politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Labour need to stop worrying and learn to love the bomb

OldKingCole said:

O/t, but a slightly different take on elderly people and conservative voting. It’s from Third Age Matters, the magazine of the U3a.
People in affluent areas, or who see themselves as affluent tend to vote Conservative.
Women tend, or at least tended, to vote Conservative.
People in affluent areas tend to live longer than those in less affluent ones.
Women live longer that men.
Hence in the the population over 65 there is an inherent skew towards Conservative voting.

williamglenn said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Wing-nut in chief..... in a cravat?

He thinks he's Terence Stamp.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Dan Hodges is making an interesting comparison about Jezza's waffle vs protest...

twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/982606236800741376

twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/983101179310768128

Jezza, the useful idiot of dictators worldwide...

TOPPING said:

Anazina said:

MarqueeMark said:

Anazina said:

MarqueeMark said:

Anazina said:

MarqueeMark said:

Anazina said:

MarqueeMark said:

Anazina said:

Now then!

http://uk.businessinsider.com/poll-uk-public-backs-second-brexit-referendum-2018-4

Not. Gonna. Happen.

Word how the so-called 'democrats' of the brexiteer right are scared of the people. Are they afraid of the electorate changing their minds? It would seem so!

We'll have another referendum - so long as it is restricted to those who voted Leave, deciding whether to accept the Leave deal negotiated, or Leave on WTO terms?

Would that do you? Or are you still f*cking trying to get another chance to overturn the earlier vote? I think we can guess which....

Why on earth should it be restricted to those who voted Leave? What an absurd suggestion.

No more absurd than wanting "Best of Three". At least my position has the merit of asking those who voted Leave what type of Leave they want. Those who voted Remain have foregone their opportunity for a voice in that.

What antidemocratic bilge you spout. By that thinking, if I don't vote for the government of the day I concede the right to have any say in how they are running the country? Say I vote Green or Ukip, I have no right to praise or criticise or try to influence how the Tory or Labour administration makes policy? What utter tripe. Go back to bed.

Rattled?

Not at all. I am simply astounded by your simpleton thinking. I'd expect better.

Just as well Nigel didn't follow the example that our PB Leavers are setting when it comes to votes and campaigning.

FrancisUrquhart said:

How drug loyalty cards offered to middle-class cocaine users are fuelling gang violence

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/08/revealed-drug-loyalty-cards-offered-middle-class-cocaine-users/

I bet many an employee in the media have one.

OldKingCole said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

How drug loyalty cards offered to middle-class cocaine users are fuelling gang violence

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/08/revealed-drug-loyalty-cards-offered-middle-class-cocaine-users/

I bet many an employee in the media have one.

It’s quite a few years ago now that I sat next to a young woman from an advertising agency who told me about her cocaine use.

Foxy said:

OldKingCole said:

O/t, but a slightly different take on elderly people and conservative voting. It’s from Third Age Matters, the magazine of the U3a.
People in affluent areas, or who see themselves as affluent tend to vote Conservative.
Women tend, or at least tended, to vote Conservative.
People in affluent areas tend to live longer than those in less affluent ones.
Women live longer that men.
Hence in the the population over 65 there is an inherent skew towards Conservative voting.

Yes, that is part of the explanation, though women voting Conservative is perhaps only a historical phenomenon, and the next generation much more Labour inclined.

The Social Class aspect is also significant in that life expectancy in well off demographics is about 10 years longer than the most deprived, with longer good health of 17 years or so. The elderly are both more female and more affluent in origin.

This does have some significance if current trends continue. Social Class patterns of voting have significantly altered recently, as gender patterns have too. If the Tories are reliant on Brexity C2DE white males, while Labour on ABC1 Females, then the age profile of party voters is going to push in one direction.

TOPPING said:

Good article.

Couple of issues, tho.

First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.

Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).

I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

Good article.

Couple of issues, tho.

First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.

Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).

I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.

The UK is no longer a superpower like the USA or China or Russia but as a member of the UN Security Council and NATO and a nuclear power we are along with France at the top of the second tier in terms of foreign and defence policy influence

HYUFD said:

RoyalBlue said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

Good article.

