Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Theresa May will be hoping for another polling industry fa

1246711

Comments

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,824
    What do people make of this story?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/02/no-income-tax-rises-high-earners-tory-government-minister-reveals/

    It seems odd for a minister who isn't the Chancellor to issue a previously denied taxation pledge a few days before an election. Deniable, perhaps?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,288
    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    SCON appear to be abandoning the Barchart posters !

    https://twitter.com/ConsFutureScot/status/870696521741746176
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,030
    calum said:

    SCON appear to be abandoning the Barchart posters !

    https://twitter.com/ConsFutureScot/status/870696521741746176

    Is that the Men's Equality Party?
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    I love nukes.

    Nuke everyone, and everything.

    NOW.

    Are you Kenny Everett regarding nukes.Or Stephen Hendry leaving the country if Labour get in.?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,288
    edited June 2017
    I notice that Jeremy has joined us on this thread.

    Nuclear weapons are there to deter hostile nations from acting against us. If Ukraine hadn't disarmed unilaterally, would Russia have rolled in and annexed half of their country?
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,030
    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
    You really think that the UK might nuke North Korea? You've been playing too many video games.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,766
    calum said:

    SCON appear to be abandoning the Barchart posters !

    https://twitter.com/ConsFutureScot/status/870696521741746176

    Control yourself, ladies.
    And be advised your services won't be required for campaigning.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,288
    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
    You really think that the UK might nuke North Korea? You've been playing too many video games.
    The other way around.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 1,596
    edited June 2017

    What do people make of this story?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/02/no-income-tax-rises-high-earners-tory-government-minister-reveals/

    It seems odd for a minister who isn't the Chancellor to issue a previously denied taxation pledge a few days before an election. Deniable, perhaps?

    I think its pretty clear Hammon won't be chancellor on 9th June if May wins.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,987

    malcolmg said:

    Omnium said:

    Having nukes and saying that you're not prepared to use them is probably the worst of all the choices.

    He never said that, he only stated he would not use a first strike. Tories seem obsessed with using nucleur weapons, what a bunch of fannies.
    If you have nukes, the other guy has to assume you might use them, even if you have said you won't. Mind you, it didn't stop Argentina invading The Falklands. Maybe they judged, correctly, that we wouldn't use them, though I suspect air-raid shelters sold well in Buenos Aires for a bit.

    Anyway the argument all has a bit of a sixties feeling about it. It's nice for me to remember the Aldermaston march as a twelve year old, but things have moved on a bit since then. I somehow think that if the unthinkable is thunk somewhere it isn't going to be a case of the phone ringing by Jeremy's bed at 3 o'clock in the morning and some agitated general asking him if he can press the red button. Accidents aside, you'd have to envisage a lengthy period of tension and allies and foes alike weighing up consequences and alternatives, and who might and might not do what.

    Since I was twelve, only the Cuban Missile Crisis came anywhere near triggering a nuclear catastrophe. Nukes haven't proliferated the way many of us feared. Treaties and diplomacy have kept us safe so far. More of the same seems to be what is called for.
    Exactly Peter, Tories seem pretty desperate, they have little good to promote themselves so stuck with trying to monster Jeremy just for having a balanced view of things and not slavering at the thought of killing millions.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    MaxPB said:

    I notice that Jeremy has joined us on this thread.

    Nuclear weapons are there to deter hostile nations from acting against us. If Ukraine hadn't disarmed unilaterally, would Russia have rolled in and annexed half of their country?

    If you live in Canada or Germany with no nukes can you phone a friend ?
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    Sandpit said:

    isam said:

    This seems to have a lot going for it as a theory about why the polls are almost certainly wrong:
    https://twitter.com/stronglozenges/status/870721473887051776

    It's very similar to the article I wrote last Sunday.

    "Political obsessives are the material of opinion polls, but not the fabric of the nation. It could be that in showing off about doing their homework, giving the "clever" answer rather than what they actually intend to do, they are making the polls less accurate."

    http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/the-problem-with-opinion-polls-polls.html?m=1

    Mike OGH disagrees, he says polling companies have dealt with the problem, that's why he wouldn't publish it
    That's a well thought through piece, and it's clear that several pollsters will have egg on their faces a week from now. OGH and yourself can't both be right, I guess we'll find out in six days' time!
    Thanks

    What will happen, I think, is that one poll out of the hundreds will be right-ish, in the way that one person wins at musical chairs by happening to be sitting when the music stops, and that one will be championed by people desperate to believe that their puppy is still alive
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,091
    edited June 2017

    nichomar said:

    Sandpit said:



    The geography teacher look with the occasional ill-fitting suit might go down well at a Stop the War rally, but not at the G7 summit he'd like us to think he might attend.

    It is strange how gaining power in any field does tend to confer a broader sense of responsibility to those outside you personal spectrum you very rarely see mayors behaving in a way that embarrasses their town during civic functions etc, it does happen but those that do pay the price. I just wonder if Corbyn is starting to realize this which is the reason for some of the change in rhetoric, demeanor and appearance.
    You feel that Trump looks and acts the past? The world is changing, not always in a way we'd like.

    Thoughtful piece, in more optimstic terms, from a Labour supporter who expects a Tory win:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/03/straight-talking-win-politics-social-media-corbyn
    I wouldn't dismiss nich's point quite so glibly. Trump is still new in a very big job, and a very unusual character to begin with. We'll see how much it changes him, if at all, down the road.

    My experience in both business and politics tells me that expectations when someone is put into a bigger role do often (but not always) surprise on the upside. Lots of people 'grow' into a bigger role and develop new perspectives and behaviours from the wider experience it gives them. In particular they are exposed to a broader range of pressures, such that the role starts to shape the person and their apparent opinions.

    When young it's easy to believe that power rests at the top and all you need to do is get there and change everything. As you get closer to such positions (in however big or small a pond) the surprise is generally how hemmed in and constrained they are by pressures that weren't so apparent before. The power always seems to be somewhere else, until you reach the view that power is actually a very complex thing to understand. Yes, of course now and again there's a big yes/no call and one individual can send events off down a different path. But more generally IMHO the job shapes the (wo)man.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,030
    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
    You really think that the UK might nuke North Korea? You've been playing too many video games.
    The other way around.
    Your really think that North Korea might nuke the UK? I'll buy you an atlas for your birthday.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,028

    malcolmg said:

    Omnium said:

    Having nukes and saying that you're not prepared to use them is probably the worst of all the choices.

    He never said that, he only stated he would not use a first strike. Tories seem obsessed with using nucleur weapons, what a bunch of fannies.
    If you have nukes, the other guy has to assume you might use them, even if you have said you won't. Mind you, it didn't stop Argentina invading The Falklands. Maybe they judged, correctly, that we wouldn't use them, though I suspect air-raid shelters sold well in Buenos Aires for a bit.

    Anyway the argument all has a bit of a sixties feeling about it. It's nice for me to remember the Aldermaston march as a twelve year old, but things have moved on a bit since then. I somehow think that if the unthinkable is thunk somewhere it isn't going to be a case of the phone ringing by Jeremy's bed at 3 o'clock in the morning and some agitated general asking him if he can press the red button. Accidents aside, you'd have to envisage a lengthy period of tension and allies and foes alike weighing up consequences and alternatives, and who might and might not do what.

    Since I was twelve, only the Cuban Missile Crisis came anywhere near triggering a nuclear catastrophe. Nukes haven't proliferated the way many of us feared. Treaties and diplomacy have kept us safe so far. More of the same seems to be what is called for.
    Able Archer came close to accidentally triggering a nuclear exchange.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83

    Accidents sometimes happen. I think the a nuclear catastrophe by accident is more likely than a deliberate exchange.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,288
    Yorkcity said:

    MaxPB said:

    I notice that Jeremy has joined us on this thread.

