Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dave said to be coming under pressure to abandon the coalit

SystemSystem Posts: 12,650
edited December 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dave said to be coming under pressure to abandon the coalition now

Abandon the LDs % govern alone, CON MPs tell DC – http://t.co/Ju6VB1uzZ6
But what'd that do to post GE15 relations? pic.twitter.com/8zPzaSxh02

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,665
    first!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,665
    amongst equals, of course ;)
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    Bad idea. How much legislating is left to do anyway?
    Better to let the LD's walk instead.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,842
    FPT
    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    Malcolm: Yes 10% is probably an exaggeration but the point is valid. Especially as profit markups are apparently much higher for ready meals than separate ingredients.

    Re Immigrants. If you come from a country with no welfare you either learn the basics or starve when things go wrong. So you see to it that your children learn the basics. Over here such basics are seen as anti feminist and frowned upon. Its one big reason why immigrants do much better than the locals. They know how to live very cheaply and have a work ethic derived from a work or starve culture. Hence they work hard, spend little, put the difference into savings and make something of their lives. Sadly the British welfare classes have never been taught the self discipline to do that because in liberal Britain self discipline is a dirty word.

    You may think it odd that someone supporting UKIP says this. However the UKIP candidate for Tooting puts it much better than I can.

    "So, the UKIP contender for Chuka's seat in Streatham, Bruce Machan came to Britain from Zimbabwe about the same time I came over here from Poland, and I am standing for UKIP in Tooting, which is just to the West. Directly North of Chuka's constituency, in Vauxhall, UKIP is represented by Ace Nnorom who is originally from Cameroon.

    And on the East side of things Chuka is flanked by UKIP's Parliamentary Candidate for Dulwich and West Norwood Rathy Alagaratnam who is Tamil and came to Britain from Sri Lanka. And of course to the South, we have Winston McKenzie who is challenging Croydon North for UKIP -- Winston was born in Jamaica and has been suggested by Lee Jasper recently to be the most influential Black politician in Britain.

    In fact, it may be inferred that UKIP is likely fielding the most ethnically diverse suite of candidates out of all the parties in South London. That is because all of us feel strongly about being British, whilst UKIP provides us with a truly meritocratic political platform, something that cannot be said of the LibLabCon establishment parties catering almost exclusively for the London upper middle classes....



    http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5374/tooting_view_we_re_back_to_racism_smears_against_ukip

    Paul, I certainly agree with your points in general , being an older codger there were no such things as ready meals when we were young , everybody had to be able to cook and worst cases just used the chip pan every day.
    However big thing on it is, it takes a lot of time and work to prepare proper meals, so as well as ignorance there is a general laziness part to it, they want "everything on a plate" to use a pun. I do sympathise if both people in household working mind you, makes it harder.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Too late for that, they should have though of it 4 years ago.
    "It's too late for tears dear"
    Instead of wasting their time Tory MP's should watch the movie instead:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pRgyhqprPQ
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,709
    Can't say the rewards outweigh the risks for either party, but especially the Conservatives.

    It'd be great fun to go back in the threads and see the various predictions of when the coalition would end ...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Complete non-starter of an idea. What policies are the Tories going to be able to get through Parliament without the Lib-Dems, which they can't in coalition? Where are the ~326 votes going to come from with the Lib-Dems voting against them in Parliament?
  • GasmanGasman Posts: 132
    There could have been a case for causing the Lib Dems to flounce off a while back - instead of allowing them to get away with murder over the boundary reforms for example - but it's far too late now. It would allow the Lib Dems to detoxify (a bit at least) from their record in government, leaving all the blame with the Tories, plus making the Tories look petty for ending it now.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,490
    Worst idea since the Empire of Japan decided to bomb the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of the Second World War.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,424
    Non-starter.

    The Conservatives would simply be inviting a string of Commons defeats, and that always makes you look weak. It also sends the message that the Cameron has now decided that the Coalition is a bad idea... in which case, it begs the question why he's been doing it for 4 1/2 years - and the subtly of any attempted answer will be lost in the noise. Finally, it makes it hard to do a deal with any partner post-May.

    The Tories' best approach is to say to the electorate, "we've achieved a lot as a Government... we'd like to achieve more, and are best placed to do it if you let us govern alone".

    The situation is similar for the Lib Dems - much as they'd like the pain to end, that simply wouldn't be achieved by seeming to say, "this 4 1/2 year experiment turns out to have been a mistake - sozzles, all". It would be a ludicrous position which would alienate those who've stayed loyal, without tempting back those who've left.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Yet more proof that Tory MPs are the Tory parties greatest opponents and most fearsome foe.
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Worst idea since the Empire of Japan decided to bomb the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of the Second World War.

    Or St Paul the Evangelist touring Palestine with his trampoline act.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    50 Tory MPs seem to have an IQ if around 80 .
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    It's a very smart idea. They could spend the months running up to the election putting forward stuff that further weakens the popularity of Labour and the Lib Dems:

    - English devolution
    - EU referendum
    - More curbs on immigration
    - Reduced benefits payments
    - Tougher criminal sentences
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,809
    MarkSenior said:

    50 Tory MPs seem to have an IQ if around 80 .

    Absolutely right - and I say that as a Conservative supporter.

    At every turn, large numbers of Con MPs act / want the Con party to act in the optimum way to lose the next GE.

    I actually wonder how on earth Con candidates are selected.

    If I was in charge I would start with a basic IQ and aptitude test - which they have to pass. They would get one chance - Gove style - no resits - if they can't pass they are barred for life.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,424
    Were you not paying attention in the dying embers of the Major Government, Socrates? It doesn't matter what the proposals are - the daily news is "Government loses vote again".

    The advantage of incumbency for a Government is that they tend to be seen as more capable of governing, simply because they are, in fact, governing. Being seen as a Government which simply can't govern is death.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    It's a great idea.


    If you are 50 Tory kipper plants.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Worst idea since the Empire of Japan decided to bomb the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of the Second World War.

