are wildly enthusiastic about free movement with the former white colonies of the British empire. I wonder why that might be.

Because they speak our language, share our laws, share our culture, are subject to the same Queen, are most unlikely to blow us up or immediately start selling the Big Issue, and they have similar or higher standards of living so won't be a burden.

There. Fixed that for you. Twat.

Not that it matter, but I'm not sure that Australia, Canada or NZ are much more "White" than continental Europe in any event.

New Zealand certainly isnt

But the Brexiters dream of a "white" Commonwealth. They call it the "old" commonwealth. I am not sure why Sunil is amongst them.

Soon Australia will be a Rebuplic. Even a conservative PM is a republican. The opposition is almost all republican.

Will it? The only referendum on the subject saw Australia voting for the monarchy by 55% to 45% and the present PM was leading the Republican movement and by the next election there is a chance the monarchist Tony Abbott will have toppled him in the way Turnbull toppled Abbott. William, Kate and Harry are also popular with younger Australians

Charles will be like a Hydrogen bomb for the monarchy, worldwide.

If we get to William and Kate relatively quickly, possibly not, but that could be 20 years.

His ratings have improved since the Diana affair and he will likely only be monarch for a short time if he eventually gets it

Omnium said:

I bought a rather random book the other day (clearly when looking for yours)

It's about Britain's space programme. Now obliviously that came to very little. However the book contains lots of (somewhat turgid, but interesting) stuff about all the work that was done. If you've ever been to RAF Cosford museum you'll see all sorts of fantastic British airplanes which worked mostly. The budgets were rather small, but there were many competing projects.

I saw the discussion earlier about our defence budget and the bang-for-the buck. It seems to me that we have very little defence capability now, and that we pay through the nose for it.

I think it would be beneficial to return to the many mad-cap ideas approach - which hopefully produces one good one, rather than the totally-planned, totally-perfect, and turns out not-so-good way we do things now.

The complexity and expense is not in making airframes; it is in making cohesive weapons systems. That is why the prototype F35 could be flying relatively cheaply, using lots of off-the-shelf kit. From what I've heard the TSR-2 was another example: they had the airframe working well, but the on-board systems were a mess (some were later used in the Tornado - citation needed).

However, a basic flying combat plane is much more than something that flies. You need to integrate radar, comms, TDL/Link, weapons, refuelling systems, survivability, maintainability, and a 1001 other things. Oh, and power for the above.

Unfortunately these systems are getting more numerous and complex. An acquaintance was involved in developing refuelling systems and the complexity of actually implementing them is massive - and that was one of the simpler systems on a larger plane.

Prototypes are (relatively) easy. Fully functioning, reliable weapons systems are blooming difficult. If you try to develop them cheaper, you'll usually lose functionality, reliability, and/or safety. It's not all about waste in the system (though that's doubtless part of the story).

JosiasJessop said:

Omnium said:

I bought a rather random book the other day (clearly when looking for yours)

It's about Britain's space programme. Now obliviously that came to very little. However the book contains lots of (somewhat turgid, but interesting) stuff about all the work that was done. If you've ever been to RAF Cosford museum you'll see all sorts of fantastic British airplanes which worked mostly. The budgets were rather small, but there were many competing projects.

I saw the discussion earlier about our defence budget and the bang-for-the buck. It seems to me that we have very little defence capability now, and that we pay through the nose for it.

I think it would be beneficial to return to the many mad-cap ideas approach - which hopefully produces one good one, rather than the totally-planned, totally-perfect, and turns out not-so-good way we do things now.

The complexity and expense is not in making airframes; it is in making cohesive weapons systems. That is why the prototype F35 could be flying relatively cheaply, using lots of off-the-shelf kit. From what I've heard the TSR-2 was another example: they had the airframe working well, but the on-board systems were a mess (some were later used in the Tornado - citation needed).

However, a basic flying combat plane is much more than something that flies. You need to integrate radar, comms, TDL/Link, weapons, refuelling systems, survivability, maintainability, and a 1001 other things. Oh, and power for the above.