    Nuclear weapons are there to deter hostile nations from acting against us. If Ukraine hadn't disarmed unilaterally, would Russia have rolled in and annexed half of their country?

    If you live in Canada or Germany with no nukes can you phone a friend ?
    They live under the US nuclear umbrella, plus who would bomb Canada? Maybe Trump. I think Trudeau needs to look at buying a few Russian nukes.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,288
    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
    You really think that the UK might nuke North Korea? You've been playing too many video games.
    The other way around.
    Your really think that North Korea might nuke the UK? I'll buy you an atlas for your birthday.
    They are close to developing an ICBM which can reach London.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,830

    This seems to have a lot going for it as a theory about why the polls are almost certainly wrong:
    https://twitter.com/stronglozenges/status/870721473887051776

    Pollsters are more likely to reach the politically engaged: OK, that sounds plausible but then the argument seems to be that these people are both more and less likely to change their voting intentions.
    Isn't the argument that usually they are less likely to change as they have strong prior opinions, but that they are also the more likely to actually follow political events. As Corbyn has outcampaigned May this has changed minds, but mostly amongst people paying enough attention to have noticed May's weak campaign and Corbyn's strong one.

    The argument is that usually respondents unusually strong prior opinions are more significant than their unusually strong attention spans (to politics), but this time the reverse is true?

    No idea if it's right, but I think that's what it's getting at.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651

    What do people make of this story?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/02/no-income-tax-rises-high-earners-tory-government-minister-reveals/

    It seems odd for a minister who isn't the Chancellor to issue a previously denied taxation pledge a few days before an election. Deniable, perhaps?

    Found this mystifying myself. FPT:

    Michael Fallon in addition to attacking Corbyn on defence has announced that no higher rate taxpayers will pay anymore in raised tax under the conservatives

    Heh, if that's what it sounds like it doesn't sound like an election-winning new line of attack to me. How many of the (not terribly numerous as % of the population) higher-rate taxpayers were considering voting Corbyn in the hope he would protect them from evil Tory tax rises - and will now be reassured that it is safe to vote Conservative again?

    Doesn't this mean that the tax we all know needs to be raised is going to be squeezed out of other people? Like, erm, "ordinary people", JAMs and swing voters maybe?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,091
    edited June 2017
    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
    You really think that the UK might nuke North Korea? You've been playing too many video games.
    The other way around.
    Your really think that North Korea might nuke the UK? I'll buy you an atlas for your birthday.
    They are close to developing an ICBM which can reach London.
    I suspect it is truer to say that they are close to developing one that can land as far away from where it is fired as is London?

    But. I thought they were still struggling with California.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    MaxPB said:

    Yorkcity said:

    MaxPB said:

    I notice that Jeremy has joined us on this thread.

    Nuclear weapons are there to deter hostile nations from acting against us. If Ukraine hadn't disarmed unilaterally, would Russia have rolled in and annexed half of their country?

    If you live in Canada or Germany with no nukes can you phone a friend ?
    They live under the US nuclear umbrella, plus who would bomb Canada? Maybe Trump. I think Trudeau needs to look at buying a few Russian nukes.
    You say who would bomb Canada ? Who is going to bomb the UK with nukes?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,987
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,792
    nichomar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    FF43 said:

    Specifically, Britain's nuclear programme is a nonsense in my view. The military have mixed views on it as well. But it's totemic. The public think it should be there, even if it's not clear why in a practical sense. Corbyn has impressed me during this campaign in the degree to which he has made himself into a normal politician and been willing to make the necessary compromises. Nuclear weapons appear to be the step too far.

    Oddly enough the biggest compromise and the most effective one was changing to a blue suit from the shabby vanilla one he usually wears. I know this sounds like superficial crap but having had to sit around a table with execs from P&G many times discussing what colour tie a model should be wearing I can vouch for the fact it's not trivial.*

    *(In real life of course it is trivial but in the whacky world of advertising/marketing it really isn't)
    It's a fair point that we expect out politicians to look like leaders though. It took a year or so for Corbyn's handlers to finally drag him to a tailor and get him to look the part.

    The geography teacher look with the occasional ill-fitting suit might go down well at a Stop the War rally, but not at the G7 summit he'd like us to think he might attend.
    It is strange how gaining power in any field does tend to confer a broader sense of responsibility to those outside you personal spectrum you very rarely see mayors behaving in a way that embarrasses their town during civic functions etc, it does happen but those that do pay the price. I just wonder if Corbyn is starting to realize this which is the reason for some of the change in rhetoric, demeanor and appearance.
    He's obviously got a couple of good advisors behind him, as the shift has been very pronounced in recent months. Certainly he now gives the physical appearance of a senior politician, that's a couple of grand very well spent for the blue suit outfit and a few trips to the barber. @Roger is right that marketing and advertising people obsess about this, because they know it makes a difference in perception.

    From personal experience, I work in IT where it's de rigeur to be scruffy - but when working for example in a 5* hotel, it's important to look like a 5* hotel worker first and an IT guy second. That means a suit from a proper tailor, shoes polished and a shave every morning.

    In some cases it doesn't help Corbyn though, as he tied himself in knots last night trying to waffle about defence. He has his unchanging view but has been told to say something else, he has to pause before opening his mouth on the subject, and then confuses himself between what he actually thinks and what he's been told to say.
  • RhubarbRhubarb Posts: 359
    Yorkcity said:

    MaxPB said:

    I notice that Jeremy has joined us on this thread.

    Nuclear weapons are there to deter hostile nations from acting against us. If Ukraine hadn't disarmed unilaterally, would Russia have rolled in and annexed half of their country?

    If you live in Canada or Germany with no nukes can you phone a friend ?
    Yes. Wiki thinks that there are around 60 stored in Germany for that very purpose.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,288
    Yorkcity said:

    MaxPB said:

    Yorkcity said:

    MaxPB said:

    I notice that Jeremy has joined us on this thread.

    Nuclear weapons are there to deter hostile nations from acting against us. If Ukraine hadn't disarmed unilaterally, would Russia have rolled in and annexed half of their country?

    If you live in Canada or Germany with no nukes can you phone a friend ?
    They live under the US nuclear umbrella, plus who would bomb Canada? Maybe Trump. I think Trudeau needs to look at buying a few Russian nukes.
    You say who would bomb Canada ? Who is going to bomb the UK with nukes?
    North Korea, Pakistan, some crazy ISIS guy who's managed to buy some Pakistani nukes.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,766
    edited June 2017
    Yorkcity said:

    MaxPB said:

    Yorkcity said:

    MaxPB said:

    I notice that Jeremy has joined us on this thread.

    Nuclear weapons are there to deter hostile nations from acting against us. If Ukraine hadn't disarmed unilaterally, would Russia have rolled in and annexed half of their country?