Couple of issues, tho.

First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.

Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).

I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.

The UK is no longer a superpower like the USA or China or Russia but as a member of the UN Security Council and NATO and a nuclear power we are along with France at the top of the second tier in terms of foreign and defence policy influence

Russia is not in any way a superpower. It’s not a top 10 economy, life expectancy is worse than many developing countries in Africa and Asia, it is highly corrupt, and economically dependent on a commodity whose price it does not control. Its vast arsenal of nuclear weapons protects it from a direct attack by NATO, but NATO has no plans to mount such an attack, and the same weapons don’t really help Russia achieve its foreign policy goals.

The only near contemporary to the USA in international relations is China, and they are probably 20 years from real equality in terms of power and influence.

Russia is not an economic superpower like China but its interventions in the Middle East show it is much more willing than China to use its P5 UN Security Council status to challenge US influence overseas

Sandpit said:

Man armed with a gun shot dead by police in London last night.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5593593/Police-cordon-petrol-station-Romford-fatal-shooting-early-hours.html

FF43 said:

TOPPING said:

Good article.

Couple of issues, tho.

First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.

Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).

I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.

Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.

I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

OldKingCole said:

malcolmg said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

bigjohnowls said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

One of the Tories great leadership hopes, may have blundered:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/983255173651812352

Raab was right, immigration with lack of transition controls in 2004 certainly contributed to higher house prices added to by the downward pressure on wages for those on lower wages.

However lack of housebuilding, banks lending too much etc all added to the problem

No-one who lives in Mid and N Essex, I’m sure, thinks there’s a lack of housebuilding. However, as I commented the other day, when new-build one-beds are advetised at £300k+ there’s a lack of affordability. And while land prices unquestionably play a part, there does seem to be a difference in costs and returns somewhere.

I have got a new built 1 bed for under £300k in South Essex so there is still plenty of more affordable housing around but it is getting it built and past LD and Residents Association opposition that is the problem.

The mind boggles at how 1 bed flats around 300k can possibly be called "affordable" but hey ho...

The average flat price in Essex is £219 000 but plenty of commuters who work in the City will pay more than £300 000 for a flat

https://m.zoopla.co.uk/house-prices/essex/

Bloody Hell a flat can cost £300k

You can get a luxury 2 bed apartment directly overlooking the sea and coast for about £325,000 here

Mansion here for that. I have a nice modern 4 bedroom detached , 21/2 bath, near countryside, not huge but reasonably good size , and it is probably not much over 210K and has not gone up significantly since I bought 10 years ago.

How do you have 0.5 of a bathroom?

Room with just a washbasin and toilet ?

Ensuite, surely

FF43 said:

TOPPING said:

Good article.

Couple of issues, tho.

First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.

Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).

I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.

Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.

I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

TOPPING said:

Good article.

Couple of issues, tho.

First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.

Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).

I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.

Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.

I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.

For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.

Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

OldKingCole said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

How drug loyalty cards offered to middle-class cocaine users are fuelling gang violence

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/08/revealed-drug-loyalty-cards-offered-middle-class-cocaine-users/

I bet many an employee in the media have one.

It’s quite a few years ago now that I sat next to a young woman from an advertising agency who told me about her cocaine use.

Where as all the tech people are drugged up to the eyeballs medicated for ADHD on adderall i.e. speed.

I’ve still not quite worked out how giving speed to hyperactive people is a good thing. It makes normal people hyperactive!

The basis is that there is an optimum level of alertness for social functioning. If overstimulated you get anxiety, panic attacks or aggression, if understimulated, then irritable, short tempered, and unable to concentrate. It is on these understimulated ADHD folk that the drug works. Think of a tired and irritable toddler needing a nap, and imagine it in an older child or adult.

I have a nephew with ADHD, with ASD and Tourettes features. He can be hard work, and his parents try to manage him without pharma as much as possible, but on special occasions it helps.

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

TOPPING said:

Good article.

Couple of issues, tho.

First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.

Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).

I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.

Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.

I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.

For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or who had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.

Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre

We were always sovereign sunshine, it just didn't seem like it to some people. Let's not spend time working out what we should call such people.

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

TOPPING said:

Good article.

Couple of issues, tho.

First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.

Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).

I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.

Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.

I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.

For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or who had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.

Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre

We were always sovereign sunshine, it just didn't seem like it to some people. Let's not spend time working out what we should call such people.

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

TOPPING said:

Good article.

Couple of issues, tho.

First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.

Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).

I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.

Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.

I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.

For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.

Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre

we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.

Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA

Philip_Thompson said:

extreme and absurd

HYUFD said:

HHemmelig said:

HYUFD said:

HHemmelig said:

HYUFD said:

RoyalBlue said:

HYUFD said:

RoyalBlue said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

Good article.

Couple of issues, tho.

First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national poor (remember MARILYN?).

I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.

The UK is no longer a superpower like the USA or China or Russia but as a member of the UN Security Council and NATO and a nuclear power we are along with France at the top of the second tier in terms of foreign and defence policy influence

Russia is not in any way a superpower. It’s not a top 10 economy, life expectancy is policy goals.

The only near contemporary to the USA in international relations is China, and they are probably 20 years from real equality in terms of power and influence.

Russia is not an economic superpower like China but its interventions in the Middle East show it is much more willing than China to use its P5 UN Security Council status to challenge US influence overseas

Using military force overseas does not make a country a superpower. As our own history shows, without economic strength it is impossible to stay a military or technological superpower in the long run.

By permanently alienating Ukraine, Putin has put his own personal popularity ahead of Russia’s long-term interests. It is an irrevocable mistake.

Russia is still a top 20 economy, it also has a large military.

If you have military force but are not willing to project it then you are not a superpower in the true sense of the word.

Genuine question: when's the last time you visited Russia?

The Czech Republic is as far as I have been in Eastern Europe but what on earth has that got to do with anything?

Ah so just your usual waffling on about things you know nothing about and places you've never visited.

Few who have visited Russia in the recent past would describe it as a superpower, it is a mess.

It was largely Russian influence which has almost won the Syrian civil war for Assad

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

HHemmelig said:

HYUFD said:

HHemmelig said:

HYUFD said:

RoyalBlue said:

HYUFD said:

RoyalBlue said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

Good article.

Couple of issues, tho.

First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national poor (remember MARILYN?).

I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.

The UK is no longer a superpower like the USA or China or Russia but as a member of the UN Security Council and NATO and a nuclear power we are along with France at the top of the second tier in terms of foreign and defence policy influence

Russia is not in any way a superpower. It’s not a top 10 economy, life expectancy is policy goals.

The only near contemporary to the USA in international relations is China, and they are probably 20 years from real equality in terms of power and influence.

Russia is not an economic superpower like China but its interventions in the Middle East show it is much more willing than China to use its P5 UN Security Council status to challenge US influence overseas

Using military force overseas does not make a country a superpower. As our own history shows, without economic strength it is impossible to stay a military or technological superpower in the long run.

By permanently alienating Ukraine, Putin has put his own personal popularity ahead of Russia’s long-term interests. It is an irrevocable mistake.

Russia is still a top 20 economy, it also has a large military.

If you have military force but are not willing to project it then you are not a superpower in the true sense of the word.

Genuine question: when's the last time you visited Russia?

The Czech Republic is as far as I have been in Eastern Europe but what on earth has that got to do with anything?

Ah so just your usual waffling on about things you know nothing about and places you've never visited.

Few who have visited Russia in the recent past would describe it as a superpower, it is a mess.

It was largely Russian influence which has almost won the Syrian civil war for Assad

I thought Iran was also heavily involved.

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

TOPPING said:

Good article.

Couple of issues, tho.

First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.

Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).

I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.

Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.

I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.

For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.

Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre

we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.

Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA

You consider our time in Basra and Afghan to be victories, do you?

Well the fact is Saddam is no longer in power in Iraq, the Taliban no longer run the government in Afghanistan and Bin Laden is dead

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

TOPPING said:

Good article.

Couple of issues, tho.

First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.

Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).

I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.

Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.

I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.

For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.

Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre

we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.

Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA

You consider our time in Basra and Afghan to be victories, do you?

Well the fact is Saddam is no longer in power in Iraq, the Taliban no longer run the government in Afghanistan and Bin Laden is dead

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

TOPPING said:

Good article.

Couple of issues, tho.

First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.

Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).

I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.

Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.

I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.

For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.

Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre

we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.

Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

TOPPING said:

Good article.

Couple of issues, tho.

First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national prierested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).

I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.

Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.

I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.

For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.

Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre

we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.

Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA

We have lost quite a few since then!

Pehaps most recently we left Basra and Helmand much as the US left Vietnam. We declared victory, then scarpered, but we also left Aden with our tail between our legs, Suez and Palestine the same way. Others like Northern Ireland, are best considered score draws.

This is not to demean our military, but politicians often over estimate what force can achieve. "Punching above our Weight" is often the phrase used, but often it means "Out of their depth".

HHemmelig said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

TOPPING said:

Good article.

Couple of issues, tho.

First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.

Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).

I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.

Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle,

For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.

Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre

we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.

Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA

you think afghanistan was a victory then. Also I did not mean by hanging onto US coat-tails as their useful idiot.
We could also not mount an assault on anywhere without borrowing kit to get there.

In the sense of getting rid of Bin Laden yes.

The US is the major western power so of course they will lead any overseas interventions, both Argentina and Spain have weaker militaries than we do

Erm the Americans killed Bin Laden

HHemmelig said:

HYUFD said:

Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA

You are such a one-eyed "patriot" at times I imagine the outside of your house is perhaps draped in Thornberryesque flags? (though union jacks not St George's)

You appear never to have heard of Suez and if you mention the American war of independence you ought to include India and perhaps some of the other colonies we were forced to let go of after WW2. We would have lost the Falklands without the American support Thatcher wasn't sure she was going to get. And Iraq, Afghanistan etc haven't exactly been victories even if they can't be describe as defeats. We've played only a peripheral role anyway. Sadly Malcolm's comment is probably right.

FF43 said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

TOPPING said:

Good article.

Couple of issues, tho.

First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only" policy which explicitly rules out ME adventures as playing well, even though it is nothing if not realistic. Witness Lab's post-Iraq 2005 GE result; people might think a retreat (!) from the global stage is either the tip of the iceberg or a cover for a more pacifist-orientated defence policy, and Lab voters have shown they don't all approve of that.

Secondly, as I've been out of it for several years, and as I remember it, there was always the wrong kit facing the wrong threat (soft-skinned rovers for no green vehicle moves in NI, or a few Challengers facing the 3rd Shock Army in BAOR), I am interested to know why previous defence decisions were poor, beyond all of them previously also being poor (remember MARILYN?).

I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.

Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.

I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.

For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or who had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.

Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre

I am trying to rationalise why we would actually vote for muddle that wasn't there before and an actual settlement that on any reasonable interpretation will be worse than what we had before. I am embracing the mediocrity, thinking that's maybe what people want. The military stuff fits into that pattern. And actually it's not so bad. We're not a horrible place like Russia. We'll trundle along and no-one will pay us any attention, but we're comfortable with that.

I am struggling a bit to lower my expectations. Help me out. I am more used to places like China and Germany where they have some ambition.

HYUFD said:

HHemmelig said:

HYUFD said:

Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA

You are such a one-eyed "patriot" at times I imagine the outside of your house is perhaps draped in Thornberryesque flags? (though union jacks not St George's)

You appear never to have heard of Suez and if you mention the American war of independence you ought to include India and perhaps some of the other colonies we were forced to let go of after WW2. We would have lost the Falklands without the American support Thatcher wasn't sure she was going to get. And Iraq, Afghanistan etc haven't exactly been victories even if they can't be describe as defeats. We've played only a peripheral role anyway. Sadly Malcolm's comment is probably right.

Decolonisation is not the same as a military defeat, after World War Two it was simply not practical to maintain te Empire nor did the government wish to do so.

We won the Falklands on the ground through the Royal Marines in large part.