Unfortunately these systems are getting more numerous and complex. An acquaintance was involved in developing refuelling systems and the complexity of actually implementing them is massive - and that was one of the simpler systems on a larger plane.

Prototypes are (relatively) easy. Fully functioning, reliable weapons systems are blooming difficult. If you try to develop them cheaper, you'll usually lose functionality, reliability, and/or safety. It's not all about waste in the system (though that's doubtless part of the story).

Though one does wonder what the point of the F35 is when a decades old design can out dogfight it:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-beat-the-plane-its-replacing-in-a-dogfigh-1714712248

I did read somewhere (admittedly pre commodity boom) that Australians had a higher propensity to overstay their visas than other nationalities. Maybe more Australian illegal immigrants than from any other country?

Or maybe The Aussie girls overstay for the British men

JosiasJessop said:

Omnium said:

I bought a rather random book the other day (clearly when looking for yours)

It's about Britain's space programme. Now obliviously that came to very little. However the book contains lots of (somewhat turgid, but interesting) stuff about all the work that was done. If you've ever been to RAF Cosford museum you'll see all sorts of fantastic British airplanes which worked mostly. The budgets were rather small, but there were many competing projects.

I saw the discussion earlier about our defence budget and the bang-for-the buck. It seems to me that we have very little defence capability now, and that we pay through the nose for it.

I think it would be beneficial to return to the many mad-cap ideas approach - which hopefully produces one good one, rather than the totally-planned, totally-perfect, and turns out not-so-good way we do things now.

The complexity and expense is not in making airframes; it is in making cohesive weapons systems. That is why the prototype F35 could be flying relatively cheaply, using lots of off-the-shelf kit. From what I've heard the TSR-2 was another example: they had the airframe working well, but the on-board systems were a mess (some were later used in the Tornado - citation needed).

However, a basic flying combat plane is much more than something that flies. You need to integrate radar, comms, TDL/Link, weapons, refuelling systems, survivability, maintainability, and a 1001 other things. Oh, and power for the above.

Unfortunately these systems are getting more numerous and complex. An acquaintance was involved in developing refuelling systems and the complexity of actually implementing them is massive - and that was one of the simpler systems on a larger plane.

Prototypes are (relatively) easy. Fully functioning, reliable weapons systems are blooming difficult. If you try to develop them cheaper, you'll usually lose functionality, reliability, and/or safety. It's not all about waste in the system (though that's doubtless part of the story).

Good points. However it's undeniable that if you only have one possible builder you'll pay more than when he's in competition and generally you'll get a worse product.

If we built an aircraft carrier every year we'd have a couple of manufacturers and we'd probably have 9 of them in service, and the overall costs would be much lower.

RepublicanTory said:

SouthamObserver said:

For the record, I think we should definitely have a freedom of movement deal with the Aussies and Kiwis. They are our brothers. Not sure they'd want it though.

Sadly I think you are right !!

NZ really is a fabulous country to visit-its like an all encompassing Geography field trip in one country.

Totally agree. My brother has lived there for 25 years and has built a great life. Here he is with his missus:
https://youtu.be/1h27Wj-qzg0

Omnium said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Omnium said:

SeanT said:

Omnium said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Omnium said:

Mr Meeks' posts this evening somehow remind me of the Monty Python 'arguments are next door' thing. Oddly though for once this wasn't the location of 'Abuse'

I wasn't expecting the overt racism to surface quite so quickly on pb after Trump's inauguration. I thought we might get a few months' grace,

Oh tosh - you were at least in part baiting.

However there's nothing wrong in a good argument, and although you were baiting I do think that it's an interesting point about why we (or whatever group) might be more pro CanAusNZ than perhaps we might be towards SA, or Poland. Is there xenophobia or racism, both or neither. I don't personally think I'm racist, but I do give myself pause for thought sometimes.

Everyone is racist. By the time they are a year old, babies show fear of faces that are the "wrong" shape or colour. Its a sensible evolved response to obvious genetic outsiders, who are less likely to deem your survival as important. This is true of all babies, black brown or white. So let's get over it. We're all born racist.