    If you live in Canada or Germany with no nukes can you phone a friend ?
    They live under the US nuclear umbrella, plus who would bomb Canada? Maybe Trump. I think Trudeau needs to look at buying a few Russian nukes.
    You say who would bomb Canada ? Who is going to bomb the UK with nukes?
    Hush you, the UK is very, very important and at the top of the 'to do' list of every dictator, terrorist & tinpot regime.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,888
    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
    You really think that the UK might nuke North Korea? You've been playing too many video games.
    The other way around.
    Your really think that North Korea might nuke the UK? I'll buy you an atlas for your birthday.
    I suppose it depends how much Foreibn Aid May sends them. Perhaps she will give them enough for Submarine May to be launched (really good at hiding)
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,288
    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
    You really think that the UK might nuke North Korea? You've been playing too many video games.
    The other way around.
    Your really think that North Korea might nuke the UK? I'll buy you an atlas for your birthday.
    They are close to developing an ICBM which can reach London.
    I suspect it is truer to say that they are close to developing one that can land as far away from where it is fired as is London?
    For now, but their nuclear programme has gone from being a joke to being a real threat in 10 years. I shudder to think what it will be like in another 10 years if China doesn't step up.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,042
    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
    You really think that the UK might nuke North Korea? You've been playing too many video games.
    The other way around.
    Your really think that North Korea might nuke the UK? I'll buy you an atlas for your birthday.
    They are close to developing an ICBM which can reach London.
    Like most actual threats, MAD is a sad anachronism. We can't rely on a rational response from the likes of Kim Jong Il.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,987

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    What I learnt from the debate last night

    1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
    2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

    If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

    Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

    Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.
    WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!
    We have intelligence that ISIS has acquired ten suitcase size nuclear bombs. They are currently in Raqqa. In 2 hours they will be dispersed by agents seeking to send them to destroy 10 western cities. In that case, I would deploy a nuke. Fuck yes.

    Why would it need to be a nuke?

    Because my advisors have told me that is the only 100% certain way to eliminate the threat to ten of the world's finest cities. We know within a five block radius where the weapons are, but don't have eyes on them. For example.
    LOL, you can guarantee they would be lucky to get right country never mind 5 blocks. You need to stop reading fantasy books.
    They could drop a nuke on the display screen of your smart phone these days malc.... Tragically, they won't!
    LOL, the evidence proves otherwise, they hit more weddings , schools , hospitals etc than they do terrorists.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,288

    Yorkcity said:

    MaxPB said:

    Yorkcity said:

    MaxPB said:

    I notice that Jeremy has joined us on this thread.

    Nuclear weapons are there to deter hostile nations from acting against us. If Ukraine hadn't disarmed unilaterally, would Russia have rolled in and annexed half of their country?

    If you live in Canada or Germany with no nukes can you phone a friend ?
    They live under the US nuclear umbrella, plus who would bomb Canada? Maybe Trump. I think Trudeau needs to look at buying a few Russian nukes.
    You say who would bomb Canada ? Who is going to bomb the UK with nukes?
    Hush you, the UK is very, very important and at the top of the 'to do' list of every dictator, terrorist & tinpot regime.
    Said like a true victim status SNP member.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Omnium said:

    Having nukes and saying that you're not prepared to use them is probably the worst of all the choices.

    He never said that, he only stated he would not use a first strike. Tories seem obsessed with using nucleur weapons, what a bunch of fannies.
    If you have nukes, the other guy has to assume you might use them, even if you have said you won't. Mind you, it didn't stop Argentina invading The Falklands. Maybe they judged, correctly, that we wouldn't use them, though I suspect air-raid shelters sold well in Buenos Aires for a bit.

    Anyway the argument all has a bit of a sixties feeling about it. It's nice for me to remember the Aldermaston march as a twelve year old, but things have moved on a bit since then. I somehow think that if the unthinkable is thunk somewhere it isn't going to be a case of the phone ringing by Jeremy's bed at 3 o'clock in the morning and some agitated general asking him if he can press the red button. Accidents aside, you'd have to envisage a lengthy period of tension and allies and foes alike weighing up consequences and alternatives, and who might and might not do what.

    Since I was twelve, only the Cuban Missile Crisis came anywhere near triggering a nuclear catastrophe. Nukes haven't proliferated the way many of us feared. Treaties and diplomacy have kept us safe so far. More of the same seems to be what is called for.
    Exactly Peter, Tories seem pretty desperate, they have little good to promote themselves so stuck with trying to monster Jeremy just for having a balanced view of things and not slavering at the thought of killing millions.
    They have promoted foxhunting in their manifesto to counter act they had nothing to say .
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,987

    What do people make of this story?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/02/no-income-tax-rises-high-earners-tory-government-minister-reveals/

    It seems odd for a minister who isn't the Chancellor to issue a previously denied taxation pledge a few days before an election. Deniable, perhaps?

    Very deniable , "No Plans" is absolutely meaningless. Next week they will have plans and they will not be to help the poor.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    Jonathan said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
    You really think that the UK might nuke North Korea? You've been playing too many video games.
    The other way around.
    Your really think that North Korea might nuke the UK? I'll buy you an atlas for your birthday.
    They are close to developing an ICBM which can reach London.
    Like most actual threats, MAD is a sad anachronism. We can't rely on a rational response from the likes of Kim Jong Il.
    Kim's actions are actually fairly rational.

    Unlike, say, Daesh. But the deterrent isn't about Daesh.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    edited June 2017
    Kezia on Corbyn - I think SLAB will be quietly unwinding encouraging tactical voting for SCON !

    " Surprisingly, given she twice voted against him becoming leader and declared him “not competent” to run her party, the one person she doesn’t turn her fire on is Jeremy Corbyn. In fact, she almost sounds like she's got a touch of the Messianic Corbyn bug herself. Her conversion was at the UK manifesto launch in Bradford. "

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15326149.The_Herald_leader_interview__Kezia_Dugdale/?ref=twtrec
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,792
    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
    You really think that the UK might nuke North Korea? You've been playing too many video games.
    The other way around.
    Your really think that North Korea might nuke the UK? I'll buy you an atlas for your birthday.
    They are close to developing an ICBM which can reach London.
    I suspect it is truer to say that they are close to developing one that can land as far away from where it is fired as is London?

    But. I thought they were still struggling with California.
    From Pyongyang, London and LA are roughly equidistant.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,091
    malcolmg said:

    What do people make of this story?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/02/no-income-tax-rises-high-earners-tory-government-minister-reveals/

    It seems odd for a minister who isn't the Chancellor to issue a previously denied taxation pledge a few days before an election. Deniable, perhaps?

    Very deniable , "No Plans" is absolutely meaningless. Next week they will have plans and they will not be to help the poor.
    For older readers, we remember "no plans" as John Major's promise on VAT, before he put it up.

    But reading the article the absolutely key word in the promise is "income" just before "tax".
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,987

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
    You really think that the UK might nuke North Korea? You've been playing too many video games.
    The other way around.
    Your really think that North Korea might nuke the UK? I'll buy you an atlas for your birthday.
    I suppose it depends how much Foreibn Aid May sends them. Perhaps she will give them enough for Submarine May to be launched (really good at hiding)
    LOL, we are funding the republic to build missiles to fire at us, you could not make it up.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    What I learnt from the debate last night

    1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
    2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

    If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

    Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

    Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.
    WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!
    We have intelligence that ISIS has acquired ten suitcase size nuclear bombs. They are currently in Raqqa. In 2 hours they will be dispersed by agents seeking to send them to destroy 10 western cities. In that case, I would deploy a nuke. Fuck yes.

    Why would it need to be a nuke?

    Because my advisors have told me that is the only 100% certain way to eliminate the threat to ten of the world's finest cities. We know within a five block radius where the weapons are, but don't have eyes on them. For example.
    LOL, you can guarantee they would be lucky to get right country never mind 5 blocks. You need to stop reading fantasy books.
    They could drop a nuke on the display screen of your smart phone these days malc.... Tragically, they won't!
    LOL, the evidence proves otherwise, they hit more weddings , schools , hospitals etc than they do terrorists.
    There is no evidence for that.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    "I might walk home alone, but my faith in love is still devout"

    https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/870920905463037952
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,091
    Sandpit said:

    nichomar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    FF43 said:

    Specifically, Britain's nuclear programme is a nonsense in my view. The military have mixed views on it as well. But it's totemic. The public think it should be there, even if it's not clear why in a practical sense. Corbyn has impressed me during this campaign in the degree to which he has made himself into a normal politician and been willing to make the necessary compromises. Nuclear weapons appear to be the step too far.