    There was a later move that qualifies for the dumbest decision of modern times. Hitler's decision to declare war on the US a week or so after Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't have done that the US would have stated out of the European war.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,449
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Worst idea since the Empire of Japan decided to bomb the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of the Second World War.

    While simultaneously fighting China, and the British Empire. Dynamiting fish out of water would be intelligent by comparison.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,809
    Socrates said:

    It's a very smart idea. They could spend the months running up to the election putting forward stuff that further weakens the popularity of Labour and the Lib Dems:

    - English devolution
    - EU referendum
    - More curbs on immigration
    - Reduced benefits payments
    - Tougher criminal sentences

    No, that wouldn't work.

    Because they would be seen to be obsessing about pet subjects rather than concentrating on what matters to most people - the economy and making people feel better off - which will ultimately, when it comes to the crunch, determine how people vote. Or at least how the people they need to pick up will vote.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,490
    MikeSmithson said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Worst idea since the Empire of Japan decided to bomb the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of the Second World War.

    There was a later move that qualifies for the dumbest decision of modern times. Hitler's decision to declare war on the US a week or so after Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't have done that the US would have stated out of the European war.

    America would eventually entered the European War.

    FDR position of neutrality was anything but.

    It is fair to say, that FDR was the most duplicitous bastard ever to occupy the White House.

    But he was on our side.

    Plus, even after Pearl Harbour FDR convinced the America to follow a Germany First policy.
  • megalomaniacs4umegalomaniacs4u Posts: 327
    Only worthwhile if they get a snap election out of it, and why bother?
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Good evening.

    hermann kelly ‏@hermannkelly 25m25 minutes ago
    Ask Nigel Farage anything, and you can guarantee there will be outrage http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ask-nigel-farage-anything-and-you-can-guarantee-there-will-be-outrage-9911234.html …
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,490
    Sean_F said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Worst idea since the Empire of Japan decided to bomb the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of the Second World War.

    While simultaneously fighting China, and the British Empire. Dynamiting fish out of water would be intelligent by comparison.
    There was a certain arrogance in their own supremacy that Japanese possessed that led to their downfall.
  • saddosaddo Posts: 534
    Daft idea to end it. Just keep pushing proper Tory policies like EVEL and if the libs walk out and it's their fault.

    Control of the government gives Cameron real advantages in the next 5 months.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,424
    MikeSmithson said:


    There was a later move that qualifies for the dumbest decision of modern times. Hitler's decision to declare war on the US a week or so after Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't have done that the US would have stated out of the European war.

    I may well be being dumb myself here, but wouldn't that just have thrown the Nazis' most important ally under a bus, destroying the Japanese threat to Britain in India and ultimately to the Russians? Germany would then have faced Russia and Britain without them fighting the Japanese at the same time and with at least de facto support from the US.

    I know that all Nazi strategic decisions in the war are questionable with hindsight because they lost and, by definition, should've made different choices. But this doesn't immediately seem an absurd decision on its face, albeit it was based on an erroneous assessment of US naval strength post-Pearl Harbour.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,982
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sean_F said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Worst idea since the Empire of Japan decided to bomb the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of the Second World War.

    While simultaneously fighting China, and the British Empire. Dynamiting fish out of water would be intelligent by comparison.
    There was a certain arrogance in their own supremacy that Japanese possessed that led to their downfall.
    it was the same with Liverpool FC
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,809
    megalomaniacs4u said:

    Only worthwhile if they get a snap election out of it, and why bother?

    And that wouldn't help them either.

    They need the next 5 months - to allow the economy and gradually improving living standards to continue seeping through to people.

    It's very, very slow - in fact so slow that people can barely notice it - but the odds are it should keep happening and it should help them.

    See Rob's graph - long term direction of travel is very clear - they have a better chance in May than today.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v1-aXNoGwZSLOIWziLoqq9rbN3MHg6qezWKbjsAkunw/edit?pli=1#gid=1614647044
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    megalomaniacs4u said:

    Only worthwhile if they get a snap election out of it, and why bother?

    They can only get a snap election if they kill the 5 year rule, with a little help from Labour.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,490
    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    MikeSmithson said:


    There was a later move that qualifies for the dumbest decision of modern times. Hitler's decision to declare war on the US a week or so after Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't have done that the US would have stated out of the European war.

    I may well be being dumb myself here, but wouldn't that just have thrown the Nazis' most important ally under a bus, destroying the Japanese threat to Britain in India and ultimately to the Russians? Germany would then have faced Russia and Britain without them fighting the Japanese at the same time and with at least de facto support from the US.

    I know that all Nazi strategic decisions in the war are questionable with hindsight because they lost and, by definition, should've made different choices. But this doesn't immediately seem an absurd decision on its face, albeit it was based on an erroneous assessment of US naval strength post-Pearl Harbour.
    Fighting, The Soviet Union, The USA and The UK concurrently was a mistake.

    To quote Londo Mollari, Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on three fronts.

    You could say abrograting the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was Hitler's dumbest mistake.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,490
    Alanbrooke said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sean_F said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Worst idea since the Empire of Japan decided to bomb the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of the Second World War.

    While simultaneously fighting China, and the British Empire. Dynamiting fish out of water would be intelligent by comparison.
    There was a certain arrogance in their own supremacy that Japanese possessed that led to their downfall.
    it was the same with Liverpool FC
    Is that your way of asking for a thread on the Indyref :-)
  • megalomaniacs4umegalomaniacs4u Posts: 327
    MikeL said:

    megalomaniacs4u said:

    Only worthwhile if they get a snap election out of it, and why bother?

    And that wouldn't help them either.

    They need the next 5 months - to allow the economy and gradually improving living standards to continue seeping through to people.

    It's very, very slow - in fact so slow that people can barely notice it - but the odds are it should keep happening and it should help them.

