politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ComRes and the Telegraph come under fierce fire from other pol
Options
Comments
-
-
No, it was 52% excluding Don't Knows, only 46% including Don't Knowsmalcolmg said:
Wrong again as usual, it was 46% excluding Don't Knows, or is it the usual Tory deliberate fibbingHYUFD said:So it is fine to report 46% for Scottish independence including Don't Knows from an Ashcroft poll as 'Brexit now means a majority for Scottish independence' but not fine to report 44% for suspending Parliament to achieve Brexit including Don't Knows in a Comres poll as in any way a meaningful result at all?
0 -
The vast majority of Jews in this country are horrified of Corbyn, which is why every Jewish organization is so opposed to him. It is not changing the subject to bring up Corbyn's anti-Semitism when discussing whether people should back him as PM. It is as fundamental to the discussion as Trump's racism when discussing if he is fit to be President.Stereotomy said:
I'm going to ignore the attempt to change the subject because I've already commented here many times how sick I am of being told that all Jews think the same way, with the implication that those of us who don't aren't really Jews.Gabs2 said:
If Labour were serious about blockong No Deal, they would accept a temporary leader of a Remain alliance that isn't Corbyn. Anyone with a bone of decency knows that lots of MPs will not put someone who commemorates the killers of innocent Jewish athletes. Giving the authority and dignity of the Prime Ministerial office, and the ability to fight an election on his terms, to him is a gross insult to British Jews. It would make clear to us that parliament does not have solidarity with us and we do not really belong in this country.Stereotomy said:If Caroline Lucas truly wants to stop a no-deal Brexit, she must work with Corbyn https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/13/caroline-lucas-no-deal-brexit-corbyn-green-party-labour
It's pretty clear that any path to a second referendum leads through cooperation with Labour. If the Greens and Lib Dems refuse to work with them, voters are going to realise that those parties aren't really so commited to stopping No Deal after all. The excuse that Corbyn isn't pure enough on Remain, despite wanting to stop No Deal and despite offering a second referendum, isn't very convincing.
Instead, getting back to the actual point, even if people conclude that Labour aren't serious about blocking No Deal, it's still deeply damaging to the Greens and, especially, the Lib Dems if people also conclude that they aren't serious about it either, because that's their USP.0 -
The point is that if 2/3 of MPs were happy with No Deal Brexit, there would be no chance of the House of Commons blocking Brexit, and no point in having an election before Brexit Day. Johnson could simply wait until his mission has been accomplished, in the expectation that the Brexit Party will vanish in a puff of irrelevance once its raison d'etre has disappeared.MarqueeMark said:
Corbyn gets his Brexit. He can hope it comes with a large side-order of chaos. Suits him fine.....Chris said:
I do think all this talk of Johnson choosing a general election date after 31 October must have made the 2/3 majority route to an election much more problematical for him. Are 2/3 of MPs going to give him that power?MarqueeMark said:
That would be the never ending stream of people telling us that Theresa May was nailed on to be PM until a year after her VONC victory. Or even, beyond....GIN1138 said:
Did you miss Theresa May doing exactly that on 18th April 2017 (after we heard a never ending stream of people claiming it couldn't/wouldn't happen)Beibheirli_C said:
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/12/24/my-christmas-eve-bet-that-tmay-will-still-be-pm-at-the-end-of-next-year/0 -
I fear another Tiananmen Square.HYUFD said:0 -
Amber Rudd has not had a good Brexit.surbiton19 said:
I would have added . You will do anything to keep your red box, you silly b**** ! Totally shameless. And what did she say about Johnson in the 2016 EU ref debate ?viewcode said:0 -
Population density doesn't have much to do with it. Britain has loads of space - the reason it sometimes seems crowded is that everyone wants to live in the same parts of it (ie the big cities in the prosperous areas, plus their surroundings) which is equally true in Canada and Australia, which also have fairly similar planning system disfunction.AndyJS said:
If we had the population density of Canada or Australia I would be in favour of giving everyone in Hong Kong the right to move to the UK. In fact I don't know why those two countries don't consider it.0 -
LOL, I think I was robbed, think it was second time I have been in ASDA , was getting some beer and assumed they would be reasonably priced. I think I paid £32 and see both Tesco and Amazon have it at £25.twistedfirestopper3 said:
Malc, just to calm you down....Woodford Reserve is 25 quid at my local Tesco, dunno if that's the case in North Britain, though!malcolmg said:
Give it up , you are now a stalker. Go get a life stop boring the pants off us. Anyone with a few braincells knows what she meant.basicbridge said:
What you wrote was entirely clear - a fact picked up by several other posters on this site.Cyclefree said:
What we had to suffer yesterday was you inventing what I wrote. Or perhaps a failure of comprehension on your part. Both rubbish and tiresome.basicbridge said:We had to suffer all this rubbish yesterday with Cyclefree's implication that "no deal" = Yugoslavia break up.
Your language and analogies were foolish and intemperate, a fact that by default you now seem to acknowledge.
Nice of you to be thinking of me and my blood pressure.0 -
But if we ever do, Brendan O'Neill will have an article justifying it by the end of the first week. As long as it's his far-right side doing the killing, of course.Dura_Ace said:
It won't be exactly the same as the British people lack the slavic bloodlust. They are generally too podgy and lazy to kill each other's kids.
0 -
The Brexit Party will largely vanish anyway if Boris is seen to be going through with Brexit. It might still attract a few votes from Leave ex-Labour who can't stomach voting Tory. But that will still be fine and dandy for the blues.Chris said:
The point is that if 2/3 of MPs were happy with No Deal Brexit, there would be no chance of the House of Commons blocking Brexit, and no point in having an election before Brexit Day. Johnson could simply wait until his mission has been accomplished, in the expectation that the Brexit Party will vanish in a puff of irrelevance once its raison d'etre has disappeared.MarqueeMark said:
Corbyn gets his Brexit. He can hope it comes with a large side-order of chaos. Suits him fine.....Chris said:
I do think all this talk of Johnson choosing a general election date after 31 October must have made the 2/3 majority route to an election much more problematical for him. Are 2/3 of MPs going to give him that power?MarqueeMark said:
That would be the never ending stream of people telling us that Theresa May was nailed on to be PM until a year after her VONC victory. Or even, beyond....GIN1138 said:
Did you miss Theresa May doing exactly that on 18th April 2017 (after we heard a never ending stream of people claiming it couldn't/wouldn't happen)Beibheirli_C said:
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/12/24/my-christmas-eve-bet-that-tmay-will-still-be-pm-at-the-end-of-next-year/0 -
From the horses mouth:HYUFD said:
No, it was 52% excluding Don't Knows, only 46% including Don't Knowsmalcolmg said:
Wrong again as usual, it was 46% excluding Don't Knows, or is it the usual Tory deliberate fibbingHYUFD said:So it is fine to report 46% for Scottish independence including Don't Knows from an Ashcroft poll as 'Brexit now means a majority for Scottish independence' but not fine to report 44% for suspending Parliament to achieve Brexit including Don't Knows in a Comres poll as in any way a meaningful result at all?
Asked how they would vote in such a contest, 46% said they would vote Yes to independence, and 43% No. Excluding those who say they don’t know or wouldn’t vote, this amounts to a lead of 52% to 48% for an independent Scotland.