Floater said:

At the same time they are reporting the Russians as saying there was no use of chemicals in Syria - even Jezbollah not going that far.

Floater said:

Iran is and was heavily involved.

Wonder what Corbyn has to say about that???

Floater said:

By the way - some seriously shoddy reporting on SKy

They were reporting that Russia said ISRAEL was behind chemical attack

They obviously mean the attack on the airbase subsequent to that attack.

At the same time they are reporting the Russians as saying there was no use of chemicals in Syria - even Jezbollah not going that far.

FF43 said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

TOPPING said:

Good article.

Couple of issues, tho.

First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only

I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.

Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.

I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.

For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or who had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.

Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre

I am trying to rationalise why we would actually vote for muddle that wasn't there before and an actual settlement that on any reasonable interpretation will be worse than what we had before. I am embracing the mediocrity, thinking that's maybe what people want. The military stuff fits into that pattern. And actually it's not so bad. We're not a horrible place like Russia. We'll trundle along and no-one will pay us any attention, but we're comfortable with that.

I am struggling a bit to lower my expectations. Help me out. I am more used to places like China and Germany where they have some ambition.

Sandpit said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

OldKingCole said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

How drug loyalty cards offered to middle-class cocaine users are fuelling gang violence

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/08/revealed-drug-loyalty-cards-offered-middle-class-cocaine-users/

I bet many an employee in the media have one.

It’s quite a few years ago now that I sat next to a young woman from an advertising agency who told me about her cocaine use.

Where as all the tech people are drugged up to the eyeballs medicated for ADHD on adderall i.e. speed.

I’ve still not quite worked out how giving speed to hyperactive people is a good thing. It makes normal people hyperactive!

The basis is that there is an optimum level of alertness for social functioning. If overstimulated you get anxiety, panic attacks or aggression, if understimulated, then irritable, short tempered, and unable to concentrate. It is on these understimulated ADHD folk that the drug works. Think of a tired and irritable toddler needing a nap, and imagine it in an older child or adult.

I have a nephew with ADHD, with ASD and Tourettes features. He can be hard work, and his parents try to manage him without pharma as much as possible, but on special occasions it helps.

Oh, interesting. I’d assumed that the ADHD kids with the over-stimulated hyperactive ones, as opposed to the under-stimulated

Always good to have a doctor in the house.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Cyclefree said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Met are massively overfunded.

I mean they spent over £2.5 million on believing the fantasist Nick.

I could go on.

How much has been spent on the McCann inquiry?

£11 million and counting.

Casino_Royale said:

FF43 said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

TOPPING said:

Good article.

Couple of issues, tho.

First, given the already questionable perception of Lab wrt patriotism, national pride, and so forth, I can't see an "East of Skeggie Only

I just don't think the British Public, and not just the bowls clubs is ready for the admission that we are a peripheral supporting player these days. Much as it might be overwhelmingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.

Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just a very mediocre place - and that's OK.

I like commentary that tells me facts I didn't know before, proposes ideas I hadn't thought of before and where it is all set out in a lucid and elegant way. Dura Ace's article scores on all three.

For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or who had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.

Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre

I am trying to rationalise why we would actually vote for muddle that wasn't there before and an actual settlement that on any reasonable interpretation will be worse than what we had before. I am embracing the mediocrity, thinking that's maybe what people want. The military stuff fits into that pattern. And actually it's not so bad. We're not a horrible place like Russia. We'll trundle along and no-one will pay us any attention, but we're comfortable with that.

I am struggling a bit to lower my expectations. Help me out. I am more used to places like China and Germany where they have some ambition.

The vast majority of your posts consist of confirmation bias masquerading as objective analysis.

The U.K. certainly plays a more active role in global affairs than Germany does, both in terms of its membership of the UN Security Council, and its willingness to invest in and project hard and soft power. It is not true to say that no-one pays us any attention.

Germany is a larger economy, and the biggest player within the EU, but its ambitions - such as they are - are much more limited. It could chose to play a bigger role but, for a variety of reasons, has chosen not to.

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Cyclefree said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Met are massively overfunded.

I mean they spent over £2.5 million on believing the fantasist Nick.