The more interesting question is how you act on these instinctive impulses. That is the test for an adult.

Yep - that's just the unfamiliar though. And of course any racism that you or I might have in us was almost certainly germinated by unfamiliarity.

Peoples experiences in life can of course also be important -

My experience of children is that they are extremely tolerant of differences, even gross ones like colour, paraplegia, cerebral palsy, cranio-facial disorders, etc. White children react to a black person with much the same reaction they show to a black as opposed to ginger cat, not really thinking it remarkeable.

It is only at the age of 7-8 that children start to fear difference, and bullying begins. They have to learn it from grown ups.

You're probably just seeing a fear of bullying rather than a fear of difference. (If you're different then you might get bullied because of that so you fear difference)

Bullying itself has to just be a survival thing. You make sure there's a very obvious target so that even if you become weak you're not the obvious target.

Not really, young children do not have that sort of sophisticated thought. Bullying comes later., typically 7-8 years or so.

@SkyNewsBreak: A White House official has confirmed Prime Minister Theresa May will meet President Donald Trump this week

Ummm

@SkyNewsBreak: Update - Downing Street says it will not confirm if Prime Minister Theresa May will meet Donald Trump next week

Sandpit said:

surbiton said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JosiasJessop said:

Omnium said:

I bought a rather random book the other day (clearly when looking for yours)

It's about Britain's space programme. Now obliviously that came to very little. However the book contains lots of (somewhat turgid, but interesting) stuff about all the work that was done. If you've ever been to RAF Cosford museum you'll see all sorts of fantastic British airplanes which worked mostly. The budgets were rather small, but there were many competing projects.

I saw the discussion earlier about our defence budget and the bang-for-the buck. It seems to me that we have very little defence capability now, and that we pay through the nose for it.

I think it would be beneficial to return to the many mad-cap ideas approach - which hopefully produces one good one, rather than the totally-planned, totally-perfect, and turns out not-so-good way we do things now.

The complexity and expense is not in making airframes; it is in making cohesive weapons systems. That is why the prototype F35 could be flying relatively cheaply, using lots of off-the-shelf kit. From what I've heard the TSR-2 was another example: they had the airframe working well, but the on-board systems were a mess (some were later used in the Tornado - citation needed).

However, a basic flying combat plane is much more than something that flies. You need to integrate radar, comms, TDL/Link, weapons, refuelling systems, survivability, maintainability, and a 1001 other things. Oh, and power for the above.

Unfortunately these systems are getting more numerous and complex. An acquaintance was involved in developing refuelling systems and the complexity of actually implementing them is massive - and that was one of the simpler systems on a larger plane.

Prototypes are (relatively) easy. Fully functioning, reliable weapons systems are blooming difficult. If you try to develop them cheaper, you'll usually lose functionality, reliability, and/or safety. It's not all about waste in the system (though that's doubtless part of the story).

Though one does wonder what the point of the F35 is when a decades old design can out dogfight it:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-beat-the-plane-its-replacing-in-a-dogfigh-1714712248

The Military Industrial complex will not like what you are saying.

They're not liking what Donald Trump's saying either! He's even complaining about the cost of his own new plane.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/12/06/trump-says-cancel-new-air-force-one-costs-out-control.html

He's also told LM to reduce the cost of the F-35 by 10%.

MTimT said:

SouthamObserver said:

RepublicanTory said:

SouthamObserver said:

For the record, I think we should definitely have a freedom of movement deal with the Aussies and Kiwis. They are our brothers. Not sure they'd want it though.

Sadly I think you are right !!

NZ really is a fabulous country to visit-its like an all encompassing Geography field trip in one country.