    *(In real life of course it is trivial but in the whacky world of advertising/marketing it really isn't)
    It's a fair point that we expect out politicians to look like leaders though. It took a year or so for Corbyn's handlers to finally drag him to a tailor and get him to look the part.

    The geography teacher look with the occasional ill-fitting suit might go down well at a Stop the War rally, but not at the G7 summit he'd like us to think he might attend.
    It is strange how gaining power in any field does tend to confer a broader sense of responsibility to those outside you personal spectrum you very rarely see mayors behaving in a way that embarrasses their town during civic functions etc, it does happen but those that do pay the price. I just wonder if Corbyn is starting to realize this which is the reason for some of the change in rhetoric, demeanor and appearance.
    He's obviously got a couple of good advisors behind him, as the shift has been very pronounced in recent months. Certainly he now gives the physical appearance of a senior politician, that's a couple of grand very well spent for the blue suit outfit and a few trips to the barber. @Roger is right that marketing and advertising people obsess about this, because they know it makes a difference in perception.

    From personal experience, I work in IT where it's de rigeur to be scruffy - but when working for example in a 5* hotel, it's important to look like a 5* hotel worker first and an IT guy second. That means a suit from a proper tailor, shoes polished and a shave every morning.

    In some cases it doesn't help Corbyn though, as he tied himself in knots last night trying to waffle about defence. He has his unchanging view but has been told to say something else, he has to pause before opening his mouth on the subject, and then confuses himself between what he actually thinks and what he's been told to say.
    Yes, seeing him pushed into arguing against unilateral disarmament was actually quite a sad moment, as an indication of what politics does to people.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Quincel said:

    This seems to have a lot going for it as a theory about why the polls are almost certainly wrong:
    https://twitter.com/stronglozenges/status/870721473887051776

    Pollsters are more likely to reach the politically engaged: OK, that sounds plausible but then the argument seems to be that these people are both more and less likely to change their voting intentions.
    Isn't the argument that usually they are less likely to change as they have strong prior opinions, but that they are also the more likely to actually follow political events. As Corbyn has outcampaigned May this has changed minds, but mostly amongst people paying enough attention to have noticed May's weak campaign and Corbyn's strong one.

    The argument is that usually respondents unusually strong prior opinions are more significant than their unusually strong attention spans (to politics), but this time the reverse is true?

    No idea if it's right, but I think that's what it's getting at.
    Yes but I'm not sure it is much more useful than my own analysis which is that I can explain the different reasons why both phone polls and panels undersample Conservatives so need to correct poor sampling with aggressive weighting. Again, plausible but fades out into handwaving.

  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    edited June 2017
    Barnesian said:

    malcolmg said:

    Omnium said:

    Having nukes and saying that you're not prepared to use them is probably the worst of all the choices.

    He never said that, he only stated he would not use a first strike. Tories seem obsessed with using nucleur weapons, what a bunch of fannies.
    If you have nukes, the other guy has to assume you might use them, even if you have said you won't. Mind you, it didn't stop Argentina invading The Falklands. Maybe they judged, correctly, that we wouldn't use them, though I suspect air-raid shelters sold well in Buenos Aires for a bit.

    Anyway the argument all has a bit of a sixties feeling about it. It's nice for me to remember the Aldermaston march as a twelve year old, but things have moved on a bit since then. I somehow think that if the unthinkable is thunk somewhere it isn't going to be a case of the phone ringing by Jeremy's bed at 3 o'clock in the morning and some agitated general asking him if he can press the red button. Accidents aside, you'd have to envisage a lengthy period of tension and allies and foes alike weighing up consequences and alternatives, and who might and might not do what.

    Since I was twelve, only the Cuban Missile Crisis came anywhere near triggering a nuclear catastrophe. Nukes haven't proliferated the way many of us feared. Treaties and diplomacy have kept us safe so far. More of the same seems to be what is called for.
    Able Archer came close to accidentally triggering a nuclear exchange.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83

    Accidents sometimes happen. I think the a nuclear catastrophe by accident is more likely than a deliberate exchange.
    I believe the country that has had most nuclear weapons dropped on them is.....Spain. Five were accidentally dropped and were fortunatley not armed but a wide area was contaminated and they are still arguing who should pay for the clean up them or the US
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    nichomar said:

    Barnesian said:

    malcolmg said:

    Omnium said:

    Having nukes and saying that you're not prepared to use them is probably the worst of all the choices.

    He never said that, he only stated he would not use a first strike. Tories seem obsessed with using nucleur weapons, what a bunch of fannies.
    If you have nukes, the other guy has to assume you might use them, even if you have said you won't. Mind you, it didn't stop Argentina invading The Falklands. Maybe they judged, correctly, that we wouldn't use them, though I suspect air-raid shelters sold well in Buenos Aires for a bit.

    Anyway the argument all has a bit of a sixties feeling about it. It's nice for me to remember the Aldermaston march as a twelve year old, but things have moved on a bit since then. I somehow think that if the unthinkable is thunk somewhere it isn't going to be a case of the phone ringing by Jeremy's bed at 3 o'clock in the morning and some agitated general asking him if he can press the red button. Accidents aside, you'd have to envisage a lengthy period of tension and allies and foes alike weighing up consequences and alternatives, and who might and might not do what.

    Since I was twelve, only the Cuban Missile Crisis came anywhere near triggering a nuclear catastrophe. Nukes haven't proliferated the way many of us feared. Treaties and diplomacy have kept us safe so far. More of the same seems to be what is called for.
    Able Archer came close to accidentally triggering a nuclear exchange.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83

    Accidents sometimes happen. I think the a nuclear catastrophe by accident is more likely than a deliberate exchange.
    I believe the country that has had most nuclear weapons dropped on them is.....Spain. Five were accidentally dropped and were unfortunatley not armed but a wide area was contaminated and they are still arguing who should pay for the clean up them or the US
    "unfortunately" not armed?
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    I think a reasonable hypothesis is that what is going on has actually little to do with May and the Tory campaign. I think the extremes in the polling drop can be dismissed as a temporary polling boost in the aftermath of the announcement of the election. If one ignores that then the Tory share has basically held steady throughout the election. Possibly they've shed a couple of points as a result of the poor campaign and 'brave' manifesto.

    The real shift is that the anti-Tory vote appears somewhat surprised by Corbyn and, when combined with the disaster that is the LibDem campaign, has rallied behind him in large numbers. It is difficult to see what the Tories could have done to combat that.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,091
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
    You really think that the UK might nuke North Korea? You've been playing too many video games.
    The other way around.
    Your really think that North Korea might nuke the UK? I'll buy you an atlas for your birthday.
    They are close to developing an ICBM which can reach London.
    I suspect it is truer to say that they are close to developing one that can land as far away from where it is fired as is London?

    But. I thought they were still struggling with California.
    From Pyongyang, London and LA are roughly equidistant.
    Lol. oK it's me that gets the atlas!

    At least we have the reassurance that Kim probably looks at the US page of his Atlas the most.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,887
    Interesting aside to the nukes and security debate.