You will see the 11% Don't Knows added to the 46% and 43% percent give teh 52% and 48%. How does it add up and where are the missing 11% in your mistaken thinking if they are included in 89%.
Methinks you cannot count.0 -
Can we assume you are comfortable with the USSR comparison given that you haven't commented on it and have obsessively posted about Yugoslavia?basicbridge said:
Cyclefree implied that the Yugoslavia break up was what potentiually happened when countries didn't agree on a divorce. It was set out in direct counterpoint to the Velvet Divorce.Philip_Thompson said:
Cyclefree implied no such thing and was clear about that.basicbridge said:We had to suffer all this rubbish yesterday with Cyclefree's implication that "no deal" = Yugoslavia break up.
Why quote the Yugoslavia break up if it was utterly irrelevant to the argument, except to make an implication by default.
I am glad that seemingly everyone now accepts the inappropriateness of its inclusion.0 -
I think you may have put your finger on the problem Malcolm...malcolmg said:
Give it up , you are now a stalker. Go get a life stop boring the pants off us. Anyone with a few braincells knows what she meant.basicbridge said:
What you wrote was entirely clear - a fact picked up by several other posters on this site.Cyclefree said:
What we had to suffer yesterday was you inventing what I wrote. Or perhaps a failure of comprehension on your part. Both rubbish and tiresome.basicbridge said:We had to suffer all this rubbish yesterday with Cyclefree's implication that "no deal" = Yugoslavia break up.
Your language and analogies were foolish and intemperate, a fact that by default you now seem to acknowledge.
0 -
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'0 -
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.0 -
We can take in those facing slaughter and make a moral stand.dixiedean said:0 -
UN sanctions but China would probably veto as a Security Council permanent member, otherwise G8 action and UN General Assembly vote of disapprovaldixiedean said:0 -
I do have a good feeling about this at the moment. My main worry is about the type of stunts he might pull if it looks like he's losing it. Also how he will be levered out of the White House if the election is in any way close enough to bitch about the result.Nigelb said:Unless the Democrats rip themselves apart, and nominate Marianne Williamson after a contested convention, it's starting to look quite difficult for Trump to be re-elected:
https://thehill.com/homenews/the-memo/457176-the-memo-suburbs-spell-trouble-for-trump
For example, if HE rather than HRC had won the PV but lost the EC on wafer thin margins in a couple of states in 2016, do we think he would have immediately conceded as she did? Of course he wouldn't.0 -
So as I said 46% Yes including Don't Knows, 52% excluding Don't Knowsmalcolmg said:
From the horses mouth:HYUFD said:
No, it was 52% excluding Don't Knows, only 46% including Don't Knowsmalcolmg said:
Wrong again as usual, it was 46% excluding Don't Knows, or is it the usual Tory deliberate fibbingHYUFD said:So it is fine to report 46% for Scottish independence including Don't Knows from an Ashcroft poll as 'Brexit now means a majority for Scottish independence' but not fine to report 44% for suspending Parliament to achieve Brexit including Don't Knows in a Comres poll as in any way a meaningful result at all?
Asked how they would vote in such a contest, 46% said they would vote Yes to independence, and 43% No. Excluding those who say they don’t know or wouldn’t vote, this amounts to a lead of 52% to 48% for an independent Scotland.
You will see the 11% Don't Knows added to the 46% and 43% percent give teh 52% and 48%. How does it add up and where are the missing 11% in your mistaken thinking if they are included in 89%.
Methinks you cannot count.0 -
The first part of your question is reasonable. And indeed was a question asked by no less than Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who is hardly a bleeding heart Liberal (although it isn't clear whether that was before or after he started taking funny money). Ultimately, the idea of Trident is it's there so we never need it and never use it.TheScreamingEagles said:
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
The second part is not. Whatever the makeup of our armed forces there is no way we could hope to defend Hong Kong against a country that can put 300 million men under arms.
I suspect you didn't mean it totally seriously however
0 -
Our population is 60 million, China's is over 1 billion.TheScreamingEagles said:
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
It would probably take the US, India and UK combining conventional forces to defeat China in WW3, never mind the UK alone. Not going to happen0 -
Except they have shut the airport so they can't leave.Gabs2 said:
We can take in those facing slaughter and make a moral stand.dixiedean said:
It might be possible later for Britain to cut a deal over any dual nationals so they are allowed to leave Hong Kong rather than be interned or tried, but there's no way we can prevent the Chinese army from causing massive death and destruction if they are determined to do so.0 -
Yes exactly. Labour's position is far more inclined to remain, there's really not much to criticise on that front. They are just not conveying because they want to avoid offending leavers. The reality is that anyone who wants to stop no deal has to vote against the tories by voting for the party best placed to stop it. In many seats that will be the LDs but in a far bigger number it will be Labour.Stereotomy said:If Caroline Lucas truly wants to stop a no-deal Brexit, she must work with Corbyn https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/13/caroline-lucas-no-deal-brexit-corbyn-green-party-labour
It's pretty clear that any path to a second referendum leads through cooperation with Labour. If the Greens and Lib Dems refuse to work with them, voters are going to realise that those parties aren't really so commited to stopping No Deal after all. The excuse that Corbyn isn't pure enough on Remain, despite wanting to stop No Deal and despite offering a second referendum, isn't very convincing.0 -
We couldn't beat a carpet never mind China.ydoethur said:
The first part of your question is reasonable. And indeed was a question asked by no less than Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who is hardly a bleeding heart Liberal (although it isn't clear whether that was before or after he started taking funny money). Ultimately, the idea of Trident is it's there so we never need it and never use it.TheScreamingEagles said:
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
The second part is not. Whatever the makeup of our armed forces there is no way we could hope to defend Hong Kong against a country that can put 300 million men under arms.
I suspect you didn't mean it totally seriously however0 -
I’d say it was unlikely that China can do a Tianammen on Hong Kong and keep things under control.
Plus the financial cost to China could be catastrophic- particularly if the West starts a boycott.
Apple must be filling their trousers.0 -
We can take in any that manage to escape. I feel terribly for them. We in the West made a terrible mistake by embracing China and allowing them to get rich without requiring democracy.ydoethur said:
Except they have shut the airport so they can't leave.Gabs2 said:
We can take in those facing slaughter and make a moral stand.dixiedean said:
It might be possible later for Britain to cut a deal over any dual nationals so they are allowed to leave Hong Kong rather than be interned or tried, but there's no way we can prevent the Chinese army from causing massive death and destruction if they are determined to do so.0 -
How can the % rise if you remove something and if they are included on the 89% then what was voted for on the missing 11%HYUFD said:
So as I said 46% Yes including Don't Knows, 52% excluding Don't Knowsmalcolmg said:
From the horses mouth:HYUFD said:
No, it was 52% excluding Don't Knows, only 46% including Don't Knowsmalcolmg said:
Wrong again as usual, it was 46% excluding Don't Knows, or is it the usual Tory deliberate fibbingHYUFD said:So it is fine to report 46% for Scottish independence including Don't Knows from an Ashcroft poll as 'Brexit now means a majority for Scottish independence' but not fine to report 44% for suspending Parliament to achieve Brexit including Don't Knows in a Comres poll as in any way a meaningful result at all?
Asked how they would vote in such a contest, 46% said they would vote Yes to independence, and 43% No. Excluding those who say they don’t know or wouldn’t vote, this amounts to a lead of 52% to 48% for an independent Scotland.
