politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Estimating the “house effect” for each pollster. How much d

Speedy said:

HurstLlama said:

Sean_F said:

Smarmeron said:

@Sean_F
"It generally determines historical outcomes."

Given the latest report on our armed services, we had better keep a low profile then?

It shows the importance of maintaining adequate defences.

I think to Cameron and his modern Conservative party it shows the need for increasing the size of the DfID budget even more and cutting defence back further.

P.S. Had to laugh the other day when it was suggested that the UK might send 25 tanks to an exercise in Poland this summer. It would help to make a statement to Russia and deter it from taking further action against the Ukraine, apparently. Yeah, right, 25 tanks is going to really put the wind up Russia's sails. Then there was the Russian Navy battlegroup sailing through the Channel the other week - we sent an air defence ship to escort it, our ship had no anti-ship weapons on board, save a single gun. Why bother? The Russians could have blown our ship out of the water, turned left and occupied London without breaking a sweat. Capabilities are not intentions and all that, fair go, but, really, the state of our defences are now so pathetic we might as well not bother.

You are doing the same mistake as the soviets did in the cold war, defence spending and military exercises don't matter when the primary weapons the other guy has are nukes.
You can waste billions and trillions on conventional weapons but they won't deter any nuclear power, also the alliances are clear from the NATO side so no state is going to attack NATO due to America, Britain and France having nukes.
You can happy drive your self to bankruptcy soviet style by defence spending based on useless paranoia that they other side is poised to invade any moment now.

To give you an idea that the russians know this and laugh (TSE might love this one):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTbL1hH19BE&feature=kp

Using, or threatening to use, nuclear weapons in response to every threat, would not be desirable. That's why one needs adequate conventional forces.

ToryJim said:

Slackbladder said:

James Cook ‏@BBCJamesCook · 3 hrs
Alex Salmond says he's ordered his special advisor to apologise for briefing against a mother backing the union. #indyref

ooops

Shouldn't the Spad be fired?

Am I the only person here who can't read the word Spad without thinking of a French biplane?

TheWatcher said:

HurstLlama said:

@TheWatcher

Sorry you added this extra bit into your post after I replied:

"You're also assuming that there was nothing following Ivan, underneath the waves...)"

Yes I am, because I can count up to seven. Or is it six now, HMS Tireless decommissioned last week and the Astutes are years behind the replacement plan.

I take great comfort from the knowledge that you'll be fighting them off on the beaches with the rest of Dad's Army.

P*ss off, I'll be in the saloon bar of the New Inn wondering why apparently sensible people can't actually engage in a debate.

Casino_Royale said:

peter_from_putney said:

JackW said:

Scott_P said:

@RuthDavidsonMSP: New TNS BMRB poll out - No maintains its double-digit lead. Analysis from @WhatScotsThink here http://t.co/2dXrpq11U9

59/41 No/YES when DK's excluded.

YES remain dead in the water, completely becalmed.

Tick tock ....

***** Betting Post *****

That 41% 'Yes' figure after excluding Don't Knows makes Ladbrokes' offer of 9/2 for their 35% - 40% 'Yes' vote band appear very attractive indeed imho, especially when one considers this is a whopping great 50% improvement on Victor Chandler's 3/1 odds for his LOWER and NARROWER 35% - 39% 'Yes' vote band.
I'm on but DYOR!

Cheers Peter, I'm on.

Also, I checked Betfair last night. There was still £80 or so of cash available to back turnout at 75%+ on the Indy Ref at 2.1 (or evens in old money, after commission)

That beats the less generous 5/6 available at Ladbrokes, which is also for a higher level match line at 78%.

Casino - Yes, that's great value vs Ladbrokes for Betfair's Indy Turnout and to be pedantic, 2.1 is actually 1.045/1 in old money .... every little helps. You can of course also ask for that little bit more with Betfair and often get it if you're prepared to be patient.

As regards the Yes vote, I suspect that like "shy" Tories, there may be an element of "shy" No voters who won't admit as much to the pollsters - if so, the Yes vote could finish lower still, perhaps not too far distant from Laddies' 30% - 35% band for which they offer odds of 10/1. Not likely admittedly, but possibly worth a couple of quid as a saver.

peter_from_putney said:

Casino_Royale said:

peter_from_putney said:

JackW said:

Scott_P said:

@RuthDavidsonMSP: New TNS BMRB poll out - No maintains its double-digit lead. Analysis from @WhatScotsThink here http://t.co/2dXrpq11U9

59/41 No/YES when DK's excluded.