    A friend of mine is a Nottinghamshire County Councillor and is the Armed Forces 'Champion' for the county, looking after the interests of serving and former military personnel. The interesting point he made is that 1 in 20 Nottinghamshire residents are ex-service people. I have no idea of whether or not this is typical across the country but it does seem to me a significant constituency that Corbyn has, to a large extent, pissed off.
  • Conservatives would be fools to focus on who would push the red button in the last few days of the campaign. Corbyn's answer on that speaks for itself, and people who are worried about it are worried about it already.

    I tend to agree that Corbyn's position is dangerous, and that your potential enemies need to believe you have the steel to respond to a strike, and more generally to commit to military action in appropriate circumstances. That isn't credible with Corbyn - he is a thinly veiled pacifist, which is all very admirable in a way, but not in a leader unfortunately.

    But, conversely, going on and on about one's willingness to kill millions at the flick of a switch does make you come across as deranged. Just let Corbyn's remarks lie as they fall.

    No, the Tories should focus relentlessly on economic competence and the pound in your pocket in the closing days.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    nichomar said:

    Barnesian said:

    malcolmg said:

    Omnium said:

    Having nukes and saying that you're not prepared to use them is probably the worst of all the choices.

    He never said that, he only stated he would not use a first strike. Tories seem obsessed with using nucleur weapons, what a bunch of fannies.
    If you have nukes, the other guy has to assume you might use them, even if you have said you won't. Mind you, it didn't stop Argentina invading The Falklands. Maybe they judged, correctly, that we wouldn't use them, though I suspect air-raid shelters sold well in Buenos Aires for a bit.

    Anyway the argument all has a bit of a sixties feeling about it. It's nice for me to remember the Aldermaston march as a twelve year old, but things have moved on a bit since then. I somehow think that if the unthinkable is thunk somewhere it isn't going to be a case of the phone ringing by Jeremy's bed at 3 o'clock in the morning and some agitated general asking him if he can press the red button. Accidents aside, you'd have to envisage a lengthy period of tension and allies and foes alike weighing up consequences and alternatives, and who might and might not do what.

    Since I was twelve, only the Cuban Missile Crisis came anywhere near triggering a nuclear catastrophe. Nukes haven't proliferated the way many of us feared. Treaties and diplomacy have kept us safe so far. More of the same seems to be what is called for.
    Able Archer came close to accidentally triggering a nuclear exchange.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83

    Accidents sometimes happen. I think the a nuclear catastrophe by accident is more likely than a deliberate exchange.
    I believe the country that has had most nuclear weapons dropped on them is.....Spain. Five were accidentally dropped and were unfortunatley not armed but a wide area was contaminated and they are still arguing who should pay for the clean up them or the US
    "unfortunately" not armed?
    Saw my mistake and tried to edit it
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,030
    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
    You really think that the UK might nuke North Korea? You've been playing too many video games.
    The other way around.
    Your really think that North Korea might nuke the UK? I'll buy you an atlas for your birthday.
    They are close to developing an ICBM which can reach London.
    Define "close".

    Let's humour you for a moment and imagine that London is in range of Pyongyang's fantasy h-bomb. Why are they going to fire it at London? If we had no nuclear weapons why would they fire it at London? Your logic seems to suggest that when they have an operational nuke they're going to launch it at a country that doesn't have nuclear weapons. Which one do you think it'll be?

    Anyway, we've already dived off too far into the realms of fantasy. North Korea is developing nukes in order to protect its sovereignty. It's not developing them in order to launch them at the UK. We don't need them to protect our sovereignty, but I suppose it's a penis envy thing - we can hardly get rid of ours if pipsqueaks like DPRK, Pakistan and Iran have them.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    edited June 2017
    IanB2 said:

    malcolmg said:

    What do people make of this story?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/02/no-income-tax-rises-high-earners-tory-government-minister-reveals/

    It seems odd for a minister who isn't the Chancellor to issue a previously denied taxation pledge a few days before an election. Deniable, perhaps?

    Very deniable , "No Plans" is absolutely meaningless. Next week they will have plans and they will not be to help the poor.
    For older readers, we remember "no plans" as John Major's promise on VAT, before he put it up.

    But reading the article the absolutely key word in the promise is "income" just before "tax".
    Yes, this is what I was reminded of too, though wasn't the "no plans" débâcle for NIC not VAT?

    At the time, the Tories were still recovering from breaking tax promises made in 1992. ‘I have no plans to raise the level of national insurance,’ said John Major in January of that year. His manifesto went on to pledge to ‘to continue to reduce taxes as fast as we prudently can.’ In 1993, John Major’s government raised National Insurance from 9pc to 10pc.

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/tories-tax-trust-warning-history/
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    I love nukes.

    Nuke everyone, and everything.

    NOW.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGMWZJlA0QA
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    Having a nuclear deterrent which requires Trump's approval before use says it all about the UK's place in the world order !
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    malcolmg said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
    You really think that the UK might nuke North Korea? You've been playing too many video games.
    The other way around.
    Your really think that North Korea might nuke the UK? I'll buy you an atlas for your birthday.
    I suppose it depends how much Foreibn Aid May sends them. Perhaps she will give them enough for Submarine May to be launched (really good at hiding)
    LOL, we are funding the republic to build missiles to fire at us, you could not make it up.
    True I found it hard to believe that the government was sending money to North Korea . I do not think even May knew when she was asked last night.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,287
    When you're the prime minister or the president of a nuclear power you have to be able to willing to use that nuclear weaponry, or what is the point ?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,766
    MaxPB said:

    Yorkcity said:

    MaxPB said:

    Yorkcity said:

    MaxPB said:

    I notice that Jeremy has joined us on this thread.

    Nuclear weapons are there to deter hostile nations from acting against us. If Ukraine hadn't disarmed unilaterally, would Russia have rolled in and annexed half of their country?

    If you live in Canada or Germany with no nukes can you phone a friend ?
    They live under the US nuclear umbrella, plus who would bomb Canada? Maybe Trump. I think Trudeau needs to look at buying a few Russian nukes.
    You say who would bomb Canada ? Who is going to bomb the UK with nukes?
    Hush you, the UK is very, very important and at the top of the 'to do' list of every dictator, terrorist & tinpot regime.
    Said like a true victim status SNP member.
    Why oh why can't you traitorous, Nat, victim types believe that our precious nation is so great that nutcases want to blow us up? Have you no pride? Punch above our weight, the sun never sets etc, etc.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,887
    edited June 2017
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
    You really think that the UK might nuke North Korea? You've been playing too many video games.
    The other way around.
    Your really think that North Korea might nuke the UK? I'll buy you an atlas for your birthday.
    They are close to developing an ICBM which can reach London.
    I suspect it is truer to say that they are close to developing one that can land as far away from where it is fired as is London?

    But. I thought they were still struggling with California.
    From Pyongyang, London and LA are roughly equidistant.
    London is nearly a thousand Km nearer to Pyonyang than LA is. Great circles and all that.

    Edit: Not that I subscribe to the view that North Korea is in any danger of nuking London.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    edited June 2017
    malcolmg said:

    What do people make of this story?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/02/no-income-tax-rises-high-earners-tory-government-minister-reveals/

    It seems odd for a minister who isn't the Chancellor to issue a previously denied taxation pledge a few days before an election. Deniable, perhaps?

    Very deniable , "No Plans" is absolutely meaningless. Next week they will have plans and they will not be to help the poor.
    Is it not possible that this is just a tactic to try and get tax into the news? It doesn't matter whether it is a 'believable' pledge or not, anyone thinking about it is by default going to remember the alternative. Nobody is going to think "s*t the Tories might put tax up, better vote Labour". If anything it might actually help in some demographics if people don't believe it.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    IanB2 said:

    malcolmg said:

    What do people make of this story?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/02/no-income-tax-rises-high-earners-tory-government-minister-reveals/

    It seems odd for a minister who isn't the Chancellor to issue a previously denied taxation pledge a few days before an election. Deniable, perhaps?