You will see the 11% Don't Knows added to the 46% and 43% percent give teh 52% and 48%. How does it add up and where are the missing 11% in your mistaken thinking if they are included in 89%.
Methinks you cannot count.0 -
He won't want to be seen waving it through though. A prebrexit election where he hoovers up the stop no deal vote would be better for him.MarqueeMark said:
Corbyn gets his Brexit. He can hope it comes with a large side-order of chaos. Suits him fine.....Chris said:
I do think all this talk of Johnson choosing a general election date after 31 October must have made the 2/3 majority route to an election much more problematical for him. Are 2/3 of MPs going to give him that power?MarqueeMark said:
That would be the never ending stream of people telling us that Theresa May was nailed on to be PM until a year after her VONC victory. Or even, beyond....GIN1138 said:
Did you miss Theresa May doing exactly that on 18th April 2017 (after we heard a never ending stream of people claiming it couldn't/wouldn't happen)Beibheirli_C said:
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/12/24/my-christmas-eve-bet-that-tmay-will-still-be-pm-at-the-end-of-next-year/0 -
Like Brexit you need to believe and have faith in the project.HYUFD said:
Our population is 60 million, China's is over 1 billion.TheScreamingEagles said:
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
It would probably take the US, India and UK combining conventional forces to defeat China in WW3, never mind the UK alone. Not going to happen
None of this defeatist collaborator talk from you.
With belief I’m sure 3 Commando Brigade, 16 Air Assault, and the Royal Navy could defeat the People’s Army of China in the battle of Hong Kong.
Believe in Britain and her armed forces.0 -
The USA has not done a single thing about Saudi Arabia torturing and murdering an American resident in cold blood in another country. Trump came out and said we should not because we sell them a lot of weapons.TGOHF said:I’d say it was unlikely that China can do a Tianammen on Hong Kong and keep things under control.
Plus the financial cost to China could be catastrophic- particularly if the West starts a boycott.
Apple must be filling their trousers.0 -
The idea that Labour are not seriously opposed to No Deal flies in the face of all the actual evidence. And, yes, what you say is right. The only route to Ref2 goes via Corbyn as PM.Stereotomy said:If Caroline Lucas truly wants to stop a no-deal Brexit, she must work with Corbyn https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/13/caroline-lucas-no-deal-brexit-corbyn-green-party-labour
It's pretty clear that any path to a second referendum leads through cooperation with Labour. If the Greens and Lib Dems refuse to work with them, voters are going to realise that those parties aren't really so commited to stopping No Deal after all. The excuse that Corbyn isn't pure enough on Remain, despite wanting to stop No Deal and despite offering a second referendum, isn't very convincing.
IMO the reverse is also true. The only route to Corbyn as PM goes via Ref2. By which I mean he can win an election only if it is before Brexit and on the basis of offering the Ref.
So,
Want the Ref? - OK, swallow Jez as PM.
Want Jez as PM? - OK, swallow Ref2.0 -
We beat Argentina on our own but they are about half our size, China is over 10 times our size, we would need the US and likely India alongside too but it is not going to happen.malcolmg said:
We couldn't beat a carpet never mind China.ydoethur said:
The first part of your question is reasonable. And indeed was a question asked by no less than Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who is hardly a bleeding heart Liberal (although it isn't clear whether that was before or after he started taking funny money). Ultimately, the idea of Trident is it's there so we never need it and never use it.TheScreamingEagles said:
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
The second part is not. Whatever the makeup of our armed forces there is no way we could hope to defend Hong Kong against a country that can put 300 million men under arms.
I suspect you didn't mean it totally seriously however
Though I hope Scots Nats are glad that Boris is UK PM not Xi?0 -
We could, although if any do escape a massacre they will likely head for Taiwan in the first instance.Gabs2 said:
We can take in any that manage to escape. I feel terribly for them. We in the West made a terrible mistake by embracing China and allowing them to get rich without requiring democracy.ydoethur said:
Except they have shut the airport so they can't leave.Gabs2 said:
We can take in those facing slaughter and make a moral stand.dixiedean said:
It might be possible later for Britain to cut a deal over any dual nationals so they are allowed to leave Hong Kong rather than be interned or tried, but there's no way we can prevent the Chinese army from causing massive death and destruction if they are determined to do so.
In fact I can't help wondering what the government of Taiwan is thinking at this moment. They must be pretty nervous looking at events and wondering if they will be next.0 -
200 billion pounds, 3 million soldiers, so pay each solider 66,000 pounds to stay out of HK. Could work, even with shitty Brexit pounds.TheScreamingEagles said:
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.0 -
Behind Modi and Trump carrying the baggage train fine, we are not going in on our ownTheScreamingEagles said:
Like Brexit you need to believe and have faith in the project.HYUFD said:
Our population is 60 million, China's is over 1 billion.TheScreamingEagles said:
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
It would probably take the US, India and UK combining conventional forces to defeat China in WW3, never mind the UK alone. Not going to happen
None of this defeatist collaborator talk from you.
With belief I’m sure 3 Commando Brigade, 16 Air Assault, and the Royal Navy could defeat the People’s Army of China in the battle of Hong Kong.
Believe in Britain and her armed forces.0 -
-
I recently read the Tiananmen Papers about the discussions within the Chinese leadership - very clearly they will tolerate no dissent to Communist Party rule and Xi has already consolidated power and will not want to look "weak". I fear this will end very badly for Hong Kong. Of course many of the protestors will have been born post-1997, so will not have BN(O) status.ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'0 -
Trump has made clear the US stands firmly behind Taiwan and has even proposed arms sales to Taipeiydoethur said:
We could, although if any do escape a massacre they will likely head for Taiwan in the first instance.Gabs2 said:
We can take in any that manage to escape. I feel terribly for them. We in the West made a terrible mistake by embracing China and allowing them to get rich without requiring democracy.ydoethur said:
Except they have shut the airport so they can't leave.Gabs2 said:
We can take in those facing slaughter and make a moral stand.dixiedean said:
It might be possible later for Britain to cut a deal over any dual nationals so they are allowed to leave Hong Kong rather than be interned or tried, but there's no way we can prevent the Chinese army from causing massive death and destruction if they are determined to do so.
In fact I can't help wondering what the government of Taiwan is thinking at this moment. They must be pretty nervous looking at events and wondering if they will be next.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taiwan-china-tension-us-trump-admin-proposes-arms-sale-abrams-tanks-stinger-missiles-taipei-2019-07-09/0 -
If we could stop buying stuff made there.HYUFD said:
Our population is 60 million, China's is over 1 billion.TheScreamingEagles said:
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
It would probably take the US, India and UK combining conventional forces to defeat China in WW3, never mind the UK alone. Not going to happen0 -
Well it was only a few days ago you were for sending in the troops to sort out the Scots who wanted a referendum.HYUFD said:
We beat Argentina on our own but they are about half our size, China is over 10 times our size, we would need the US and likely India alongside too but it is not going to happen.malcolmg said:
We couldn't beat a carpet never mind China.ydoethur said:
The first part of your question is reasonable. And indeed was a question asked by no less than Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who is hardly a bleeding heart Liberal (although it isn't clear whether that was before or after he started taking funny money). Ultimately, the idea of Trident is it's there so we never need it and never use it.TheScreamingEagles said:
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
The second part is not. Whatever the makeup of our armed forces there is no way we could hope to defend Hong Kong against a country that can put 300 million men under arms.