YES remain dead in the water, completely becalmed.

Tick tock ....

***** Betting Post *****

That 41% 'Yes' figure after excluding Don't Knows makes Ladbrokes' offer of 9/2 for their 35% - 40% 'Yes' vote band appear very attractive indeed imho, especially when one considers this is a whopping great 50% improvement on Victor Chandler's 3/1 odds for his LOWER and NARROWER 35% - 39% 'Yes' vote band.
I'm on but DYOR!

Cheers Peter, I'm on.

Also, I checked Betfair last night. There was still £80 or so of cash available to back turnout at 75%+ on the Indy Ref at 2.1 (or evens in old money, after commission)

That beats the less generous 5/6 available at Ladbrokes, which is also for a higher level match line at 78%.

Casino - Yes, that's great value vs Ladbrokes for Betfair's Indy Turnout and to be pedantic, 2.1 is actually 1.045/1 in old money .... every little helps. You can of course also ask for that little bit more with Betfair and often get it if you're prepared to be patient.

As regards the Yes vote, I suspect that like "shy" Tories, there may be an element of "shy" No voters who won't admit as much to the pollsters - if so, the Yes vote could finish lower still, perhaps not too far distant from Laddies' 30% - 35% band for which they offer odds of 10/1. Not likely admittedly, but possibly worth a couple of quid as a saver.

There's one risk I foresee, if the polls maintain their current levels of substantial No leads, then some voters might think it is in the bag, and not bother to turnout and vote on the big day.

TheScreamingEagles said:

peter_from_putney said:

Casino_Royale said:

peter_from_putney said:

JackW said:

Scott_P said:

@RuthDavidsonMSP: New TNS BMRB poll out - No maintains its double-digit lead. Analysis from @WhatScotsThink here http://t.co/2dXrpq11U9

59/41 No/YES when DK's excluded.

YES remain dead in the water, completely becalmed.

Tick tock ....

***** Betting Post *****

That 41% 'Yes' figure after excluding Don't Knows makes Ladbrokes' offer of 9/2 for their 35% - 40% 'Yes' vote band appear very attractive indeed imho, especially when one considers this is a whopping great 50% improvement on Victor Chandler's 3/1 odds for his LOWER and NARROWER 35% - 39% 'Yes' vote band.
I'm on but DYOR!

Cheers Peter, I'm on.

Also, I checked Betfair last night. There was still £80 or so of cash available to back turnout at 75%+ on the Indy Ref at 2.1 (or evens in old money, after commission)

That beats the less generous 5/6 available at Ladbrokes, which is also for a higher level match line at 78%.

Casino - Yes, that's great value vs Ladbrokes for Betfair's Indy Turnout and to be pedantic, 2.1 is actually 1.045/1 in old money .... every little helps. You can of course also ask for that little bit more with Betfair and often get it if you're prepared to be patient.

As regards the Yes vote, I suspect that like "shy" Tories, there may be an element of "shy" No voters who won't admit as much to the pollsters - if so, the Yes vote could finish lower still, perhaps not too far distant from Laddies' 30% - 35% band for which they offer odds of 10/1. Not likely admittedly, but possibly worth a couple of quid as a saver.

There's one risk I foresee, if the polls maintain their current levels of substantial No leads, then some voters might think it is in the bag, and not bother to turnout and vote on the big day.

Differential turnout won't overturn a 20 point lead.

ToryJim said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

peter_from_putney said:

Casino_Royale said:

peter_from_putney said:

JackW said:

Scott_P said:

@RuthDavidsonMSP: New TNS BMRB poll out - No maintains its double-digit lead. Analysis from @WhatScotsThink here http://t.co/2dXrpq11U9

59/41 No/YES when DK's excluded.

YES remain dead in the water, completely becalmed.

Tick tock ....