Totally agree. My brother has lived there for 25 years and has built a great life. Here he is with his missus:
https://youtu.be/1h27Wj-qzg0

Great story

Yep, I am very proud of him. He left school at 16 with no O levels, but has worked bloody hard to get what he has. Dodgy accent though!

foxinsoxuk said:

Omnium said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Omnium said:

SeanT said:

Omnium said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Omnium said:

Mr Meeks' posts this evening somehow remind me of the Monty Python 'arguments are next door' thing. Oddly though for once this wasn't the location of 'Abuse'

I wasn't expecting the overt racism to surface quite so quickly on pb after Trump's inauguration. I thought we might get a few months' grace,

Oh tosh - you were at least in part baiting.

However there's nothing wrong in a good argument, and although you were baiting I do think that it's an interesting point about why we (or whatever group) might be more pro CanAusNZ than perhaps we might be towards SA, or Poland. Is there xenophobia or racism, both or neither. I don't personally think I'm racist, but I do give myself pause for thought sometimes.

Everyone is racist. By the time they are a year old, babies show fear of faces that are the "wrong" shape or colour. Its a sensible evolved response to obvious genetic outsiders, who are less likely to deem your survival as important. This is true of all babies, black brown or white. So let's get over it. We're all born racist.

The more interesting question is how you act on these instinctive impulses. That is the test for an adult.

Yep - that's just the unfamiliar though. And of course any racism that you or I might have in us was almost certainly germinated by unfamiliarity.

Peoples experiences in life can of course also be important -

My experience of children is that they are extremely tolerant of differences, even gross ones like colour, paraplegia, cerebral palsy, cranio-facial disorders, etc. White children react to a black person with much the same reaction they show to a black as opposed to ginger cat, not really thinking it remarkeable.

It is only at the age of 7-8 that children start to fear difference, and bullying begins. They have to learn it from grown ups.

You're probably just seeing a fear of bullying rather than a fear of difference. (If you're different then you might get bullied because of that so you fear difference)

Bullying itself has to just be a survival thing. You make sure there's a very obvious target so that even if you become weak you're not the obvious target.

Not really, young children do not have that sort of sophisticated thought. Bullying comes later., typically 7-8 years or so.

Ok, so you're saying that at the point that children can form a useful part of society they start to discriminate in some way or other? That has to be learned behavior though doesn't it? And if so then we don't care as our data is meaningless.

John_M said:

He's also told LM to reduce the cost of the F-35 by 10%.

The reply from LM's head was classic. Essentially it was: "We've listened, and we'll really try to reduce the cost (as we have been saying for the last ten years)."

No guarantees. It was as meaningless as Trump's original words.

Omnium said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Omnium said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Omnium said:

SeanT said:

Omnium said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Omnium said:

Mr Meeks' posts this evening somehow remind me of the Monty Python 'arguments are next door' thing. Oddly though for once this wasn't the location of 'Abuse'

I wasn't expecting the overt racism to surface quite so quickly on pb after Trump's inauguration. I thought we might get a few months' grace,

Oh tosh - you were at least in part baiting.

However there's nothing wrong in a good argument, and although you were baiting I do think that it's an interesting point about why we (or whatever group) might be more pro CanAusNZ than perhaps we might be towards SA, or Poland. Is there xenophobia or racism, both or neither. I don't personally think I'm racist, but I do give myself pause for thought sometimes.

Everyone is racist. By the time they are a year old, babies show fear of faces that are the "wrong" shape or colour. Its a sensible evolved response to obvious genetic outsiders, who are less likely to deem your survival as important. This is true of all babies, black brown or white. So let's get over it. We're all born racist.

The more interesting question is how you act on these instinctive impulses. That is the test for an adult.

Yep - that's just the unfamiliar though. And of course any racism that you or I might have in us was almost certainly germinated by unfamiliarity.

Peoples experiences in life can of course also be important -

My experience of children is that they are extremely tolerant of

It is only at the age of 7-8 that children start to fear difference, and bullying begins. They have to learn it from grown ups.

You're probably just seeing a fear of bullying rather than a fear of difference. (If you're different then you might get bullied because of that so you fear difference)

Bullying itself has to just be a survival thing. You make sure there's a very obvious target so that even if you become weak you're not the obvious target.