I suspect you didn't mean it totally seriously however
Though I hope Scots Nats are glad that Boris is UK PM not Xi?0 -
And what in life is more reliable than a promise from Donald Trump?HYUFD said:
Trump has made clear the US stands firmly behind Taiwan1 -
Yes but he likes the Saudis and hates China.Gabs2 said:
The USA has not done a single thing about Saudi Arabia torturing and murdering an American resident in cold blood in another country. Trump came out and said we should not because we sell them a lot of weapons.TGOHF said:I’d say it was unlikely that China can do a Tianammen on Hong Kong and keep things under control.
Plus the financial cost to China could be catastrophic- particularly if the West starts a boycott.
Apple must be filling their trousers.0 -
Unfortunately the simple rule is you don't get to the top of a totalitarian system by (a) being nice or (b) having a desire to change the system. That's even true of those who are now considered radicals, like Gorbachev. And it is very definitely true of the leadership of the Communist Party of China.CarlottaVance said:
I recently read the Tiananmen Papers about the discussions within the Chinese leadership - very clearly they will tolerate no dissent to Communist Party rule and Xi has already consolidated power and will not want to look "weak". I fear this will end very badly for Hong Kong. Of course many of the protestors will have been born post-1997, so will not have BN(O) status.ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'0 -
I was saying the PM could do a Rajoy and stop a referendum taking place as the precedent has been set by Spain, not necessarily advocating it, certainly not a full scale massacre in Glasgow (though hopefully that will not occur in Hong Kong either)nichomar said:
Well it was only a few days ago you were for sending in the troops to sort out the Scots who wanted a referendum.HYUFD said:
We beat Argentina on our own but they are about half our size, China is over 10 times our size, we would need the US and likely India alongside too but it is not going to happen.malcolmg said:
We couldn't beat a carpet never mind China.ydoethur said:
The first part of your question is reasonable. And indeed was a question asked by no less than Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who is hardly a bleeding heart Liberal (although it isn't clear whether that was before or after he started taking funny money). Ultimately, the idea of Trident is it's there so we never need it and never use it.TheScreamingEagles said:
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
The second part is not. Whatever the makeup of our armed forces there is no way we could hope to defend Hong Kong against a country that can put 300 million men under arms.
I suspect you didn't mean it totally seriously however
Though I hope Scots Nats are glad that Boris is UK PM not Xi?0 -
Especially as our troops are presumably all holed up in Carlisle and Berwick awaiting the signal from Bozo to go north and pacify Malc and his mates.HYUFD said:
Behind Modi and Trump carrying the baggage train fine, we are not going in on our ownTheScreamingEagles said:
Like Brexit you need to believe and have faith in the project.HYUFD said:
Our population is 60 million, China's is over 1 billion.TheScreamingEagles said:
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
It would probably take the US, India and UK combining conventional forces to defeat China in WW3, never mind the UK alone. Not going to happen
None of this defeatist collaborator talk from you.
With belief I’m sure 3 Commando Brigade, 16 Air Assault, and the Royal Navy could defeat the People’s Army of China in the battle of Hong Kong.
Believe in Britain and her armed forces.0 -
Malc is too good a man with a turnip to be pacified by a load of Sassenach jessies!IanB2 said:
Especially as our troops are presumably all holed up in Carlisle and Berwick awaiting the signal from Bozo to go north and pacify Malc and his mates.HYUFD said:
Behind Modi and Trump carrying the baggage train fine, we are not going in on our ownTheScreamingEagles said:
Like Brexit you need to believe and have faith in the project.HYUFD said:
Our population is 60 million, China's is over 1 billion.TheScreamingEagles said:
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
It would probably take the US, India and UK combining conventional forces to defeat China in WW3, never mind the UK alone. Not going to happen
None of this defeatist collaborator talk from you.
With belief I’m sure 3 Commando Brigade, 16 Air Assault, and the Royal Navy could defeat the People’s Army of China in the battle of Hong Kong.
Believe in Britain and her armed forces.0 -
We're not going to have a long and heated argument about how we can defeat the Chinese military, are we? It's crazy enough in here as it is with Brexit.0
-
Ian, they would have more chance in Hong KongIanB2 said:
Especially as our troops are presumably all holed up in Carlisle and Berwick awaiting the signal from Bozo to go north and pacify Malc and his mates.HYUFD said:
Behind Modi and Trump carrying the baggage train fine, we are not going in on our ownTheScreamingEagles said:
Like Brexit you need to believe and have faith in the project.HYUFD said:
Our population is 60 million, China's is over 1 billion.TheScreamingEagles said:
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
It would probably take the US, India and UK combining conventional forces to defeat China in WW3, never mind the UK alone. Not going to happen
None of this defeatist collaborator talk from you.
With belief I’m sure 3 Commando Brigade, 16 Air Assault, and the Royal Navy could defeat the People’s Army of China in the battle of Hong Kong.
Believe in Britain and her armed forces.0 -
Nothing left for us to buy then , you know anything not made thereTGOHF said:
If we could stop buying stuff made there.HYUFD said:
Our population is 60 million, China's is over 1 billion.TheScreamingEagles said:
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
It would probably take the US, India and UK combining conventional forces to defeat China in WW3, never mind the UK alone. Not going to happen0 -
To defeat the Scots we don’t need the armed forces all we need is a third rate European football team.0
-
Sounds like two cheeks of the same arse to meHYUFD said:
We beat Argentina on our own but they are about half our size, China is over 10 times our size, we would need the US and likely India alongside too but it is not going to happen.malcolmg said:
We couldn't beat a carpet never mind China.ydoethur said:
The first part of your question is reasonable. And indeed was a question asked by no less than Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who is hardly a bleeding heart Liberal (although it isn't clear whether that was before or after he started taking funny money). Ultimately, the idea of Trident is it's there so we never need it and never use it.TheScreamingEagles said:
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
The second part is not. Whatever the makeup of our armed forces there is no way we could hope to defend Hong Kong against a country that can put 300 million men under arms.
I suspect you didn't mean it totally seriously however
Though I hope Scots Nats are glad that Boris is UK PM not Xi?0 -
Great to see the entire British polling industry joining together to take the piss out of ComRes.
https://twitter.com/DamianSurvation/status/11612530838899752960 -
In the 1980s a defence official commented that he was more at home with the idea of a Russian invasion than with a military reorganisation. He knew what he could do to fight off a Russian invasion.twistedfirestopper3 said:We're not going to have a long and heated argument about how we can defeat the Chinese military, are we? It's crazy enough in here as it is with Brexit.
When asked what he could do, he replied, 'Nothing, so it's nice and easy and we don't bother any more.'*
Similarly with the Chinese. If they are determined to do something vile inhumane and cretinous there is nothing we can do.
So no, nobody is arguing about that. We're just coming up with a variety of reasons as to why we're helpless.