***** Betting Post *****

That 41% 'Yes' figure after excluding Don't Knows makes Ladbrokes' offer of 9/2 for their 35% - 40% 'Yes' vote band appear very attractive indeed imho, especially when one considers this is a whopping great 50% improvement on Victor Chandler's 3/1 odds for his LOWER and NARROWER 35% - 39% 'Yes' vote band.
I'm on but DYOR!

Cheers Peter, I'm on.

Also, I checked Betfair last night. There was still £80 or so of cash available to back turnout at 75%+ on the Indy Ref at 2.1 (or evens in old money, after commission)

That beats the less generous 5/6 available at Ladbrokes, which is also for a higher level match line at 78%.

Casino - Yes, that's great value vs Ladbrokes for Betfair's Indy Turnout and to be pedantic, 2.1 is actually 1.045/1 in old money .... every little helps. You can of course also ask for that little bit more with Betfair and often get it if you're prepared to be patient.

As regards the Yes vote, I suspect that like "shy" Tories, there may be an element of "shy" No voters who won't admit as much to the pollsters - if so, the Yes vote could finish lower still, perhaps not too far distant from Laddies' 30% - 35% band for which they offer odds of 10/1. Not likely admittedly, but possibly worth a couple of quid as a saver.

There's one risk I foresee, if the polls maintain their current levels of substantial No leads, then some voters might think it is in the bag, and not bother to turnout and vote on the big day.

Differential turnout won't overturn a 20 point lead.

But it will affect overall turnout, which is what the bet is on.

TheScreamingEagles said:

ToryJim said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

peter_from_putney said:

Casino_Royale said:

peter_from_putney said:

JackW said:

Scott_P said:

@RuthDavidsonMSP: New TNS BMRB poll out - No maintains its double-digit lead. Analysis from @WhatScotsThink here http://t.co/2dXrpq11U9

59/41 No/YES when DK's excluded.

YES remain dead in the water, completely becalmed.

Tick tock ....

***** Betting Post *****

That 41% 'Yes' figure after excluding Don't Knows makes Ladbrokes' offer of 9/2 for their 35% - 40% 'Yes' vote band appear very attractive indeed imho, especially when one considers this is a whopping great 50% improvement on Victor Chandler's 3/1 odds for his LOWER and NARROWER 35% - 39% 'Yes' vote band.
I'm on but DYOR!

Cheers Peter, I'm on.

Also, I checked Betfair last night. There was still £80 or so of cash available to back turnout at 75%+ on the Indy Ref at 2.1 (or evens in old money, after commission)

That beats the less generous 5/6 available at Ladbrokes, which is also for a higher level match line at 78%.

Casino - Yes, that's great value vs Ladbrokes for Betfair's Indy Turnout and to be pedantic, 2.1 is actually 1.045/1 in old money .... every little helps. You can of course also ask for that little bit more with Betfair and often get it if you're prepared to be patient.

As regards the Yes vote, I suspect that like "shy" Tories, there may be an element of "shy" No voters who won't admit as much to the pollsters - if so, the Yes vote could finish lower still, perhaps not too far distant from Laddies' 30% - 35% band for which they offer odds of 10/1. Not likely admittedly, but possibly worth a couple of quid as a saver.

There's one risk I foresee, if the polls maintain their current levels of substantial No leads, then some voters might think it is in the bag, and not bother to turnout and vote on the big day.

Differential turnout won't overturn a 20 point lead.

But it will affect overall turnout, which is what the bet is on.

True

TheScreamingEagles said:

HurstLlama said:

Speedy said:

HurstLlama said:

Speedy said:

HurstLlama said:

Sean_F said:

Smarmeron said:

@Sean_F
"It generally determines historical outcomes."

Given the latest report on our armed services, we had better keep a low profile then?

It shows the importance of maintaining adequate defences.

Ir.

Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTbL1hH19BE&feature=kp

You think that nuclear strike should be the first and only response to an attack? I mean really? Do you actually want to take time and maybe think?

That is the protocol in case the Russians or the Chinese or any other nuclear power attacks NATO.
It will be the first and only response since most of the world would blow up within an hour, that is why there has been no major war between great powers since 1945, nuclear weapons makes it to costly for war as a policy option (clue, which of these 3 states has america invaded and which one is the only one without WMD's : Iran, N.Korea, Iraq).

What happens if a non-nuclear power attacks? Do we nuke them?

Absolutely we do.