    Very deniable , "No Plans" is absolutely meaningless. Next week they will have plans and they will not be to help the poor.
    For older readers, we remember "no plans" as John Major's promise on VAT, before he put it up.

    But reading the article the absolutely key word in the promise is "income" just before "tax".
    Even older readers will remember Mrs Thatcher had no plans to double VAT in 1979. To be fair, raising it from 8% under Labour to 15% is not quite doubling.
  • HenryHenry Posts: 5
    Lynton Crosby seems to have forgotten:

    1) If in a hole stop digging.
    2) A message of 'flip-flopping' can be highly damaging - as seen during the John Kerry's presidential campaign.

    We already had: TM the 'Remainer' organising 'Brexit'; TM the PM saying 'no election' then calling an election; and, deviation from the brand new manifesto with the social care U-turn and on social housing.

    But today: 'No increase on income tax" .... Labour supporter will be searching for their flip-flops to start waving about!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 46,159
    Pulpstar said:

    When you're the prime minister or the president of a nuclear power you have to be able to willing to use that nuclear weaponry, or what is the point ?

    Corbyn has no real interest in being PM.

    I suspect this might be unique in British political history.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,792
    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
    You really think that the UK might nuke North Korea? You've been playing too many video games.
    The other way around.
    Your really think that North Korea might nuke the UK? I'll buy you an atlas for your birthday.
    They are close to developing an ICBM which can reach London.
    I suspect it is truer to say that they are close to developing one that can land as far away from where it is fired as is London?

    But. I thought they were still struggling with California.
    From Pyongyang, London and LA are roughly equidistant.
    Lol. oK it's me that gets the atlas!

    At least we have the reassurance that Kim probably looks at the US page of his Atlas the most.
    Someone pointed that out on here before and got me running for the atlas. The Pacific Ocean is much bigger than we all think it is!

    Luckily Kim's focus is probably elsewhere than Europe, and a missile from NK aimed at us would attract the attention from a lot of other people before it got close. Seoul and Tokyo are shitting themselves though.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,091
    edited June 2017

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
    You really think that the UK might nuke North Korea? You've been playing too many video games.
    The other way around.
    Your really think that North Korea might nuke the UK? I'll buy you an atlas for your birthday.
    They are close to developing an ICBM which can reach London.
    I suspect it is truer to say that they are close to developing one that can land as far away from where it is fired as is London?

    But. I thought they were still struggling with California.
    From Pyongyang, London and LA are roughly equidistant.
    London is nearly a thousand Km nearer to Pyonyang than LA is. Great circles and all that.

    Edit: Not that I subscribe to the view that North Korea is in any danger of nuking London.
    Lol again. Sandpit supply your address so we can send you the atlas!
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658

    Pulpstar said:

    When you're the prime minister or the president of a nuclear power you have to be able to willing to use that nuclear weaponry, or what is the point ?

    Corbyn has no real interest in being PM.

    I suspect this might be unique in British political history.
    Stanley Baldwin?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 46,159
    Henry said:

    Lynton Crosby seems to have forgotten:

    1) If in a hole stop digging.
    2) A message of 'flip-flopping' can be highly damaging - as seen during the John Kerry's presidential campaign.

    We already had: TM the 'Remainer' organising 'Brexit'; TM the PM saying 'no election' then calling an election; and, deviation from the brand new manifesto with the social care U-turn and on social housing.

    But today: 'No increase on income tax" .... Labour supporter will be searching for their flip-flops to start waving about!

    Hold, have I missed something? Fallon said "high earners" will not face tax rises. Nothing about, for example, Class 4 NICS for self-employed.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,659
    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    What I learnt from the debate last night

    1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
    2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

    If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

    Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

    Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.
    WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!
    We have intelligence that ISIS has acquired ten suitcase size nuclear bombs. They are currently in Raqqa. In 2 hours they will be dispersed by agents seeking to send them to destroy 10 western cities. In that case, I would deploy a nuke. Fuck yes.

    Why would it need to be a nuke?

    Because my advisors have told me that is the only 100% certain way to eliminate the threat to ten of the world's finest cities. We know within a five block radius where the weapons are, but don't have eyes on them. For example.
    LOL, you can guarantee they would be lucky to get right country never mind 5 blocks. You need to stop reading fantasy books.
    They could drop a nuke on the display screen of your smart phone these days malc.... Tragically, they won't!
    Hm not sure I'd want to irradiate all that lovely oil up there that we can steal for HM Treasury.
    Don't worry, it's not onshore.

    Except the Secret Oilfields of course, but can't talk about them....
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Michael Fallon the attack do is not having a good campaign is he ?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,287
    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
    You really think that the UK might nuke North Korea? You've been playing too many video games.
    The other way around.
    Your really think that North Korea might nuke the UK? I'll buy you an atlas for your birthday.
    They are close to developing an ICBM which can reach London.
    I suspect it is truer to say that they are close to developing one that can land as far away from where it is fired as is London?

    But. I thought they were still struggling with California.
    From Pyongyang, London and LA are roughly equidistant.
    Lol. oK it's me that gets the atlas!

    At least we have the reassurance that Kim probably looks at the US page of his Atlas the most.
    The pacific ocean is quite large.

    8,657 km
    Distance from Pyongyang to London

    9,551 km
    Distance from Pyongyang to Los Angeles

  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    Any incoming government is going to face two impossible challenges: Brexit and reducing the deficit. When you add to this the problem of meeting voter apparent expectations for improving living standards etc (they are turning their nose up at the one vaguely sensible plan to deal with these issues), you realise that no politician can possibly square all these circles. Corbyn is effectively the first of many fantasists. So its pretty much uncharted territory.
  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469
    I would imagine the polls we get today will continue to show a narrowing of the position. Polls taken after last night wont be available until Monday i presume.
    I wo der if OGH is campaigning in C&W today
  • AugustineAugustine Posts: 19
    In passing, surely success equals performance minus anticipation, not the other way round.

    Anticipation minus performance equals failure!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,287

    Pulpstar said:

    When you're the prime minister or the president of a nuclear power you have to be able to willing to use that nuclear weaponry, or what is the point ?

    Corbyn has no real interest in being PM.

    I suspect this might be unique in British political history.
    Why on earth is he leading one of the two political parties in with a chance at this election then. I'd have more respect if he'd planned to scrap Trident in the manifesto.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,573

    RobD said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    What I learnt from the debate last night

    1) There are people in this country that are happy to drop a bomb and kill millions of innocent people.
    2) If your not prepared to kill millions of innocent people then your fit to be PM.

    If anyone pressed the nuclear button we would all be dead.

    Yes. But the theory of nuclear deterrent is that the knowledge of the damage it would cause to their own country prevents any rational actor from pressing the button first.

    Clearly the doctrine is not a perfect defence, but it is part of the set of tools that we have.
    WHY WOULD ANYONE DEPLOY A NUCLEAR WEAPON? ARE YOU TOTALLY FUCKING MAD!
    We have intelligence that ISIS has acquired ten suitcase size nuclear bombs. They are currently in Raqqa. In 2 hours they will be dispersed by agents seeking to send them to destroy 10 western cities. In that case, I would deploy a nuke. Fuck yes.

    Why would it need to be a nuke?