*A slightly reworked version of this made its way into Yes Prime Minister, Man Overboard.0 -
They look to be very young even school childrenCarlottaVance said:
I recently read the Tiananmen Papers about the discussions within the Chinese leadership - very clearly they will tolerate no dissent to Communist Party rule and Xi has already consolidated power and will not want to look "weak". I fear this will end very badly for Hong Kong. Of course many of the protestors will have been born post-1997, so will not have BN(O) status.ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'0 -
If that was true tanks and lorries would already be arriving on the Scottish borders as we speakmalcolmg said:
Sounds like two cheeks of the same arse to meHYUFD said:
We beat Argentina on our own but they are about half our size, China is over 10 times our size, we would need the US and likely India alongside too but it is not going to happen.malcolmg said:
We couldn't beat a carpet never mind China.ydoethur said:
The first part of your question is reasonable. And indeed was a question asked by no less than Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who is hardly a bleeding heart Liberal (although it isn't clear whether that was before or after he started taking funny money). Ultimately, the idea of Trident is it's there so we never need it and never use it.TheScreamingEagles said:
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
The second part is not. Whatever the makeup of our armed forces there is no way we could hope to defend Hong Kong against a country that can put 300 million men under arms.
I suspect you didn't mean it totally seriously however
Though I hope Scots Nats are glad that Boris is UK PM not Xi?0 -
Thank goodness we have a prime minister who thinks power grows out of a barrel of pork.ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'0 -
Top tier trolling from May's man.Scott_P said:0 -
We have nuclear weapons though unlike Hong Kongydoethur said:
In the 1980s a defence official commented that he was more at home with the idea of a Russian invasion than with a military reorganisation. He knew what he could do to fight off a Russian invasion.twistedfirestopper3 said:We're not going to have a long and heated argument about how we can defeat the Chinese military, are we? It's crazy enough in here as it is with Brexit.
When asked what he could do, he replied, 'Nothing, so it's nice and easy and we don't bother any more.'*
Similarly with the Chinese. If they are determined to do something vile inhumane and cretinous there is nothing we can do.
So no, nobody is arguing about that. We're just coming up with a variety of reasons as to why we're helpless.
*A slightly reworked version of this made its way into Yes Prime Minister, Man Overboard.0 -
The purpose of the British Nationality Act 1981 was to prevent British citizens of Hong Kong from moving here.ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Quite a contrast to Ted Heath's much more compassionate approach to the issues around East African Asian migration, such as our Home Secretaries parents.0 -
I'm confused now. We're gonna nuke HK?HYUFD said:
We have nuclear weapons though unlike Hong Kongydoethur said:
In the 1980s a defence official commented that he was more at home with the idea of a Russian invasion than with a military reorganisation. He knew what he could do to fight off a Russian invasion.twistedfirestopper3 said:We're not going to have a long and heated argument about how we can defeat the Chinese military, are we? It's crazy enough in here as it is with Brexit.
When asked what he could do, he replied, 'Nothing, so it's nice and easy and we don't bother any more.'*
Similarly with the Chinese. If they are determined to do something vile inhumane and cretinous there is nothing we can do.
So no, nobody is arguing about that. We're just coming up with a variety of reasons as to why we're helpless.
*A slightly reworked version of this made its way into Yes Prime Minister, Man Overboard.0 -
Nuclear weapons are bugger all use if you're actually invaded. The idea is that their existence stops anyone invading you in the first place, and North Korea will tell you that this has worked so far.HYUFD said:
We have nuclear weapons though unlike Hong Kongydoethur said:
In the 1980s a defence official commented that he was more at home with the idea of a Russian invasion than with a military reorganisation. He knew what he could do to fight off a Russian invasion.twistedfirestopper3 said:We're not going to have a long and heated argument about how we can defeat the Chinese military, are we? It's crazy enough in here as it is with Brexit.
When asked what he could do, he replied, 'Nothing, so it's nice and easy and we don't bother any more.'*
Similarly with the Chinese. If they are determined to do something vile inhumane and cretinous there is nothing we can do.
So no, nobody is arguing about that. We're just coming up with a variety of reasons as to why we're helpless.
*A slightly reworked version of this made its way into Yes Prime Minister, Man Overboard.0 -
No good deed goes unpunished.Foxy said:
The purpose of the British Nationality Act 1981 was to prevent British citizens of Hong Kong from moving here.ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Quite a contrast to Ted Heath's much more compassionate approach to the issues around East African Asian migration, such as our Home Secretaries parents.0 -
My supposition is that Warren's head to head is based on low info voters knowing only 2 things about her, she's a Dem and Pocahontas.Pulpstar said:
I've got some generic Democrat bets on, including one I'd really really like to win (It's against a personal friend). Of all the likely nominees (My big 3 decent greens), Warren's H2H polling causes me the most concern.Nigelb said:
Unless the Democrats rip themselves apart, and nominate Marianne Williamson after a contested convention, it's starting to look quite difficult for Trump to be re-elected:Pulpstar said:
The blue states there are absolubte Trump locks.Nigelb said:Just to join in the fun...
https://twitter.com/DrewLinzer/status/1155837013146427394
https://thehill.com/homenews/the-memo/457176-the-memo-suburbs-spell-trouble-for-trump
If she becomes the Nominee then the debate over who said what about any native American heritage gets a fuller, less Trump led, airing and then other issues start driving the head to head.
0 -
The problem is that Corbyn is thoroughly untrustworthy. Just as ABDPJohnson, of course.kinabalu said:
The idea that Labour are not seriously opposed to No Deal flies in the face of all the actual evidence. And, yes, what you say is right. The only route to Ref2 goes via Corbyn as PM.Stereotomy said:If Caroline Lucas truly wants to stop a no-deal Brexit, she must work with Corbyn https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/13/caroline-lucas-no-deal-brexit-corbyn-green-party-labour
It's pretty clear that any path to a second referendum leads through cooperation with Labour. If the Greens and Lib Dems refuse to work with them, voters are going to realise that those parties aren't really so commited to stopping No Deal after all. The excuse that Corbyn isn't pure enough on Remain, despite wanting to stop No Deal and despite offering a second referendum, isn't very convincing.
IMO the reverse is also true. The only route to Corbyn as PM goes via Ref2. By which I mean he can win an election only if it is before Brexit and on the basis of offering the Ref.
So, Want the Ref? - OK, swallow Jez as PM.
Want Jez as PM? - OK, swallow Ref2.0 -
There was no threat to life in Hong Kong. But soon there might be.Foxy said:
The purpose of the British Nationality Act 1981 was to prevent British citizens of Hong Kong from moving here.ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Quite a contrast to Ted Heath's much more compassionate approach to the issues around East African Asian migration, such as our Home Secretaries parents.
If there is another Tianneman then we should allow British citizens the right to reside here.0 -
My view is that competition is not a good thing or a bad thing but a POWERFUL thing.Philip_Thompson said:Funny I voted Leave for the same reason in reverse. I want us (and the EU) to compete. You say competition is unattractive but I say it is desirable. Conflict is bad but competition is good.
Competition as opposed to conflict is a good thing. It makes us better ourselves. It makes us not rest on our laurels. It drives us forwards. It sparks new ideas and by different groups implementing different ideas it helps us evolve. We can learn more.
Competition tests us. It invigorates us. It makes us be the best version of us we can be.
I want to leave the EU so we can compete with Europe. Because the rest of the world won't stop competing with us either.
It can drive great progress and achievement (as you say) but it can just as easily cause great misery and injustice.