    See Rob's graph - long term direction of travel is very clear - they have a better chance in May than today.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v1-aXNoGwZSLOIWziLoqq9rbN3MHg6qezWKbjsAkunw/edit?pli=1#gid=1614647044
    Hence, my why bother comment. Stay in coalition, show the libdems as duplicitous at every chance, and hope the feel good factor finally kicks in.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,982
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sean_F said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Worst idea since the Empire of Japan decided to bomb the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of the Second World War.

    While simultaneously fighting China, and the British Empire. Dynamiting fish out of water would be intelligent by comparison.
    There was a certain arrogance in their own supremacy that Japanese possessed that led to their downfall.
    it was the same with Liverpool FC
    Is that your way of asking for a thread on the Indyref :-)
    I was hoping for AV ;-)
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,718
    What a silly idea. Tory MPs (some) are their own party's worst enemy.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,490
    edited December 2014
    Alanbrooke said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sean_F said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Worst idea since the Empire of Japan decided to bomb the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of the Second World War.

    While simultaneously fighting China, and the British Empire. Dynamiting fish out of water would be intelligent by comparison.
    There was a certain arrogance in their own supremacy that Japanese possessed that led to their downfall.
    it was the same with Liverpool FC
    Is that your way of asking for a thread on the Indyref :-)
    I was hoping for AV ;-)
    Lord Ashcroft's poll today has inspired me to write an AV thread.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    Has this been posted yet?

    http://order-order.com/2014/12/08/breaking-ukip-suspend-general-secretary-read-party-statement-in-full/
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,982
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sean_F said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Worst idea since the Empire of Japan decided to bomb the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of the Second World War.

    While simultaneously fighting China, and the British Empire. Dynamiting fish out of water would be intelligent by comparison.
    There was a certain arrogance in their own supremacy that Japanese possessed that led to their downfall.
    it was the same with Liverpool FC
    Is that your way of asking for a thread on the Indyref :-)
    I was hoping for AV ;-)
    Lord Ashcroft's poll today has inspired me to write an AV thread.
    I'm hoping you mean Aston Villa, but suspect not.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited December 2014
    Floater said:

    Has this been posted yet?

    http://order-order.com/2014/12/08/breaking-ukip-suspend-general-secretary-read-party-statement-in-full/

    Yes, apparently he's just been selected as UKIP candidate for Cities of London & Westminster.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/08/ukip-suspends-general-secretary-candidate-selection-allegations
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    edited December 2014
    saddo said:

    Daft idea to end it. Just keep pushing proper Tory policies like EVEL and if the libs walk out and it's their fault.

    Control of the government gives Cameron real advantages in the next 5 months.

    saddo said:

    Daft idea to end it. Just keep pushing proper Tory policies like EVEL and if the libs walk out and it's their fault.

    Control of the government gives Cameron real advantages in the next 5 months.

    You are right and what we have is 'one' daft tory MP spreading the notion of 'as many as...' x MPs agreeing with him.
    The LDs would love the tories to walk out. Love to be an oppositionn again. And of course doing so based on being fed up with Vince Cable is doubly daft.
    The legislation is all passed, the 3 year spending review issued, the Autumn Statement delivered, the budget to come. There are no rabbits to pull from the hat. No benefits from splitting from the LDs. They must sign up to all thats gone and all thats to come.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,490
    Alanbrooke said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sean_F said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Worst idea since the Empire of Japan decided to bomb the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of the Second World War.

    While simultaneously fighting China, and the British Empire. Dynamiting fish out of water would be intelligent by comparison.
    There was a certain arrogance in their own supremacy that Japanese possessed that led to their downfall.
    it was the same with Liverpool FC
    Is that your way of asking for a thread on the Indyref :-)
    I was hoping for AV ;-)
    Lord Ashcroft's poll today has inspired me to write an AV thread.
    I'm hoping you mean Aston Villa, but suspect not.
    Dave's favourite football team, I'm sure I segue in a reference to that.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,577
    Floater said:

    Has this been posted yet?

    http://order-order.com/2014/12/08/breaking-ukip-suspend-general-secretary-read-party-statement-in-full/

    Sad to say but my very first thought when I read that was 'I wonder how he managed to annoy Nigel'.

    Probably unfair in this case particularly as we have no idea what he is accused of but past history does seem to show a lot of 'falling under buses' amongst senior UKIP people who have upset the leader.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Labour supporters on Twitter are claiming their "CameronMustGo" hashtag is being censored.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,665
    AndyJS said:

    Labour supporters on Twitter are claiming their "CameronMustGo" hashtag is being censored.

    LOL, by who exactly?
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    edited December 2014
    @RobD
    Mr.Greene, in the bedroom with a revolver?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,490
    RobD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Labour supporters on Twitter are claiming their "CameronMustGo" hashtag is being censored.

    LOL, by who exactly?
    They complained when someone trolled them on twitter with this tweet

    #CameronMustGo and win the 2015 election so that the UK won't be pushed around by ScotNats, Green People, and Welshies.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Floater said:

    Has this been posted yet?

    http://order-order.com/2014/12/08/breaking-ukip-suspend-general-secretary-read-party-statement-in-full/

    Sad to say but my very first thought when I read that was 'I wonder how he managed to annoy Nigel'.

    Probably unfair in this case particularly as we have no idea what he is accused of but past history does seem to show a lot of 'falling under buses' amongst senior UKIP people who have upset the leader.
    Who else apart from the leader can suspend the General Secretary?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    This belated coalition bust up feels a bit contrived. It reflects poorly on both parties.

  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    On topic, I think Cameron should consult Nadine Dorries and do exactly what she advises.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    MikeL said:

    Socrates said:

    It's a very smart idea. They could spend the months running up to the election putting forward stuff that further weakens the popularity of Labour and the Lib Dems:

    - English devolution
    - EU referendum
    - More curbs on immigration
    - Reduced benefits payments
    - Tougher criminal sentences

    No, that wouldn't work.