Is a tragedy that we have nuclear weapons and never tested them in war.

It's like buying an expensive pair of shoes and never wearing them.

There is a reason why nukes have not being used since 1945, one of them is that nuclear war is too costly (blowing up the planet), the second is political, if everyone used nukes in the little wars since 1945 from Korea to Libya then it would be an acceptable weapon of war increasing the chances of its use in a big war that would lead to literally The End.
That and CND would look like a picnic compared with the fallout (political and radioactive) on using nukes on third world peasants on a regular basis.

edmundintokyo said:

HurstLlama said:

On the money issue, I think you are being over generous. Without serious dosh to spend nobody stands a chance of getting anywhere in the US system and I read that the same, albeit on a much smaller scale, is now the case for a prospective MP in the UK.

TBF the candidate who just unseated the House Majority Leader spent a grand total of $122,793 on the whole campaign, while his opponent went through $168,637 in his steak house bill alone.

You don't think $122,792 lying around in after-tax income is serious dosh. I salute you Mr Tokyo and wish that perhaps I had gone into educational software.

Smarmeron said:

@Sean_F
"It generally determines historical outcomes."

Given the latest report on our armed services, we had better keep a low profile then?

I always remember my history teacher expounding that violence never solved anything. It made me wonder whether she'd ever actually read any history at all.

As the meme has it: "if violence doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it".

Speedy said:

ToryJim said:

@Speedy‌
Wasn't there some crazy neocon idea to develop theatre specific mini nukes so they could vaporise a platoon or two without destroying all life for 500 miles around for the next 2million years.

Yes, but neocons have bad relations with science.

Well quite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

The GOP labour under three considerable disadvantages in regaining the White House of which only one, the first below, appears recoverable presently.

1. Choosing a viable candidate who hasn't been badly compromised in the primaries.

2. Hostility toward and from a fast growing Hispanic population.

3. Significant Democrat favouring demographic changes in Virginia, Florida, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada currently and more long term in Arizona, Texas and North Carolina.

2 and 3 being linked in some states.

@HurstLlama

You mean a terrorist group or a country?
As for the armed forces, Britain is an Island and its overseas territories are mostly Islands or with large coastlines too, so the only thing you need is a strong airforce and a strong navy with a token army and of course your nukes (you can't be a great power without nukes).

Just noticed that San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro has been tapped as next HUD Secretary. Wonder if that's to give him national experience as a tee up for a slot on the ticket?

Trident didn't deter 9/11 or 7/7.

John_M said:

ToryJim said:

@Speedy‌
Wasn't there some crazy neocon idea to develop theatre specific mini nukes so they could vaporise a platoon or two without destroying all life for 500 miles around for the next 2million years.

Neocon? The US had nuclear artillery shells in the 50s and 60s. What fun! They also had nuclear free-flight rockets and depth charges.

All in the kiloton and megaton range, those are proper nukes not mini.

Smarmeron said:

@John_M

Nuclear landmines? now there is an amazing idea!

They had nuclear landmines in W.Germany for the duration of the cold war.

Socrates said:

I assumed Juncker would be shifted at this point. It's just a question of who the compromise candidate is. I saw a mention of Reinfeldt the other day, which would be a huge win for Cameron. If it's Juncker on the other hand, it would be devastating for Cameron - he has all his allies behind him, Germany on the fence, plus a couple of other countries too. If he loses in this situation, when will he ever win?

The problem with this one is that there's no way to split the difference between "the candidate of the winning party gets the job" and "the candidate of the winning party doesn't get the job". One side or the other has to lose, and it's most likely to be the side that doesn't have enough votes to make a blocking minority.

I'm not denying that the "renegotiation" thing is bollocks designed to take advantage of gullible people, but if it's a matter of something like getting his fair share of appointments he's not at any particular disadvantage.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Trident didn't deter 9/11 or 7/7.

That's because terrorists don't have a country to nuke.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well, I admire the fact he had the balls to say this

Danny Alexander: Lib Dems could be biggest party by 2025

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/exclusive-danny-alexander-lib-dems-could-be-biggest-party-2025

Sion Simon eat your heart out!