The latter is IMO more likely when nationalist agendas are in the ascendancy. When nations are all intent on proving themselves to be superior to others it does not bode well for most of their citizens.0 -
That is not a recent video; fake news.HYUFD said:0 -
That's not what the question asked.HYUFD said:So it is fine to report 46% for Scottish independence including Don't Knows from an Ashcroft poll as 'Brexit now means a majority for Scottish independence' but not fine to report 44% for suspending Parliament to achieve Brexit including Don't Knows in a Comres poll as in any way a meaningful result at all?
0 -
It was well known at the time that the Chinese made it clear that they would take over square miles of rubble if that is what it took but take it over they would.ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'0 -
Hong Kong doesn't have nuclear weapons in the same way as Birmingham doesn't have nuclear weapons.HYUFD said:
We have nuclear weapons though unlike Hong Kongydoethur said:
In the 1980s a defence official commented that he was more at home with the idea of a Russian invasion than with a military reorganisation. He knew what he could do to fight off a Russian invasion.twistedfirestopper3 said:We're not going to have a long and heated argument about how we can defeat the Chinese military, are we? It's crazy enough in here as it is with Brexit.
When asked what he could do, he replied, 'Nothing, so it's nice and easy and we don't bother any more.'*
Similarly with the Chinese. If they are determined to do something vile inhumane and cretinous there is nothing we can do.
So no, nobody is arguing about that. We're just coming up with a variety of reasons as to why we're helpless.
*A slightly reworked version of this made its way into Yes Prime Minister, Man Overboard.0 -
https://twitter.com/elintnews/status/1161045286028021760?s=21Gallowgate said:
That is not a recent video; fake news.HYUFD said:0 -
I thought you hated the Europeans, now you are going to bring them in to win your football games for you.TheScreamingEagles said:To defeat the Scots we don’t need the armed forces all we need is a third rate European football team.
0 -
Straight after we’ve nuked Dublin.twistedfirestopper3 said:
I'm confused now. We're gonna nuke HK?HYUFD said:
We have nuclear weapons though unlike Hong Kongydoethur said:
In the 1980s a defence official commented that he was more at home with the idea of a Russian invasion than with a military reorganisation. He knew what he could do to fight off a Russian invasion.twistedfirestopper3 said:We're not going to have a long and heated argument about how we can defeat the Chinese military, are we? It's crazy enough in here as it is with Brexit.
When asked what he could do, he replied, 'Nothing, so it's nice and easy and we don't bother any more.'*
Similarly with the Chinese. If they are determined to do something vile inhumane and cretinous there is nothing we can do.
So no, nobody is arguing about that. We're just coming up with a variety of reasons as to why we're helpless.
*A slightly reworked version of this made its way into Yes Prime Minister, Man Overboard.0 -
That's one way to prevent the Chinese carrying out another Tiananmen Square. Lateral thinking from HYUFD.twistedfirestopper3 said:
I'm confused now. We're gonna nuke HK?HYUFD said:
We have nuclear weapons though unlike Hong Kongydoethur said:
In the 1980s a defence official commented that he was more at home with the idea of a Russian invasion than with a military reorganisation. He knew what he could do to fight off a Russian invasion.twistedfirestopper3 said:We're not going to have a long and heated argument about how we can defeat the Chinese military, are we? It's crazy enough in here as it is with Brexit.
When asked what he could do, he replied, 'Nothing, so it's nice and easy and we don't bother any more.'*
Similarly with the Chinese. If they are determined to do something vile inhumane and cretinous there is nothing we can do.
So no, nobody is arguing about that. We're just coming up with a variety of reasons as to why we're helpless.
*A slightly reworked version of this made its way into Yes Prime Minister, Man Overboard.0 -
From talking to people in our HK office, who were very active in the early protests and have the scars to prove it, my sense is that the protesters are losing a level of support. People in HK are not stupid, they know all about Tienanmen, they know there is only so far you can push the Chinese authorities. It seems to me that there is concern the pushing may have gone too far and that the protests are now becoming entirely counter-productive. This is the sad reality of totalitarianism. The only way it will change is if there is change in Beijing.0
-
Yes. But it was our desire to get rich off the back of the Chinese consumer which drove that attitude.Gabs2 said:
We can take in any that manage to escape. I feel terribly for them. We in the West made a terrible mistake by embracing China and allowing them to get rich without requiring democracy.ydoethur said:
Except they have shut the airport so they can't leave.Gabs2 said:
We can take in those facing slaughter and make a moral stand.dixiedean said:
It might be possible later for Britain to cut a deal over any dual nationals so they are allowed to leave Hong Kong rather than be interned or tried, but there's no way we can prevent the Chinese army from causing massive death and destruction if they are determined to do so.0 -
£23 on Amazon. Just ordered it to see what the fuss is about.malcolmg said:
LOL, I think I was robbed, think it was second time I have been in ASDA , was getting some beer and assumed they would be reasonably priced. I think I paid £32 and see both Tesco and Amazon have it at £25.twistedfirestopper3 said:
Malc, just to calm you down....Woodford Reserve is 25 quid at my local Tesco, dunno if that's the case in North Britain, though!malcolmg said:
Give it up , you are now a stalker. Go get a life stop boring the pants off us. Anyone with a few braincells knows what she meant.basicbridge said:
What you wrote was entirely clear - a fact picked up by several other posters on this site.Cyclefree said:
What we had to suffer yesterday was you inventing what I wrote. Or perhaps a failure of comprehension on your part. Both rubbish and tiresome.basicbridge said:We had to suffer all this rubbish yesterday with Cyclefree's implication that "no deal" = Yugoslavia break up.
Your language and analogies were foolish and intemperate, a fact that by default you now seem to acknowledge.
Nice of you to be thinking of me and my blood pressure.0 -
-
Taiwan is an entirely different kettle of world class seafood, believe me.ydoethur said:
We could, although if any do escape a massacre they will likely head for Taiwan in the first instance.Gabs2 said:
We can take in any that manage to escape. I feel terribly for them. We in the West made a terrible mistake by embracing China and allowing them to get rich without requiring democracy.ydoethur said:
Except they have shut the airport so they can't leave.Gabs2 said:
We can take in those facing slaughter and make a moral stand.dixiedean said:
It might be possible later for Britain to cut a deal over any dual nationals so they are allowed to leave Hong Kong rather than be interned or tried, but there's no way we can prevent the Chinese army from causing massive death and destruction if they are determined to do so.
In fact I can't help wondering what the government of Taiwan is thinking at this moment. They must be pretty nervous looking at events and wondering if they will be next.0 -
Just for reference, the Japanese started their WWII assault on Hong Kong on 8th Dec 1941 and the British surrendered on Christmas Day, after some bloody battles. Does anyone think the Chinese Arms will meet such determined, and well armed, resistance?0
-
Politically.SouthamObserver said:
In what way don't we compete with Europe at the moment? My company has any number of European competitors, as well as many others from other parts of the world. Brexit will hand our European competition advantages over us and is likely to mean we have to open up an office in the EU27, so diverting resources, investments and job opportunities from our UK operation.Philip_Thompson said:
Funny I voted Leave for the same reason in reverse. I want us (and the EU) to compete. You say competition is unattractive but I say it is desirable. Conflict is bad but competition is good.kinabalu said:
Gloomy in the extreme but nevertheless a valid point.ExiledInScotland said:The disintegration of Yugoslavia was the end of a political grouping of disparate areas without an equitable economic and devolved democratic structure. It is a potential future for the EU.