    Because they would be seen to be obsessing about pet subjects rather than concentrating on what matters to most people - the economy and making people feel better off - which will ultimately, when it comes to the crunch, determine how people vote. Or at least how the people they need to pick up will vote.
    'Putting forward stuff' for which there was no majority in parliament. Being the only party in govt and having every other party on parliament united against you and no cover because *you* walked out of the coalition deal.
    There may be a point in being a new minority govt and doing 'stuff' for a few months and then holding a snap election - but turning yourself into a minority lame duck govt forced to hang on for 6 months??
    I'm happy to hear arguments in favour of that.
    I think its is a good illustration of how thick at least 'one' tory back bencher is. We must hope and pray that there really are not 'up to' 50 others equally as thick.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,490
    BBC to mark 50th anniversary of Sir Winston Churchill's state funeral....

    ......BBC Parliament, will show The State Funeral 50 Years On. Introduced by Sir Nicholas Soames, the Grandson of Sir Winston Churchill, and featuring commentary from Richard Dimbleby, the programme will air to mirror the original timings of his funeral in 1965 - on 30th January 2015 from 9.15am.

    BBC Parliament is also collaborating with BBC Archives in the restoration of the original footage of Churchill’s funeral for re-broadcast. BBC Archives are engaging film specialists to work on the negatives to ensure the best possible restoration of some four hours of coverage, including recently discovered missing footage.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2014/churchills-state-funeral
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    MikeSmithson said:


    There was a later move that qualifies for the dumbest decision of modern times. Hitler's decision to declare war on the US a week or so after Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't have done that the US would have stated out of the European war.

    I may well be being dumb myself here, but wouldn't that just have thrown the Nazis' most important ally under a bus, destroying the Japanese threat to Britain in India and ultimately to the Russians? Germany would then have faced Russia and Britain without them fighting the Japanese at the same time and with at least de facto support from the US.

    I know that all Nazi strategic decisions in the war are questionable with hindsight because they lost and, by definition, should've made different choices. But this doesn't immediately seem an absurd decision on its face, albeit it was based on an erroneous assessment of US naval strength post-Pearl Harbour.
    Fighting, The Soviet Union, The USA and The UK concurrently was a mistake.

    To quote Londo Mollari, Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on three fronts.

    You could say abrograting the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was Hitler's dumbest mistake.
    my favourite Londo quote:
    "Among my people this is how we celebrate state funerals. Our marriage ceremonies are solemn, sober, moments of reflection, also regret, disagreement, argument and mutual recrimination. Once you know it can't get any worse you can relax and enjoy the marriage. But to start with something like this.. No, it is a very bad sign for the future."
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,577
    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    MikeSmithson said:


    There was a later move that qualifies for the dumbest decision of modern times. Hitler's decision to declare war on the US a week or so after Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't have done that the US would have stated out of the European war.

    I may well be being dumb myself here, but wouldn't that just have thrown the Nazis' most important ally under a bus, destroying the Japanese threat to Britain in India and ultimately to the Russians? Germany would then have faced Russia and Britain without them fighting the Japanese at the same time and with at least de facto support from the US.

    I know that all Nazi strategic decisions in the war are questionable with hindsight because they lost and, by definition, should've made different choices. But this doesn't immediately seem an absurd decision on its face, albeit it was based on an erroneous assessment of US naval strength post-Pearl Harbour.
    Not really. The British were already fighting the Japanese before the Germans declared war on the US so nothing would have changed as far as the drain on British resources in the East was concerned. Meanwhile the Russians had agreed in 1942 only to fight the Japanese after the defeat of the Germans and only actually attacked them after the first Atom bomb had been dropped on Japan. In principle the Germans could have got away with not declaring war on the US and Japan would still have been tying up British and US resources as much as they did.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11281264/Ed-Miliband-I-havent-taken-drugs-but-have-read-about-it.html

    A serious subject but a brilliant Eddism

    "Ed Miliband: I haven't taken drugs but have 'read about it'
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Worst idea since the Empire of Japan decided to bomb the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of the Second World War.

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Worst idea since the Empire of Japan decided to bomb the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of the Second World War.

    Or indeed since Osama bin Ladin thought it was a neat idea to bomb New York and Washington in order to terrorise them into keeping out of the middle east.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,577
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Floater said:

    Has this been posted yet?

    http://order-order.com/2014/12/08/breaking-ukip-suspend-general-secretary-read-party-statement-in-full/

    Sad to say but my very first thought when I read that was 'I wonder how he managed to annoy Nigel'.

    Probably unfair in this case particularly as we have no idea what he is accused of but past history does seem to show a lot of 'falling under buses' amongst senior UKIP people who have upset the leader.
    Who else apart from the leader can suspend the General Secretary?
    I can't say for sure as I am not up to speed with the rulebook but I would think the National Executive Committee would have some say in the matter. Interestingly the General Secretary is not a member of the NEC.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    Flightpath said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Worst idea since the Empire of Japan decided to bomb the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of the Second World War.

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Worst idea since the Empire of Japan decided to bomb the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of the Second World War.

    Or indeed since Osama bin Ladin thought it was a neat idea to bomb New York and Washington in order to terrorise them into keeping out of the middle east.
    Imagine if the plan had been to drag them into a quagmire and make them hated throughout the Muslim world whilst simultaneously bleeding them financially
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Floater said:

    Has this been posted yet?

    http://order-order.com/2014/12/08/breaking-ukip-suspend-general-secretary-read-party-statement-in-full/

    Sad to say but my very first thought when I read that was 'I wonder how he managed to annoy Nigel'.

    Probably unfair in this case particularly as we have no idea what he is accused of but past history does seem to show a lot of 'falling under buses' amongst senior UKIP people who have upset the leader.
    Who else apart from the leader can suspend the General Secretary?
    I can't say for sure as I am not up to speed with the rulebook but I would think the National Executive Committee would have some say in the matter. Interestingly the General Secretary is not a member of the NEC.
    Who is on the UKIP NEC?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,490
    notme said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    MikeSmithson said:


    There was a later move that qualifies for the dumbest decision of modern times. Hitler's decision to declare war on the US a week or so after Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't have done that the US would have stated out of the European war.