Not really, young children do not have that sort of sophisticated thought. Bullying comes later., typically 7-8 years or so.

Ok, so you're saying that at the point that children can form a useful part of society they start to discriminate in some way or other? That has to be learned behavior though doesn't it? And if so then we don't care as our data is meaningless.

Partially!

I believe it is learned behaviour, but would be more positive about humanity. What can be learned, does not have to be learned, and can be unlearned.

Dixie said:

I agree with Mike. The value bet might be on Tories coming 3rd in Copeland and 4th in Stoke. The latter is very likely as UKIP take from Tories and Libs from Labour. Tories really are only doing well because Corbyn is shite.

More likely the Tories win Copeland and come second in Stoke

John_M said:

surbiton said:

RobD said:

surbiton said:

Pulpstar said:

SouthamObserver said:

For the record, I think we should definitely have a freedom of movement deal with the Aussies and Kiwis. They are our brothers. Not sure they'd want it though.

New Zealand has a pop density of 17.5/sq km. Heaven.

"Remote rural areas with a density of less than 1 person per square kilometre account for about 14 percent of the rural population.[21]"

You are sure ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_Zealand

It says at the top of the link, 17.5/sq km.

That's for the whole country. Even 17.5 means ,say, 4-5 houses in a whole sq.kilometer. I would go bananas! Now I understand, why they are bananas.

Do NZ rural people also live on milking subsidies like our lot do ?

The Kiwis eliminated nearly all farming subsidies (there was some transitional support to help farmers who wanted to exit the industry) in 1984. It's an interesting story:

http://dailysignal.com/2016/09/22/what-happened-when-new-zealand-got-rid-of-government-subsidies-for-farmers/

Powys has 25 people per km2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powys

So no need to emigrate if you want low density, only if you want super-low density.

rural_voter said:

John_M said:

surbiton said:

RobD said:

surbiton said:

Pulpstar said:

SouthamObserver said:

For the record, I think we should definitely have a freedom of movement deal with the Aussies and Kiwis. They are our brothers. Not sure they'd want it though.

New Zealand has a pop density of 17.5/sq km. Heaven.

"Remote rural areas with a density of less than 1 person per square kilometre account for about 14 percent of the rural population.[21]"

You are sure ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_Zealand

It says at the top of the link, 17.5/sq km.

That's for the whole country. Even 17.5 means ,say, 4-5 houses in a whole sq.kilometer. I would go bananas! Now I understand, why they are bananas.

Do NZ rural people also live on milking subsidies like our lot do ?

The Kiwis eliminated nearly all farming subsidies (there was some transitional support to help farmers who wanted to exit the industry) in 1984. It's an interesting story:

http://dailysignal.com/2016/09/22/what-happened-when-new-zealand-got-rid-of-government-subsidies-for-farmers/

Powys has 25 people per km2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powys

So no need to emigrate if you want low density, only if you want super-low density.

Monmouthshire is the sweet spot. 104 folk per km2, has Waitrose and you can actually get a plumber. No, don't move here, it's great the way it is .

SouthamObserver said:

RepublicanTory said:

SouthamObserver said:

RepublicanTory said:

SouthamObserver said:

For the record, I think we should definitely have a freedom of movement deal with the Aussies and Kiwis. They are our brothers. Not sure they'd want it though.

Sadly I think you are right !!

NZ really is a fabulous country to visit-its like an all encompassing Geography field trip in one country.

Totally agree. My brother has lived there for 25 years and has built a great life. Here he is with his missus:
https://youtu.be/1h27Wj-qzg0

Good for him!

My sister in law and her husband emigrated to NZ 12 years ago. They had never been before-i recommended Nelson as their initial base -they have never left and absolutely love the place.

Possibly my most favourite town in the World

If they've ever rented paddle boards at the beach in Nelson it's been from my brother!

Nelson is great. All the country round there is. I'd live there very happily.

They have !!

Seen the film- the kids have a dodgy accent as well !

surbiton said:

FF43 said:

SeanT said:

<>

I think the aussies regard as something between a respected but faintly tragic grandparent and an amusing and oddly raffish older sibling. Either way, they feel the ties of blood, and I am sure the Brits return this.