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well, I admire the fact he had the balls to say this

Danny Alexander: Lib Dems could be biggest party by 2025

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/exclusive-danny-alexander-lib-dems-could-be-biggest-party-2025

Can I have what he's smoking?

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Exactly a hundred years ago, the RN had more than a dozen dreadnoughts already in commission.

Yes but as Jutland showed they didn't really know what to do with them.

John_M said:

Speedy said:

John_M said:

ToryJim said:

@Speedy‌
Wasn't there some crazy neocon idea to develop theatre specific mini nukes so they could vaporise a platoon or two without destroying all life for 500 miles around for the next 2million years.

Neocon? The US had nuclear artillery shells in the 50s and 60s. What fun! They also had nuclear free-flight rockets and depth charges.

All in the kiloton and megaton range, those are proper nukes not mini.

Mostly, but not completely true. And what would PB be without pedantry? Exhibit A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48

What is good in life? To argue with strangers, discombobulate their arguments and provide dodgy evidence via Wikipedia.

Again not practical, due to the design it cost 5 times more than more conventional nuclear shells (a single shell like W48 would also weigh more than 100 pounds, twice the weight for something half as big as conventional nuclear shells).

ToryJim said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Exactly a hundred years ago, the RN had more than a dozen dreadnoughts already in commission.

Yes but as Jutland showed they didn't really know what to do with them.

Jutland was a tactical German victory (more RN tonnage sunk then German), but it was definitely a strategic British victory because after summer 1916, the Kaiser's fleet was effectively bottled up in port (save for a few skirmishes in the Channel and the Baltic).

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well, I admire the fact he had the balls to say this

Danny Alexander: Lib Dems could be biggest party by 2025

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/exclusive-danny-alexander-lib-dems-could-be-biggest-party-2025

They should but him on comic relief.

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well, I admire the fact he had the balls to say this

Danny Alexander: Lib Dems could be biggest party by 2025

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/exclusive-danny-alexander-lib-dems-could-be-biggest-party-2025

They should but him on comic relief.

Maybe he meant biggest party in Eastleigh? Or Sutton.

TheScreamingEagles said:

ToryJim said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

peter_from_putney said:

Casino_Royale said:

peter_from_putney said:

JackW said:

Scott_P said:

@RuthDavidsonMSP: New TNS BMRB poll out - No maintains its double-digit lead. Analysis from @WhatScotsThink here http://t.co/2dXrpq11U9

59/41 No/YES when DK's excluded.

YES remain dead in the water, completely becalmed.

Tick tock ....

***** Betting Post *****

That 41% 'Yes' figure after excluding Don't Knows makes Ladbrokes' offer of 9/2 for their 35% - 40% 'Yes' vote band appear very attractive indeed imho, especially when one considers this is a whopping great 50% improvement on Victor Chandler's 3/1 odds for his LOWER and NARROWER 35% - 39% 'Yes' vote band.
I'm on but DYOR!

Cheers Peter, I'm on.

Also, I checked Betfair last night. There was still £80 or so of cash available to back turnout at 75%+ on the Indy Ref at 2.1 (or evens in old money, after commission)

That beats the less generous 5/6 available at Ladbrokes, which is also for a higher level match line at 78%.

Casino - Yes, that's great value vs Ladbrokes for Betfair's Indy Turnout and to be pedantic, 2.1 is actually 1.045/1 in old money .... every little helps. You can of course also ask for that little bit more with Betfair and often get it if you're prepared to be patient.

As regards the Yes vote, I suspect that like "shy" Tories, there may be an element of "shy" No voters who won't admit as much to the pollsters - if so, the Yes vote could finish lower still, perhaps not too far distant from Laddies' 30% - 35% band for which they offer odds of 10/1. Not likely admittedly, but possibly worth a couple of quid as a saver.

There's one risk I foresee, if the polls maintain their current levels of substantial No leads, then some voters might think it is in the bag, and not bother to turnout and vote on the big day.

Differential turnout won't overturn a 20 point lead.

But it will affect overall turnout, which is what the bet is on.

I am covering myself on the 70-75% band as well, so I still come out (very slightly) ahead even if turnout is low.

Turnout won't be below 70%, so either I get my stake back plus a few pennies, or I bag a (low) 3-figure sum. I expect turnout will be in the 73.5%-78.5% band no matter what happens, but my "big" win could easily be a near miss.