    I may well be being dumb myself here, but wouldn't that just have thrown the Nazis' most important ally under a bus, destroying the Japanese threat to Britain in India and ultimately to the Russians? Germany would then have faced Russia and Britain without them fighting the Japanese at the same time and with at least de facto support from the US.

    I know that all Nazi strategic decisions in the war are questionable with hindsight because they lost and, by definition, should've made different choices. But this doesn't immediately seem an absurd decision on its face, albeit it was based on an erroneous assessment of US naval strength post-Pearl Harbour.
    Fighting, The Soviet Union, The USA and The UK concurrently was a mistake.

    To quote Londo Mollari, Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on three fronts.

    You could say abrograting the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was Hitler's dumbest mistake.
    my favourite Londo quote:
    "Among my people this is how we celebrate state funerals. Our marriage ceremonies are solemn, sober, moments of reflection, also regret, disagreement, argument and mutual recrimination. Once you know it can't get any worse you can relax and enjoy the marriage. But to start with something like this.. No, it is a very bad sign for the future."
    Londo was one of great characters in scifi history.
  • marktheowlmarktheowl Posts: 169
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    RobD said:

    AndyJS said:

    Labour supporters on Twitter are claiming their "CameronMustGo" hashtag is being censored.

    LOL, by who exactly?
    They complained when someone trolled them on twitter with this tweet

    #CameronMustGo and win the 2015 election so that the UK won't be pushed around by ScotNats, Green People, and Welshies.
    What's likely happened is that they've become a victim of Justin Bieber. No laughing there, I'm serious. Twitter changed its trending algorithm in 2010, so that topics which were consistently popular for longer periods dropped off the trending list. This was largely in response to the fact that at the time the trending topics would be consistently full of Bieber related guff rather than actual events, as tweenage girls' love for mopheaded pop brats is more potent than human curiosity about the world. I'd suggest that after trending for about two weeks, it's fallen foul of that algorithm which places it with other common place trends that Twitter filters out.

  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Gasman said:

    There could have been a case for causing the Lib Dems to flounce off a while back - instead of allowing them to get away with murder over the boundary reforms for example - but it's far too late now. It would allow the Lib Dems to detoxify (a bit at least) from their record in government, leaving all the blame with the Tories, plus making the Tories look petty for ending it now.

    Gasman said:

    There could have been a case for causing the Lib Dems to flounce off a while back - instead of allowing them to get away with murder over the boundary reforms for example - but it's far too late now. It would allow the Lib Dems to detoxify (a bit at least) from their record in government, leaving all the blame with the Tories, plus making the Tories look petty for ending it now.

    Gasman said:

    There could have been a case for causing the Lib Dems to flounce off a while back - instead of allowing them to get away with murder over the boundary reforms for example - but it's far too late now. It would allow the Lib Dems to detoxify (a bit at least) from their record in government, leaving all the blame with the Tories, plus making the Tories look petty for ending it now.

    It was these same '50' thick tory backbanchers who pushed the LDs into the boundary vote - or rather gave them the excuse by voting out HoL reform.
    There is no doubt that far too many tory back benchers have not got 2 brains to rub together. Sadly they are not wet left wingers, they are right wingers who remain totally clueless about how to pursue an agenda and achieve some significant part of what they would like. They think it is a neat idea to undermine their own government.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,186
    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    MikeSmithson said:


    There was a later move that qualifies for the dumbest decision of modern times. Hitler's decision to declare war on the US a week or so after Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't have done that the US would have stated out of the European war.

    I may well be being dumb myself here, but wouldn't that just have thrown the Nazis' most important ally under a bus, destroying the Japanese threat to Britain in India and ultimately to the Russians? Germany would then have faced Russia and Britain without them fighting the Japanese at the same time and with at least de facto support from the US.

    I know that all Nazi strategic decisions in the war are questionable with hindsight because they lost and, by definition, should've made different choices. But this doesn't immediately seem an absurd decision on its face, albeit it was based on an erroneous assessment of US naval strength post-Pearl Harbour.
    Germany was by far the more dangerous enemy. Defeating Germany first was the correct strategy.

    The Japanese had become a strategic irrelevance by late 1942 anyway.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Floater said:

    Has this been posted yet?

    http://order-order.com/2014/12/08/breaking-ukip-suspend-general-secretary-read-party-statement-in-full/

    Sad to say but my very first thought when I read that was 'I wonder how he managed to annoy Nigel'.

    Probably unfair in this case particularly as we have no idea what he is accused of but past history does seem to show a lot of 'falling under buses' amongst senior UKIP people who have upset the leader.
    Who else apart from the leader can suspend the General Secretary?
    I can't say for sure as I am not up to speed with the rulebook but I would think the National Executive Committee would have some say in the matter. Interestingly the General Secretary is not a member of the NEC.
    Who is on the UKIP NEC?
    It seems that there are 12 on the Kipper NEC, In theory 4 elected each year for a 3 year term,

    http://www.ukip.org/2014_nec_election_results

    though I see that in 2013 7 were elected, as there were 3 extra vacancies:

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

    Any one know how three extra vacancies appeared?

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,577
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Floater said:

    Has this been posted yet?

    http://order-order.com/2014/12/08/breaking-ukip-suspend-general-secretary-read-party-statement-in-full/

    Sad to say but my very first thought when I read that was 'I wonder how he managed to annoy Nigel'.

    Probably unfair in this case particularly as we have no idea what he is accused of but past history does seem to show a lot of 'falling under buses' amongst senior UKIP people who have upset the leader.
    Who else apart from the leader can suspend the General Secretary?
    I can't say for sure as I am not up to speed with the rulebook but I would think the National Executive Committee would have some say in the matter. Interestingly the General Secretary is not a member of the NEC.
    Who is on the UKIP NEC?
    http://www.ukip.org/people_nec
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,186
    On topic, there's a case to do this in March once all big government business is out of the way, but that's require careful timing and planning. It's high risk.