The question is, who would fight for us in a war, if we were truly imperiled?

I'd put Australia first, alongside NZ, then Canada and America. Probably France. Maybe Italy and the Nordics. Germany probably not. Spain no. And the same in reverse. The Brits would fight for Australia before Germany, America before Spain.

Interesting question. I think Germany probably, maybe the U.S.and France. Australia possibly if the U.S. were also involved. Canada, I'm not sure. It's a different world from 1939.

Does Australia have an Aircraft carrier with planes on them ?

They used to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Sydney_(R17)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vengeance_(R71) (loan only)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Melbourne_(R21)

John_M said:

Gallowgate said:

Northumberland has 63/km2 if you want to stay in England! Even less so the further north you go.

Waitrose? Sorry to harp on about this, but it's my human right to shop at Waitrose.

http://www.waitrose.com/bf_home/bf/482.html Here you go!

foxinsoxuk said:

Omnium said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Omnium said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Omnium said:

SeanT said:

Omnium said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Omnium said:

Mr Meeks' posts this evening somehow remind me of the Monty Python 'arguments are next door' thing. Oddly though for once this wasn't the location of 'Abuse'

I wasn't expecting the overt racism to surface quite so quickly on pb after Trump's inauguration. I thought we might get a few months' grace,

Everyone is racist. By the time they are a year old, babies show fear of faces that are the "wrong" shape or colour. Its a sensible evolved response to obvious genetic outsiders, who are less likely to deem your survival as important. This is true of all babies, black brown or white. So let's get over it. We're all born racist.

The more interesting question is how you act on these instinctive impulses. That is the test for an adult.

Yep - that's just the unfamiliar though. And of course any racism that you or I might have in us was almost certainly germinated by unfamiliarity.

Peoples experiences in life can of course also be important -

My experience of children is that they are extremely tolerant of

It is only at the age of 7-8 that children start to fear difference, and bullying begins. They have to learn it from grown ups.

You're probably just seeing a fear of bullying rather than a fear of difference. (If you're different then you might get bullied because of that so you fear difference)

Bullying itself has to just be a survival thing. You make sure there's a very obvious target so that even if you become weak you're not the obvious target.

Not really, young children do not have that sort of sophisticated thought. Bullying comes later., typically 7-8 years or so.

Ok, so you're saying that at the point that children can form a useful part of society they start to discriminate in some way or other? That has to be learned behavior though doesn't it? And if so then we don't care as our data is meaningless.

Partially!

I believe it is learned behaviour, but would be more positive about humanity. What can be learned, does not have to be learned, and can be unlearned.

Sure. 'Learned' as a word is messing up your argument, but I get what you say.

Bromptonaut said:

John_M said:

Gallowgate said:

Northumberland has 63/km2 if you want to stay in England! Even less so the further north you go.

Waitrose? Sorry to harp on about this, but it's my human right to shop at Waitrose.

There's a Waitrose in Ponteland.

And Hexham.

CornishBlue said:

Tim_B said:

Trump confirms that May will be here next week, and he wants the Churchill bust back in the Oval Office.

It was back in the Oval Office the moment he became President yesterday!

Yup. Sometimes it's difficult to parse what he's saying. It sounded as if he asked, but didn't have it yet. As they say, take him seriously, but not literally.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/21/trump-returns-churchill-bust-to-oval-office.html

John_M said:

Gallowgate said:

John_M said:

Gallowgate said:

Northumberland has 63/km2 if you want to stay in England! Even less so the further north you go.

Waitrose? Sorry to harp on about this, but it's my human right to shop at Waitrose.

http://www.waitrose.com/bf_home/bf/482.html Here you go!

Nothing further North than Hexham. Truly, the borders are a foreign country.

Or Herefordshire - about 80/km2 and one Waitrose.
The Welsh borderlands do quite well.

Another horrific case of bullying the mentally impaired

https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/822903874398941184