I could go on.

How much has been spent on the McCann inquiry?

£11 million and counting.

Surely not by the Met though - the McCanns live(d?) in Leicestershire and their daughter went missing in Portugal. Not sure what that has to do with London.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Cyclefree said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Met are massively overfunded.

I mean they spent over £2.5 million on believing the fantasist Nick.

I could go on.

How much has been spent on the McCann inquiry?

£11 million and counting.

MTimT2 said:

Sandpit said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

OldKingCole said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

How drug loyalty cards offered to middle-class cocaine users are fuelling gang violence

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/08/revealed-drug-loyalty-cards-offered-middle-class-cocaine-users/

I bet many an employee in the media have one.

It’s quite a few years ago now that I sat next to a young woman from an advertising agency who told me about her cocaine use.

Where as all the tech people are drugged up to the eyeballs medicated for ADHD on adderall i.e. speed.

I’ve still not quite worked out how giving speed to hyperactive people is a good thing. It makes normal people hyperactive!

The basis is that there is an optimum level of alertness for social functioning. If overstimulated you get anxiety, panic attacks or aggression, if understimulated, then irritable, short tempered, and unable to concentrate. It is on these understimulated ADHD folk that the drug works. Think of a tired and irritable toddler needing a nap, and imagine it in an older child or adult.

I have a nephew with ADHD, with ASD and Tourettes features. He can be hard work, and his parents try to manage him without pharma as much as possible, but on special occasions it helps.

Oh, interesting. I’d assumed that the ADHD kids with the over-stimulated hyperactive ones, as opposed to the under-stimulated

Always good to have a doctor in the house.

If you're interested, here's an article on a genetic marker for ADHD. However, as with most things concerning the brain, it is complicated and we don't fully understand it. Essentially, though, ADHD is probably a syndrome, with multiple possible underlying causes, resulting from lower than normal receptivity to dopamine.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/408381/a-neurological-basis-for-adhd/

If you want to identify which part of the brain it is referencing (the prefrontal cortex mediates most of our highest order brain functions, including direction of attention), fold your thumb across your palm, then fold your four fingers over the thumb. The PFC is the top knuckles on your two middle fingers.

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

TOPPING said:

Good article.

Couple of issues, tho.

First, given the amingly obvious to the likes of you and me, we as a nation are not great at accepting cold hard truths in any policy area.

Ain't that so? In the case of Brexit we actually voted for muddle, when things were more sorted before. Maybe Britain is just

For those concerned about loss of sovereignty or had seen their wages undercut and services pressured by free movement without transition controls things were certainly not sorted before.

Nor compared to most of the 193 nations in the world is Britain mediocre

we would struggle to beat a carpet nowadays.

Arguably the last time we lost a War was the US War of Independence but we are unlikely to be fighting anyone outside of Argentina and Spain (and probably not even them now the Falklands and Gibraltar are relatively settled) without being alongside NATO or the U.N. and/or the USA

We have lost quite a few since then!

Pehaps most recently we left Basra and Helmand much as the US leut often it means "Out of their depth".

No that is not comparable at all.

In Vietnam the US left with Saigon in the hands of the Communist North Vietnamese. We have left Iraq in the hands of the elected Iraqi government not Saddam and the Baath Party.

She's we beat Nasser it was just US economic policy forced us to withdraw, Palestine and Aden were just products of decolonisatipn not military defeats. Northern Ireland remains part of the UK and was a series of terrorist atrocities and not a conventional war.

This is how we left Basra.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11419878

Iraqi government troops with US support had to retake it from the militias after we left with our tail between our legs.

As that article suggests Basra was initially peaceful with British forces present but as it became more violent Gordon Brown decided to withdraw British troops leaving US troops to replace them.

So the fault for that can be fairly laid at the door of Labour PM Gordon Brown but Basra did not fall back under Baathist control no

Let me count the ways you are mistaken.

But better still, listen to The Reunion, recently broadcast. See if your interpretation skills are sufficient to understand what happened in Basra.

Yes Gordon Brown had no stomach for the fight unlike George W Bush