    It also supposes that Cameron's a credible Conservative. There's a risk it's just be seen as a meaningless PR gimmick.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,102
    edited December 2014
    Mm, interesting strategy by Labour to oppose Mr Salmond in Gordon with the founder of the Northumbria Party (even if he has recanted, I assume ...)

    http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-cream-of-the-crop/#more-64302

    {Edit. Selected before Mr S stood. But still.]
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Casino_Royale said:

    On topic, there's a case to do this in March once all big government business is out of the way, but that's require careful timing and planning. It's high risk.

    It also supposes that Cameron's a credible Conservative. There's a risk it's just be seen as a meaningless PR gimmick.

    I see what you did there.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Floater said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11281264/Ed-Miliband-I-havent-taken-drugs-but-have-read-about-it.html

    A serious subject but a brilliant Eddism

    "Ed Miliband: I haven't taken drugs but have 'read about it'

    I hear he's in a similar situation with doing a real job.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,038
    Here is "I've read about it" Ed experience of the world....

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2011/08/edmbook.jpg
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,243
    Casino_Royale said:

    On topic, there's a case to do this in March once all big government business is out of the way, but that's require careful timing and planning. It's high risk.

    It also supposes that Cameron's a credible Conservative. There's a risk it's just be seen as a meaningless PR gimmick.

    There's also a question about whether Cameron could go to the Queen and say "the current government no longer has the support of parliament, and I'd like to have a go with a new one"

    And she might say "Really, Mr Cameron. And what makes you think that you'd pass a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, when you've just gotten rid of 55 Lib Dems? And you've managed to jettison Carswell and Reckless."
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Casino_Royale said:

    On topic, there's a case to do this in March once all big government business is out of the way, but that's require careful timing and planning. It's high risk.

    It also supposes that Cameron's a credible Conservative. There's a risk it's just be seen as a meaningless PR gimmick.

    Oh come on, Mr. Royale! No fair-minded, reasonable person would ever think that Cameron would do anything in government for PR purposes alone. Crikey, anyone who would think that would think that what Cameron says and what he does don't always match.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    rcs1000 said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    On topic, there's a case to do this in March once all big government business is out of the way, but that's require careful timing and planning. It's high risk.

    It also supposes that Cameron's a credible Conservative. There's a risk it's just be seen as a meaningless PR gimmick.

    There's also a question about whether Cameron could go to the Queen and say "the current government no longer has the support of parliament, and I'd like to have a go with a new one"

    And she might say "Really, Mr Cameron. And what makes you think that you'd pass a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, when you've just gotten rid of 55 Lib Dems? And you've managed to jettison Carswell and Reckless."
    I'm pretty sure the Queen's discretion from all of this was removed in the run up to the 2010 election. If Cameron can't form a majority coalition, Miliband gets his chance. If Miliband doesn't, then the largest party gets to form a minority administration.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,577
    HurstLlama said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    On topic, there's a case to do this in March once all big government business is out of the way, but that's require careful timing and planning. It's high risk.

    It also supposes that Cameron's a credible Conservative. There's a risk it's just be seen as a meaningless PR gimmick.

    Oh come on, Mr. Royale! No fair-minded, reasonable person would ever think that Cameron would do anything in government for PR purposes alone. Crikey, anyone who would think that would think that what Cameron says and what he does don't always match.
    Mr Llama, my opinion of you is increasing by leaps and bounds!
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,966
    A lot of detail this far out from GE2015

    http://b.3cdn.net/labouruk/89012f856521e93a4d_phm6bflfq.pdf
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Casino_Royale said:

    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    MikeSmithson said:


    There was a later move that qualifies for the dumbest decision of modern times. Hitler's decision to declare war on the US a week or so after Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't have done that the US would have stated out of the European war.

    I may well be being dumb myself here, but wouldn't that just have thrown the Nazis' most important ally under a bus, destroying the Japanese threat to Britain in India and ultimately to the Russians? Germany would then have faced Russia and Britain without them fighting the Japanese at the same time and with at least de facto support from the US.

    I know that all Nazi strategic decisions in the war are questionable with hindsight because they lost and, by definition, should've made different choices. But this doesn't immediately seem an absurd decision on its face, albeit it was based on an erroneous assessment of US naval strength post-Pearl Harbour.
    Germany was by far the more dangerous enemy. Defeating Germany first was the correct strategy.

    The Japanese had become a strategic irrelevance by late 1942 anyway.
    A 1925 book foretold the Japanese attack and the island hopping campaign to defeat them.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Pacific_War

    Those were the days when the Telegraph had correspondents with brains.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited December 2014
    I have to say, Ed Miliband's cynical ploy to rush through votes for kids, against the views of the vast majority of the British public, and using Scots and Welsh MPs to force it through on England-only elections, might be enough to make me vote for the Tories to keep him out after all. I'm going to have to think about this.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,186
    Just caught up with the last thread. It's getting increasingly difficult to see where the extra votes are going to come for the Conservatives to keep them in power.

    They simply haven't build a broad enough coalition.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,038
    Telegraph has headline "Million of Tory voters to pick UKIP"...is it a new poll?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,186
    HurstLlama said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    On topic, there's a case to do this in March once all big government business is out of the way, but that's require careful timing and planning. It's high risk.

    It also supposes that Cameron's a credible Conservative. There's a risk it's just be seen as a meaningless PR gimmick.

    Oh come on, Mr. Royale! No fair-minded, reasonable person would ever think that Cameron would do anything in government for PR purposes alone. Crikey, anyone who would think that would think that what Cameron says and what he does don't always match.
    Lol!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,186
    rcs1000 said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    On topic, there's a case to do this in March once all big government business is out of the way, but that's require careful timing and planning. It's high risk.

    It also supposes that Cameron's a credible Conservative. There's a risk it's just be seen as a meaningless PR gimmick.