Sean_F said:

John_M said:

Smarmeron said:

@Sean_F
"It generally determines historical outcomes."

Given the latest report on our armed services, we had better keep a low profile then?

I always remember my history teacher expounding that violence never solved anything. It made me wonder whether she'd ever actually read any history at all.

Indeed, The views of the Carthaginians, Samaritans, Argentinian Indians, Tasmanian Aborigines, Hsi Hsia etc. etc. would be worth hearing in relation to "violence never solves anything" - if there were any of them left to comment.

And the Cathars.

JackW said:

3. Significant Democrat favouring demographic changes in Virginia, Florida, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada currently and more long term in Arizona, Texas and North Carolina.

Are there any States that are trending Republican?

Maybe Ohio and other rustbelt states?

Anorak said:

John_M said:

ToryJim said:

@Speedy‌
Wasn't there some crazy neocon idea to develop theatre specific mini nukes so they could vaporise a platoon or two without destroying all life for 500 miles around for the next 2million years.

Neocon? The US had nuclear artillery shells in the 50s and 60s. What fun! They also had nuclear free-flight rockets and depth charges.

This is a particularly spiffy toy. Imagine insurgent forces in Iraq playing with these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

And very dirty, effectively spreading 10 kg of plutonium over a small area with only a gram or less going into the explosion. In effect it would be something like a dirty bomb. That is why they were decommissioned after only a few years.

taffys said:

Yes but as Jutland showed they didn't really know what to do with them.

Harsh. You have to feel for Jellicoe. He was, as Churchill remarked, 'the only man who could have lost the war in an afternoon'.

Just as Haig was the only Briton ever, up to that time, to have commanded a mass army - or anything like one.

Maybe but the RN had lapsed into serial complacency which is part of the reason so many ships blew up.

HurstLlama said:

Speedy said:

HurstLlama said:

Speedy said:

Given the latest report on our armed services, we had better keep a low profile then?

What happens if a non-nuclear power attacks? Do we nuke them?

The Falklands war is an example, but how many non nuclear enemies can attack the British Isles? In my estimation none (if you exclude Spain and Germany that are in NATO).

None? Well OK, then lets build successor class and bin the entire armed forces save four submarines. Save a lot of mucking about as well as money.

Just a thought, what are you going to do when the third LNG ship from Qatar doesn't arrive because some bugger, don't know who but can guess, keeps sinking them all?

The mistake a lot of people make is to think the UK can defend itself purely at its geographic borders. It can't.

Being an island is a great defensive advantage, but it also means we depend upon the free-flow of fuel, food and goods imports/exports around the world. Trade is crucial to our livelihood. Therefore, regional stability and freedom of the skies and seas are of particular interest to us. We also generally don't want any one aggressive power that can dominate its neighbours by (generally land-based) force of arms, in Europe, North Africa and the Middle-East, because that has knock-on implications for our strategic freedom.

We are much more vulnerable to this than the USA.

Anyone who thinks differently should examine WWII. We couldn't be defeated by a direct land invasion, but we didn't necessarily need to be. If not forced to surrender, we could have been rendered totally impotent and starving by blockade - as Japan was. And they did ultimately surrender.

taffys said:

Yes but as Jutland showed they didn't really know what to do with them.

Harsh. You have to feel for Jellicoe. He was, as Churchill remarked, 'the only man who could have lost the war in an afternoon'.

Just as Haig was the only Briton ever, up to that time, to have commanded a mass army - or anything like one.

Naval warfare was changing at the time, U-Boats were more of a danger.

Are there any States that are trending Republican?

Eric Cantor's defeat in the Virginia primary really makes you wonder. The tea party can't win, it knows it can't win, and yet it soldiers on. It faces an ever more hostile electorate as the demographics move inexorably against it. These people will never vote tea in a million years.

What are tea trying to achieve?

taffys said:

Are there any States that are trending Republican?

Eric Cantor's defeat in the Virginia primary really makes you wonder. The tea party can't win, it knows it can't win, and yet it soldiers on. It faces an ever more hostile electorate as the demographics move inexorably against it. These people will never vote tea in a million years.

What are tea trying to achieve?