My main reason for voting Remain was not that Brexit will weaken us - although it almost certainly will - but that it will weaken the EU and make it more likely that it fractures into a collection of aggressively competing nations all determined to 'make themselves great' again. That is not an attractive proposition. Or rather it is attractive only to the unattractive.
So there you go. This is the sort of wise and big picture type of guy I am.
Competition as opposed to conflict is a good thing. It makes us better ourselves. It makes us not rest on our laurels. It drives us forwards. It sparks new ideas and by different groups implementing different ideas it helps us evolve. We can learn more.
Competition tests us. It invigorates us. It makes us be the best version of us we can be.
I want to leave the EU so we can compete with Europe. Because the rest of the world won't stop competing with us either.
The EU harmonises politics that it is involved in. Many areas are issues that even in the USA would be down to the states and not to the federal government.
Furthermore it was interesting in the reporting that the feedback from Frost talking to the EU last week, that the EU was horrified at the idea we might not have as they call it a "level playing field". We absolutely should not be seeking a level playing field, we should absolutely be seeking every advantage we can get and so should they, that is how you progress.1 -
'No' would about cover it. For one thing, the demonstrators don't have artillery or machine guns.OldKingCole said:Just for reference, the Japanese started their WWII assault on Hong Kong on 8th Dec 1941 and the British surrendered on Christmas Day, after some bloody battles. Does anyone think the Chinese Arms will meet such determined, and well armed, resistance?
0 -
It should bode well for their citizens, so long as it is funnelled positively.kinabalu said:
My view is that competition is not a good thing or a bad thing but a POWERFUL thing.Philip_Thompson said:Funny I voted Leave for the same reason in reverse. I want us (and the EU) to compete. You say competition is unattractive but I say it is desirable. Conflict is bad but competition is good.
Competition as opposed to conflict is a good thing. It makes us better ourselves. It makes us not rest on our laurels. It drives us forwards. It sparks new ideas and by different groups implementing different ideas it helps us evolve. We can learn more.
Competition tests us. It invigorates us. It makes us be the best version of us we can be.
I want to leave the EU so we can compete with Europe. Because the rest of the world won't stop competing with us either.
It can drive great progress and achievement (as you say) but it can just as easily cause great misery and injustice.
The latter is IMO more likely when nationalist agendas are in the ascendancy. When nations are all intent on proving themselves to be superior to others it does not bode well for most of their citizens.0 -
I love Europe.malcolmg said:
I thought you hated the Europeans, now you are going to bring them in to win your football games for you.TheScreamingEagles said:To defeat the Scots we don’t need the armed forces all we need is a third rate European football team.
I love European football even more, after all my club is the current Champions of Europe, for the sixth time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VzNx27VAXw&t=1 -
Also the Scottish poll was a voting intention poll. (By the way, the 52% Yes excluded not just "Don't knows" but also "Won't votes".).Alistair said:
That's not what the question asked.HYUFD said:So it is fine to report 46% for Scottish independence including Don't Knows from an Ashcroft poll as 'Brexit now means a majority for Scottish independence' but not fine to report 44% for suspending Parliament to achieve Brexit including Don't Knows in a Comres poll as in any way a meaningful result at all?
0 -
It's a nice runner-up prize to the Premier League, that's for sure.TheScreamingEagles said:
I love Europe.malcolmg said:
I thought you hated the Europeans, now you are going to bring them in to win your football games for you.TheScreamingEagles said:To defeat the Scots we don’t need the armed forces all we need is a third rate European football team.
I love European football even more, after all my club is the current Champions of Europe, for the sixth time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VzNx27VAXw&t=0 -
Racism doesn't bode well for anyone, no matter how it's "funnelled."Philip_Thompson said:
It should bode well for their citizens, so long as it is funnelled positively.kinabalu said:
My view is that competition is not a good thing or a bad thing but a POWERFUL thing.Philip_Thompson said:Funny I voted Leave for the same reason in reverse. I want us (and the EU) to compete. You say competition is unattractive but I say it is desirable. Conflict is bad but competition is good.
Competition as opposed to conflict is a good thing. It makes us better ourselves. It makes us not rest on our laurels. It drives us forwards. It sparks new ideas and by different groups implementing different ideas it helps us evolve. We can learn more.
Competition tests us. It invigorates us. It makes us be the best version of us we can be.
I want to leave the EU so we can compete with Europe. Because the rest of the world won't stop competing with us either.
It can drive great progress and achievement (as you say) but it can just as easily cause great misery and injustice.
The latter is IMO more likely when nationalist agendas are in the ascendancy. When nations are all intent on proving themselves to be superior to others it does not bode well for most of their citizens.0 -
Indeed. As a result many of those with high level of skills and/or lots of Wonga sorted it with Canada. Take a look at Vancouver.Foxy said:
The purpose of the British Nationality Act 1981 was to prevent British citizens of Hong Kong from moving here.ydoethur said:
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.dixiedean said:
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Quite a contrast to Ted Heath's much more compassionate approach to the issues around East African Asian migration, such as our Home Secretaries parents.0 -
I doubt the recent exchanges on the air defences of the Republic of Ireland will be easily surpassed when it comes to the ill-informed arguing with great intensity about the irrelevant.twistedfirestopper3 said:We're not going to have a long and heated argument about how we can defeat the Chinese military, are we? It's crazy enough in here as it is with Brexit.
0 -
NEW THREAD0
-
Who said anything about racism? We were talking about competition.Chris said:
Racism doesn't bode well for anyone, no matter how it's "funnelled."Philip_Thompson said:
It should bode well for their citizens, so long as it is funnelled positively.kinabalu said:
My view is that competition is not a good thing or a bad thing but a POWERFUL thing.Philip_Thompson said:Funny I voted Leave for the same reason in reverse. I want us (and the EU) to compete. You say competition is unattractive but I say it is desirable. Conflict is bad but competition is good.
Competition as opposed to conflict is a good thing. It makes us better ourselves. It makes us not rest on our laurels. It drives us forwards. It sparks new ideas and by different groups implementing different ideas it helps us evolve. We can learn more.
Competition tests us. It invigorates us. It makes us be the best version of us we can be.
I want to leave the EU so we can compete with Europe. Because the rest of the world won't stop competing with us either.
It can drive great progress and achievement (as you say) but it can just as easily cause great misery and injustice.
The latter is IMO more likely when nationalist agendas are in the ascendancy. When nations are all intent on proving themselves to be superior to others it does not bode well for most of their citizens.0 -
Have to say I was happy with it having paid £32. It is very nice , smooth and I would say a bully bargain at £23.Anorak said:
£23 on Amazon. Just ordered it to see what the fuss is about.malcolmg said:
LOL, I think I was robbed, think it was second time I have been in ASDA , was getting some beer and assumed they would be reasonably priced. I think I paid £32 and see both Tesco and Amazon have it at £25.twistedfirestopper3 said:
Malc, just to calm you down....Woodford Reserve is 25 quid at my local Tesco, dunno if that's the case in North Britain, though!malcolmg said:
Give it up , you are now a stalker. Go get a life stop boring the pants off us. Anyone with a few braincells knows what she meant.basicbridge said:
What you wrote was entirely clear - a fact picked up by several other posters on this site.Cyclefree said:
What we had to suffer yesterday was you inventing what I wrote. Or perhaps a failure of comprehension on your part. Both rubbish and tiresome.basicbridge said:We had to suffer all this rubbish yesterday with Cyclefree's implication that "no deal" = Yugoslavia break up.