    There's also a question about whether Cameron could go to the Queen and say "the current government no longer has the support of parliament, and I'd like to have a go with a new one"

    And she might say "Really, Mr Cameron. And what makes you think that you'd pass a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, when you've just gotten rid of 55 Lib Dems? And you've managed to jettison Carswell and Reckless."
    Why would he need to see the Queen? Cameron is Prime Minister. He could simply sack all the Lib Dems in his government.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,490
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Telegraph has headline "Million of Tory voters to pick UKIP"...is it a new poll?

    I've zoomed in, and it says it is an academic study.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Casino_Royale said:

    Just caught up with the last thread. It's getting increasingly difficult to see where the extra votes are going to come for the Conservatives to keep them in power.

    They simply haven't build a broad enough coalition.

    If the Tories stay in power, it will be that, despite their own failings, Ed Miliband has managed to lose even more people. His latest announcement that he's going to rush to vandalise our constitution as quick as he can before his government collapses certainly has me rethinking my vote.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,449
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    MikeSmithson said:


    There was a later move that qualifies for the dumbest decision of modern times. Hitler's decision to declare war on the US a week or so after Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't have done that the US would have stated out of the European war.

    I may well be being dumb myself here, but wouldn't that just have thrown the Nazis' most important ally under a bus, destroying the Japanese threat to Britain in India and ultimately to the Russians? Germany would then have faced Russia and Britain without them fighting the Japanese at the same time and with at least de facto support from the US.

    I know that all Nazi strategic decisions in the war are questionable with hindsight because they lost and, by definition, should've made different choices. But this doesn't immediately seem an absurd decision on its face, albeit it was based on an erroneous assessment of US naval strength post-Pearl Harbour.
    Fighting, The Soviet Union, The USA and The UK concurrently was a mistake.

    To quote Londo Mollari, Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on three fronts.

    You could say abrograting the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was Hitler's dumbest mistake.
    In defence of the German High Command, Stalin's purge of the Red Army officer corps, and their subsequent woeful performance against the Finns, did give them grounds to believe an attack could succeed. Had they not carried out systematic atrocities against the Soviet population from day one, the whole Communist apparatus of government might have collapsed.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,243
    Casino_Royale said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    On topic, there's a case to do this in March once all big government business is out of the way, but that's require careful timing and planning. It's high risk.

    It also supposes that Cameron's a credible Conservative. There's a risk it's just be seen as a meaningless PR gimmick.

    There's also a question about whether Cameron could go to the Queen and say "the current government no longer has the support of parliament, and I'd like to have a go with a new one"

    And she might say "Really, Mr Cameron. And what makes you think that you'd pass a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, when you've just gotten rid of 55 Lib Dems? And you've managed to jettison Carswell and Reckless."
    Why would he need to see the Queen? Cameron is Prime Minister. He could simply sack all the Lib Dems in his government.
    I don't think he would be able to claim the support of parliament. And presumably the coalition agreement prevents him just firing all the LibDems without going to the Queen.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,186
    Flightpath said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    MikeSmithson said:


    There was a later move that qualifies for the dumbest decision of modern times. Hitler's decision to declare war on the US a week or so after Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't have done that the US would have stated out of the European war.

    I may well be being dumb myself here, but wouldn't that just have thrown the Nazis' most important ally under a bus, destroying the Japanese threat to Britain in India and ultimately to the Russians? Germany would then have faced Russia and Britain without them fighting the Japanese at the same time and with at least de facto support from the US.

    I know that all Nazi strategic decisions in the war are questionable with hindsight because they lost and, by definition, should've made different choices. But this doesn't immediately seem an absurd decision on its face, albeit it was based on an erroneous assessment of US naval strength post-Pearl Harbour.
    Germany was by far the more dangerous enemy. Defeating Germany first was the correct strategy.

    The Japanese had become a strategic irrelevance by late 1942 anyway.
    A 1925 book foretold the Japanese attack and the island hopping campaign to defeat them.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Pacific_War

    Those were the days when the Telegraph had correspondents with brains.
    Japan had no oil and was entirely reliant on its navy to protect its supply lines. Without carriers and anti-submarine capability, they were totally at the mercy of the U.S. Navy.

    Germany on the other hand, managed to develop jet fighters, missiles, very powerful tanks and came fairly close to developing nuclear weapons. Even with all their overstretched ambition and resources they came pretty close to taking Moscow and Cairo, within 18 months of each other, and could have credibly 'won' the Battle of the Atlantic. Of course, they did manage to murder millions of innocent people.

    One shudders to think where they could have got to had they left Russia unmolested and not declared war on the U.S.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Sean_F said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    MikeSmithson said:


    There was a later move that qualifies for the dumbest decision of modern times. Hitler's decision to declare war on the US a week or so after Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't have done that the US would have stated out of the European war.

    I may well be being dumb myself here, but wouldn't that just have thrown the Nazis' most important ally under a bus, destroying the Japanese threat to Britain in India and ultimately to the Russians? Germany would then have faced Russia and Britain without them fighting the Japanese at the same time and with at least de facto support from the US.

    I know that all Nazi strategic decisions in the war are questionable with hindsight because they lost and, by definition, should've made different choices. But this doesn't immediately seem an absurd decision on its face, albeit it was based on an erroneous assessment of US naval strength post-Pearl Harbour.
    Fighting, The Soviet Union, The USA and The UK concurrently was a mistake.

    To quote Londo Mollari, Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on three fronts.

    You could say abrograting the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was Hitler's dumbest mistake.
    In defence of the German High Command, Stalin's purge of the Red Army officer corps, and their subsequent woeful performance against the Finns, did give them grounds to believe an attack could succeed. Had they not carried out systematic atrocities against the Soviet population from day one, the whole Communist apparatus of government might have collapsed.
    Indeed. The Ukrainians initially greeted them as liberators after they'd suffered Russian rule for so long. Hitler's appalling anti-Slavism managed to turn them around pretty quickly. I always found it bizarre that he believed the Germans were the master race, their close cousins the Slavs were utterly sub-human, but the more Asiatic Magyars were alright. It is nonsensical even by the standards of thicko deranged racists.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,186
    rcs1000 said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    On topic, there's a case to do this in March once all big government business is out of the way, but that's require careful timing and planning. It's high risk.