    Because my advisors have told me that is the only 100% certain way to eliminate the threat to ten of the world's finest cities. We know within a five block radius where the weapons are, but don't have eyes on them. For example.
    LOL, you can guarantee they would be lucky to get right country never mind 5 blocks. You need to stop reading fantasy books.
    They could drop a nuke on the display screen of your smart phone these days malc.... Tragically, they won't!
    Hm not sure I'd want to irradiate all that lovely oil up there that we can steal for HM Treasury.
    Don't worry, it's not onshore.

    Except the Secret Oilfields of course, but can't talk about them....
    :o

    shhh
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    edited June 2017
    timmo said:

    I would imagine the polls we get today will continue to show a narrowing of the position. Polls taken after last night wont be available until Monday i presume.
    I wo der if OGH is campaigning in C&W today

    Giving his hand a rest after signing all those letters to London residents telling them that "only the Libs" ... etc ;)
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    if If IF IF Corbyn ever got into power then the Labour manifesto would be the quickest discarded document in history
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,692
    edited June 2017
    I think we are more likely to see a Yougov and Mori and ORB and Survation failure than a polling industry failure as such, I think Comres, ICM, Kantar and Opinium will be pretty much spot on especially as they are more likely to weigh by 2015 turnout demographics. Yougov and Mori need to hope for a surge in youth turnout for Corbyn in 2017 compared to 2015 if they are to have a hope of being right
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 5,046

    Henry said:

    Lynton Crosby seems to have forgotten:

    1) If in a hole stop digging.
    2) A message of 'flip-flopping' can be highly damaging - as seen during the John Kerry's presidential campaign.

    We already had: TM the 'Remainer' organising 'Brexit'; TM the PM saying 'no election' then calling an election; and, deviation from the brand new manifesto with the social care U-turn and on social housing.

    But today: 'No increase on income tax" .... Labour supporter will be searching for their flip-flops to start waving about!

    Hold, have I missed something? Fallon said "high earners" will not face tax rises. Nothing about, for example, Class 4 NICS for self-employed.
    I'd be far more concerned about dividends. As a self employed person your best bet is to set up your own company and pay yourself in dividends - taxed at 7.5%. I don't have the figures to hand but for someone on 40k you can easily halve your tax liability.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307

    IanB2 said:

    malcolmg said:

    What do people make of this story?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/02/no-income-tax-rises-high-earners-tory-government-minister-reveals/

    It seems odd for a minister who isn't the Chancellor to issue a previously denied taxation pledge a few days before an election. Deniable, perhaps?

    Very deniable , "No Plans" is absolutely meaningless. Next week they will have plans and they will not be to help the poor.
    For older readers, we remember "no plans" as John Major's promise on VAT, before he put it up.

    But reading the article the absolutely key word in the promise is "income" just before "tax".
    Yes, this is what I was reminded of too, though wasn't the "no plans" débâcle for NIC not VAT?

    At the time, the Tories were still recovering from breaking tax promises made in 1992. ‘I have no plans to raise the level of national insurance,’ said John Major in January of that year. His manifesto went on to pledge to ‘to continue to reduce taxes as fast as we prudently can.’ In 1993, John Major’s government raised National Insurance from 9pc to 10pc.

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/tories-tax-trust-warning-history/
    Is raising tax for higher earners even much of an issue though nowadays, politically? I think you might be living in a 1990's paradigm. The tories have everything to lose and nothing to gain by saying they will protect medium to high earners from tax rises, simply because those voters have nowhere else to go.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 46,159
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    When you're the prime minister or the president of a nuclear power you have to be able to willing to use that nuclear weaponry, or what is the point ?

    Corbyn has no real interest in being PM.

    I suspect this might be unique in British political history.
    Why on earth is he leading one of the two political parties in with a chance at this election then. I'd have more respect if he'd planned to scrap Trident in the manifesto.
    To a certain extent he is the accidental leader. None of this was meant to happen.

    As to Trident, he can't be clear in the manifesto because conference has voted a policy of renewal. He is stuck with that until he can sort out a new policy and get it passed.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,792
    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
    You really think that the UK might nuke North Korea? You've been playing too many video games.
    The other way around.
    Your really think that North Korea might nuke the UK? I'll buy you an atlas for your birthday.
    They are close to developing an ICBM which can reach London.
    I suspect it is truer to say that they are close to developing one that can land as far away from where it is fired as is London?

    But. I thought they were still struggling with California.
    From Pyongyang, London and LA are roughly equidistant.
    London is nearly a thousand Km nearer to Pyonyang than LA is. Great circles and all that.

    Edit: Not that I subscribe to the view that North Korea is in any danger of nuking London.
    Lol again. Sandpit supply your address so we can send you the atlas!
    My map has London and LA within 10% of the distance from Korea. 5,520 miles from London and 5,900 miles from LA (Using Seoul as the origin)

    http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LHR-ICN-LAX&PM=b:disc7&MS=wls&MC=ICN&DU=mi&DM=5000
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 99,295
    edited June 2017

    timmo said:

    I would imagine the polls we get today will continue to show a narrowing of the position. Polls taken after last night wont be available until Monday i presume.
    I wo der if OGH is campaigning in C&W today

    Giving his hand a rest after signing all those letters to London residents telling them that "only the Libs" ... etc ;)
    Turns out I received one yesterday, here in Dore.

    Very surreal getting a leaflet from Mike Smithson of politicalbetting.com telling me to vote Lib Dem to stop Labour winning Sheffield Hallam.
  • Augustine said:

    In passing, surely success equals performance minus anticipation, not the other way round.

    Anticipation minus performance equals failure!

    You're right. Fixed it now.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,573
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
    You really think that the UK might nuke North Korea? You've been playing too many video games.
    The other way around.
    Your really think that North Korea might nuke the UK? I'll buy you an atlas for your birthday.
    They are close to developing an ICBM which can reach London.
    I suspect it is truer to say that they are close to developing one that can land as far away from where it is fired as is London?

    But. I thought they were still struggling with California.
    From Pyongyang, London and LA are roughly equidistant.
    London is nearly a thousand Km nearer to Pyonyang than LA is. Great circles and all that.

    Edit: Not that I subscribe to the view that North Korea is in any danger of nuking London.
    Lol again. Sandpit supply your address so we can send you the atlas!
    My map has London and LA within 10% of the distance from Korea. 5,520 miles from London and 5,900 miles from LA (Using Seoul as the origin)

    http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LHR-ICN-LAX&PM=b:disc7&MS=wls&MC=ICN&DU=mi&DM=5000
    An alternate plot from the same website showing all places within 5500nm of ICN:

    http://www.gcmap.com/[email protected]
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,390

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
    You really think that the UK might nuke North Korea? You've been playing too many video games.
    The other way around.
    Your really think that North Korea might nuke the UK? I'll buy you an atlas for your birthday.
    They are close to developing an ICBM which can reach London.
    I suspect it is truer to say that they are close to developing one that can land as far away from where it is fired as is London?

    But. I thought they were still struggling with California.
    From Pyongyang, London and LA are roughly equidistant.
    London is nearly a thousand Km nearer to Pyonyang than LA is. Great circles and all that.

    Edit: Not that I subscribe to the view that North Korea is in any danger of nuking London.
    Their missiles are targeting York, as the history books in North Korea are somewhat out of date.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,692
    Henry said:

    Lynton Crosby seems to have forgotten:

    1) If in a hole stop digging.
    2) A message of 'flip-flopping' can be highly damaging - as seen during the John Kerry's presidential campaign.

    We already had: TM the 'Remainer' organising 'Brexit'; TM the PM saying 'no election' then calling an election; and, deviation from the brand new manifesto with the social care U-turn and on social housing.

    But today: 'No increase on income tax" .... Labour supporter will be searching for their flip-flops to start waving about!