Your language and analogies were foolish and intemperate, a fact that by default you now seem to acknowledge.
Nice of you to be thinking of me and my blood pressure.0 -
So he went to Glasgow where the Old Firm relationship is far more cordial......TheScreamingEagles said:
Ozil gone into hiding? So he's on the pitch at the Emirates then? Boom! Boom!tlg86 said:I see there is a variation on the old joke about the Bosnian footballer signing for Liverpool:
https://tinyurl.com/y3yt432f
Ozil and Kolasinac are said to be deeply concerned that last month's attempted mugging has rolled into something bigger and the German star installed 24-hour security - including guard dogs - outside his house as a result.
Ozil hasn't been since in recent days having gone into hiding.
And Kolasinac's wife is said to have fled back to Germany in fear for her safety vowing never to return.
There was a story about a Liverpool gang that threatened to break Steven Gerrard's legs.0 -
You'd better check the post you were responding to. You must not have read it.Philip_Thompson said:
Who said anything about racism? We were talking about competition.Chris said:
Racism doesn't bode well for anyone, no matter how it's "funnelled."Philip_Thompson said:
It should bode well for their citizens, so long as it is funnelled positively.kinabalu said:
My view is that competition is not a good thing or a bad thing but a POWERFUL thing.Philip_Thompson said:Funny I voted Leave for the same reason in reverse. I want us (and the EU) to compete. You say competition is unattractive but I say it is desirable. Conflict is bad but competition is good.
Competition as opposed to conflict is a good thing. It makes us better ourselves. It makes us not rest on our laurels. It drives us forwards. It sparks new ideas and by different groups implementing different ideas it helps us evolve. We can learn more.
Competition tests us. It invigorates us. It makes us be the best version of us we can be.
I want to leave the EU so we can compete with Europe. Because the rest of the world won't stop competing with us either.
It can drive great progress and achievement (as you say) but it can just as easily cause great misery and injustice.
The latter is IMO more likely when nationalist agendas are in the ascendancy. When nations are all intent on proving themselves to be superior to others it does not bode well for most of their citizens.0 -
Hmmm- the level playing field is necessary to gain the access to the EU market that the UK has said it wants. If it does not want that level of access, then obviously it has much more room to diverge. The question then becomes how helpful that is.Philip_Thompson said:
Politically.SouthamObserver said:
In what way don't we compete with Europe at the moment? My company has any number of European competitors, as well as many others from other parts of the world. Brexit will hand our European competition advantages over us and is likely to mean we have to open up an office in the EU27, so diverting resources, investments and job opportunities from our UK operation.Philip_Thompson said:
Funny I voted Leave for the same reason in reverse. I want us (and the EU) to compete. You say competition is unattractive but I say it is desirable. Conflict is bad but competition is good.kinabalu said:
Gloomy in the extreme but nevertheless a valid point.ExiledInScotland said:The disintegration of Yugoslavia was the end of a political grouping of disparate areas without an equitable economic and devolved democratic structure. It is a potential future for the EU.
My main reason for voting Remain was not that Brexit will weaken us - although it almost certainly will - but that it will weaken the EU and make it more likely that it fractures into a collection of aggressively competing nations all determined to 'make themselves great' again. That is not an attractive proposition. Or rather it is attractive only to the unattractive.
So there you go. This is the sort of wise and big picture type of guy I am.
Competition as opposed to conflict is a good thing. It makes us better ourselves. It makes us not rest on our laurels. It drives us forwards. It sparks new ideas and by different groups implementing different ideas it helps us evolve. We can learn more.
Competition tests us. It invigorates us. It makes us be the best version of us we can be.
I want to leave the EU so we can compete with Europe. Because the rest of the world won't stop competing with us either.
The EU harmonises politics that it is involved in. Many areas are issues that even in the USA would be down to the states and not to the federal government.
Furthermore it was interesting in the reporting that the feedback from Frost talking to the EU last week, that the EU was horrified at the idea we might not have as they call it a "level playing field". We absolutely should not be seeking a level playing field, we should absolutely be seeking every advantage we can get and so should they, that is how you progress.
I do not understand your point about politics.0 -
He might be but the evidence for this (unlike with Johnson) is patchy. Course, if he becomes PM after an election where he promises Ref2 and then welshes on it - what a rotter - but I do not think for a moment that he would.PClipp said:The problem is that Corbyn is thoroughly untrustworthy. Just as ABDPJohnson, of course.
No, if Remainers wish to cancel Brexit they must vote tactically to elect a minority Corbyn government. If they hate the idea of PM Corbyn more than they hate Brexit then fair enough - Brexit will happen under a Tory govt.
But I do wish these anti-Corbyn Remainers would be honest about it rather than coming out with all this "He really wants No Deal" and "Labour are not a Remain party" and "Who knows what Labour policy on Brexit is?" nonsense.0 -
Until we invest as much in R&D as the USA or Germany, which surpass us by 1.0% and 1.4% of GDP respectively, we are not likely to be competitive.Philip_Thompson said:
Funny I voted Leave for the same reason in reverse. I want us (and the EU) to compete. You say competition is unattractive but I say it is desirable. Conflict is bad but competition is good.kinabalu said:
Gloomy in the extreme but nevertheless a valid point.ExiledInScotland said:The disintegration of Yugoslavia was the end of a political grouping of disparate areas without an equitable economic and devolved democratic structure. It is a potential future for the EU.
My main reason for voting Remain was not that Brexit will weaken us - although it almost certainly will - but that it will weaken the EU and make it more likely that it fractures into a collection of aggressively competing nations all determined to 'make themselves great' again. That is not an attractive proposition. Or rather it is attractive only to the unattractive.
So there you go. This is the sort of wise and big picture type of guy I am.
Competition as opposed to conflict is a good thing. It makes us better ourselves. It makes us not rest on our laurels. It drives us forwards. It sparks new ideas and by different groups implementing different ideas it helps us evolve. We can learn more.
Competition tests us. It invigorates us. It makes us be the best version of us we can be.
I want to leave the EU so we can compete with Europe. Because the rest of the world won't stop competing with us either.
0 -
Until I see concrete evidence that Corbyn will lift every sinew towards blocking No Deal, then I remain unconvinced that the Seamus/Corbyn strategy is not to engineer a Tory No Deal and use the chaos.kinabalu said:
He might be but the evidence for this (unlike with Johnson) is patchy. Course, if he becomes PM after an election where he promises Ref2 and then welshes on it - what a rotter - but I do not think for a moment that he would.PClipp said:The problem is that Corbyn is thoroughly untrustworthy. Just as ABDPJohnson, of course.
No, if Remainers wish to cancel Brexit they must vote tactically to elect a minority Corbyn government. If they hate the idea of PM Corbyn more than they hate Brexit then fair enough - Brexit will happen under a Tory govt.
But I do wish these anti-Corbyn Remainers would be honest about it rather than coming out with all this "He really wants No Deal" and "Labour are not a Remain party" and "Who knows what Labour policy on Brexit is?" nonsense.
We will see on 4th September0
This discussion has been closed.