The tea party appears to be doing the political equivalent of "the beatings will continue until morale improves". I truly feel sorry for the GOP.

taffys said:

Are there any States that are trending Republican?
,
Eric Cantor's defeat in the Virginia primary really makes you wonder. The tea party can't win, it knows it can't win, and yet it soldiers on. It faces an ever more hostile electorate as the demographics move inexorably against it. These people will never vote tea in a million years.

What are tea trying to achieve?

They are determined to destroy the opposing tendency, well all the opposing tendencies, in their own supposed party in the belief that they will be the last men standing and thus be able to run on a pure nutjob platform.
They want to destroy all the rest of the right to leave just their version.
What they will achieve is at least another 4 - probably 8 - years of Democrat government.
Personally I think only another of the Bush's can save America from that.

"
Labour call to stop UK supermarkets stocking food produced by slaves
It is up to consumers whether they eat prawns processed in Thailand using slave labour, says Cameron's spokesman"

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/jun/11/slavery-prawns-thailand-supermarkets-labour

The South Shall Rise Again! And I ain't whistin' Dixie

taffys said:

Are there any States that are trending Republican?

Eric Cantor's defeat in the Virginia primary really makes you wonder. The tea party can't win, it knows it can't win, and yet it soldiers on. It faces an ever more hostile electorate as the demographics move inexorably against it. These people will never vote tea in a million years.

What are tea trying to achieve?

Colorado might be one. It's the only Obama state that Hillary has trouble winning.
Also if you looked at the campaign Cantor was not only defeated for immigration (cue UKIP) but also for corruption, his opponent alleged that you could buy lawmakers like Cantor and even suggested that they demand 150 thousand dollars for a place on a House of Representatives committee.
Cantor thought that if you are big business friendly you can win just by getting money for re election ads, he forgot that it's a house seat not a senate one, the more local the election the more important is local perception.

The Court of Appeal (Gross LJ, Simon & Burnett JJ) will tomorrow hand down its judgment in Regina v AB & CD. The appellants impugn directions of Mr Justice Nicol, purportedly issued under the inherent jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, which will exclude the public from the entirety of the trial of AB and CD. It should be noted that tomorrow's decision of the Court of Appeal is final, and no appeal lies therefrom to the Supreme Court.

taffys said:

''What they will achieve is at least another 4 - probably 8 - years of Democrat government.''

Quite honestly its very difficult to see when the republicans might form another government, which leads me to wonder whether the break-up of the United States is really impossible.

2020 or even 2024, the democrats have only novelty candidates to field, first black president first woman president, once you get to first latino president the novelty starts to get thin. Hillary is unbeatable in 2016 however every republican beats any other democrat for the white house. Hillary will be beatable in 2020, just ask Julia Gillard.

ToryJim said:

taffys said:

''What they will achieve is at least another 4 - probably 8 - years of Democrat government.''

Quite honestly its very difficult to see when the republicans might form another government, which leads me to wonder whether the break-up of the United States is really impossible.

The US won't break up, there have been long periods of party dominance. Sooner or later the other party will take the hint and make itself competitive again.

The republicans are already competitive, they would have won in 2012 if they had someone else that a corrupt Wall St weather vane with the charisma of a plank of wood.
No one with Romney's background would have had a chance to get elected just 3 years after a financial crisis blamed on people like him.
And as I said before, Hillary is only winning because she is a woman.

Hillary's novelty will wear thin as time goes by in the White House, she is even with men and winning 60% of women votes because of her gender, but once she gets into office the "elect the first woman president" will no longer apply.
Julia Gillard's case in Australia is an example.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Exactly a hundred years ago, the RN had more than a dozen dreadnoughts already in commission.

And they were bankrupting us. This was of course, as I am sure you know, the nuclear arms race of its day.
The huge costs were why we had the post ww1 naval treaties, the strategic arms like limitation talks of their day.

Flightpath said:

Come off it, casino royale
We are NATO treaty allies with all of Europe plus Canada and the USA. We trade with these countries and any nations (come on, just who?) who interrupt that trade attacks them as well as us. We are protected as well as we can be from strategic blackmail by Trident which the govt is already actively seeking to update and replace.
We have something like the worlds 4th largest defence budget, the biggest in Europe I think.
We are connected to Europe by the channel tunnel as well !!

What's your point?