    You can increase NI instead for example without a flip flop
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,792

    timmo said:

    I would imagine the polls we get today will continue to show a narrowing of the position. Polls taken after last night wont be available until Monday i presume.
    I wo der if OGH is campaigning in C&W today

    Giving his hand a rest after signing all those letters to London residents telling them that "only the Libs" ... etc ;)
    Turns out I received one yesterday, here in Dore.

    Very surreal getting a leaflet from Mike Smithson of politicalbetting.com telling me to vote Lib Dem to stop Labour winning Sheffield Hallam.
    I guess the LDs are hand delivering them?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,107
    alex. said:

    malcolmg said:

    What do people make of this story?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/02/no-income-tax-rises-high-earners-tory-government-minister-reveals/

    It seems odd for a minister who isn't the Chancellor to issue a previously denied taxation pledge a few days before an election. Deniable, perhaps?

    Very deniable , "No Plans" is absolutely meaningless. Next week they will have plans and they will not be to help the poor.
    Is it not possible that this is just a tactic to try and get tax into the news? It doesn't matter whether it is a 'believable' pledge or not, anyone thinking about it is by default going to remember the alternative. Nobody is going to think "s*t the Tories might put tax up, better vote Labour". If anything it might actually help in some demographics if people don't believe it.
    I believe that's the thinking. "I have come to the TV studios to say nothing definite about our tax plans."
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,573
    FF43 said:

    alex. said:

    malcolmg said:

    What do people make of this story?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/02/no-income-tax-rises-high-earners-tory-government-minister-reveals/

    It seems odd for a minister who isn't the Chancellor to issue a previously denied taxation pledge a few days before an election. Deniable, perhaps?

    Very deniable , "No Plans" is absolutely meaningless. Next week they will have plans and they will not be to help the poor.
    Is it not possible that this is just a tactic to try and get tax into the news? It doesn't matter whether it is a 'believable' pledge or not, anyone thinking about it is by default going to remember the alternative. Nobody is going to think "s*t the Tories might put tax up, better vote Labour". If anything it might actually help in some demographics if people don't believe it.
    I believe that's the thinking. "I have come to the TV studios to say nothing definite about our tax plans."
    Didn't Fallon say something definite though?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,659

    timmo said:

    I would imagine the polls we get today will continue to show a narrowing of the position. Polls taken after last night wont be available until Monday i presume.
    I wo der if OGH is campaigning in C&W today

    Giving his hand a rest after signing all those letters to London residents telling them that "only the Libs" ... etc ;)
    Turns out I received one yesterday, here in Dore.

    Very surreal getting a leaflet from Mike Smithson of politicalbetting.com telling me to vote Lib Dem to stop Labour winning Sheffield Hallam.
    Voters might just think "bugger that, he's just talking his bets up...."?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    surbiton said:

    I just read that Fallon said HR tax payers will not pay more than now.

    So BASIC RATE taxpayers will pay more. Thanks, Fallon for letting it out.

    There were a big exchange of posts in the middle of the night after this post of mine.

    I maintain my position. Unlike GE2015, when the Tories specifically ruled out Income Tax and NIC increases, this time they have not.

    Michael Fallon specifically ruled out increases for higher rate taxpayers. Therefore, taxes will be increased on BASIC RATE taxpayers.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,692

    Charles said:

    Roger said:

    FPT.

    Dimbleby asked the telling question;

    'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

    Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

    Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

    "What's changed?"

    The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

    Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

    Nope May said there were some advantages in staying in the EU but she would see Brexit through as the British people wanted with no free movement, no 100 billion euros to the EU and departure from the single market and if she wins a majority she will have a mandate for that from the British people
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,720
    Sandpit said:

    timmo said:

    I would imagine the polls we get today will continue to show a narrowing of the position. Polls taken after last night wont be available until Monday i presume.
    I wo der if OGH is campaigning in C&W today

    Giving his hand a rest after signing all those letters to London residents telling them that "only the Libs" ... etc ;)
    Turns out I received one yesterday, here in Dore.

    Very surreal getting a leaflet from Mike Smithson of politicalbetting.com telling me to vote Lib Dem to stop Labour winning Sheffield Hallam.
    I guess the LDs are hand delivering them?
    Surely the LDs shouldn't be delivering leaflets without imprints?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Hague is talking about the SNP. The election must be close.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,792
    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
    You really think that the UK might nuke North Korea? You've been playing too many video games.
    The other way around.
    Your really think that North Korea might nuke the UK? I'll buy you an atlas for your birthday.
    They are close to developing an ICBM which can reach London.
    I suspect it is truer to say that they are close to developing one that can land as far away from where it is fired as is London?

    But. I thought they were still struggling with California.
    From Pyongyang, London and LA are roughly equidistant.
    London is nearly a thousand Km nearer to Pyonyang than LA is. Great circles and all that.

    Edit: Not that I subscribe to the view that North Korea is in any danger of nuking London.
    Lol again. Sandpit supply your address so we can send you the atlas!
    My map has London and LA within 10% of the distance from Korea. 5,520 miles from London and 5,900 miles from LA (Using Seoul as the origin)

    http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LHR-ICN-LAX&PM=b:disc7&MS=wls&MC=ICN&DU=mi&DM=5000
    An alternate plot from the same website showing all places within 5500nm of ICN:

    http://www.gcmap.com/[email protected]
    What do you reckon, 75-80% of the world, by population?
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,030
    Blue_rog said:

    if If IF IF Corbyn ever got into power then the Labour manifesto would be the quickest discarded document in history

    Not going to happen. Tory share is solid and almost nothing left for Labour to squeeze. Tories need to fall below 313 seats (impossible - would require Lab to be ahead of Tories) to enter Lab coalition territory, and Tories have been pretty successful at sabotaging Lab coalition plans already.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,692

    MaxPB said:

    Charles said:

    Roger said:

    FPT.

    Dimbleby asked the telling question;

    'You say you have called the election because of Brexit.

    Last week you said 'Leaving the EU would make us MORE prosperous'

    Last year you said' Leaving the EU would make us LESS prosperous'

    "What's changed?"

    The British people made the decision to leave and, like a good public servant, she will do what her employers instruct

    Yep - her call is to decide what kind of Brexit it will be. She has promised to make voters more prosperous and will be judged on that.

    After this campaign team Theresa won't be given another chance to be judged.

    Yep - this campaign has shown clearly that May is not up to it. But who is there to take over. The Tory talent cupboard is pretty bare. May probably was the best person for the job out of those who applied. Even Corbyn would have beaten Leadsom.

    I think Leadsom would have beaten Corbyn through the UKIP returnees, she would have lost more to the LDs but she would have not said your house could be used to pay for your social care and had more for the Tory base
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,887
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dadge said:

    MaxPB said:

    Jonathan said:

    Wondering if anyone really thinks that 'pushing the button ' is actually going to come into play in the next five years and should be the deciding factor in this election.

    Who knows with North Korea.
    You really think that the UK might nuke North Korea? You've been playing too many video games.
    The other way around.
    Your really think that North Korea might nuke the UK? I'll buy you an atlas for your birthday.
    They are close to developing an ICBM which can reach London.
    I suspect it is truer to say that they are close to developing one that can land as far away from where it is fired as is London?

    But. I thought they were still struggling with California.
    From Pyongyang, London and LA are roughly equidistant.
    London is nearly a thousand Km nearer to Pyonyang than LA is. Great circles and all that.

    Edit: Not that I subscribe to the view that North Korea is in any danger of nuking London.
    Their missiles are targeting York, as the history books in North Korea are somewhat out of date.
    LOL. Winchester surely? :)
This discussion has been closed.