    It also supposes that Cameron's a credible Conservative. There's a risk it's just be seen as a meaningless PR gimmick.

    There's also a question about whether Cameron could go to the Queen and say "the current government no longer has the support of parliament, and I'd like to have a go with a new one"

    And she might say "Really, Mr Cameron. And what makes you think that you'd pass a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, when you've just gotten rid of 55 Lib Dems? And you've managed to jettison Carswell and Reckless."
    Why would he need to see the Queen? Cameron is Prime Minister. He could simply sack all the Lib Dems in his government.
    I don't think he would be able to claim the support of parliament. And presumably the coalition agreement prevents him just firing all the LibDems without going to the Queen.
    The coalition agreement is constitutionally meaningless. He only has to be the person *most likely* to command a majority in Parliament.

    That isn't Nick Clegg, or Ed Miliband, whichever way you cut it. So he'd survive until - and if - he lost a vote of no confidence.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    UK public oppose lowering the voting age to 16 by three to one:

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/08/22/public-against-lowering-voting-age/

    Even a large majority of Lib Dem and Labour voters oppose it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,102
    Socrates said:

    UK public oppose lowering the voting age to 16 by three to one:

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/08/22/public-against-lowering-voting-age/

    Even a large majority of Lib Dem and Labour voters oppose it.

    How does the Scottish subsample work out? Just wondering, after indyref.

  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Floater said:

    Flightpath said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Worst idea since the Empire of Japan decided to bomb the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of the Second World War.

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Worst idea since the Empire of Japan decided to bomb the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour to keep America out of the Second World War.

    Or indeed since Osama bin Ladin thought it was a neat idea to bomb New York and Washington in order to terrorise them into keeping out of the middle east.
    Imagine if the plan had been to drag them into a quagmire and make them hated throughout the Muslim world whilst simultaneously bleeding them financially
    It was not though. It certainly was not for bin Ladin to end up hiding in a cave somewhere and then in a blockhouse in the middle of nowhere in Pakistan. We are all free to speculate what bin Ladins plan was but it was not for that. Afghanistan and Iraq have democratically elected govt - these days broadly based. Saddam and Gadaffi are dead. There is a military anti muslim brotherhood govt in Egypt. Assad is in a civil war. Its pretty sad, disgusting and pathetic but ISIS is mainly a real danger to those other muslims who blink awkwardly at it. This is not what he planned. Hard to see much of a caliphate there.
    Its worth remembering that a team of US specialists were quite illegally and blatantly able to get away with covertly invading Pakistan territory and assault this house to kill everyone in it and then retire. Pakistan just shrugged its shoulders. The USA regularly conduct air strikes killing loopy muslim terrorists in Pakistan.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,243
    Casino_Royale said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    On topic, there's a case to do this in March once all big government business is out of the way, but that's require careful timing and planning. It's high risk.

    It also supposes that Cameron's a credible Conservative. There's a risk it's just be seen as a meaningless PR gimmick.

    There's also a question about whether Cameron could go to the Queen and say "the current government no longer has the support of parliament, and I'd like to have a go with a new one"

    And she might say "Really, Mr Cameron. And what makes you think that you'd pass a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, when you've just gotten rid of 55 Lib Dems? And you've managed to jettison Carswell and Reckless."
    Why would he need to see the Queen? Cameron is Prime Minister. He could simply sack all the Lib Dems in his government.
    I don't think he would be able to claim the support of parliament. And presumably the coalition agreement prevents him just firing all the LibDems without going to the Queen.
    The coalition agreement is constitutionally meaningless. He only has to be the person *most likely* to command a majority in Parliament.

    That isn't Nick Clegg, or Ed Miliband, whichever way you cut it. So he'd survive until - and if - he lost a vote of no confidence.
    Unless parliament was dissolved, it would immediately trigger a confidence motion. Which the Conservative party would lose.

    Without confidence and supplyy, there is no minority government
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    @Flightpath

    AQ would be delighted Hussein is dead and Assad is struggling. They are/were both ardent secularists.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,577
    Sean_F said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    MikeSmithson said:


    There was a later move that qualifies for the dumbest decision of modern times. Hitler's decision to declare war on the US a week or so after Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't have done that the US would have stated out of the European war.

    I may well be being dumb myself here, but wouldn't that just have thrown the Nazis' most important ally under a bus, destroying the Japanese threat to Britain in India and ultimately to the Russians? Germany would then have faced Russia and Britain without them fighting the Japanese at the same time and with at least de facto support from the US.

    I know that all Nazi strategic decisions in the war are questionable with hindsight because they lost and, by definition, should've made different choices. But this doesn't immediately seem an absurd decision on its face, albeit it was based on an erroneous assessment of US naval strength post-Pearl Harbour.
    Fighting, The Soviet Union, The USA and The UK concurrently was a mistake.

    To quote Londo Mollari, Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on three fronts.

    You could say abrograting the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was Hitler's dumbest mistake.
    In defence of the German High Command, Stalin's purge of the Red Army officer corps, and their subsequent woeful performance against the Finns, did give them grounds to believe an attack could succeed. Had they not carried out systematic atrocities against the Soviet population from day one, the whole Communist apparatus of government might have collapsed.
    The Red Army pushed the Finns back originally, but it's quite noticeable that once the Finns, in alliance with the Germans, got back their lost territory they stopped. If they'd pushed on towards Leningrad, could the city have withstood the combined onslaught.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    BOOM!!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,490
    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Tories have a one-point lead, Lib Dems and Greens in joint fourth: CON 34%, LAB 33%, LD 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 6%
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,243
    Socrates said:

    UK public oppose lowering the voting age to 16 by three to one:

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/08/22/public-against-lowering-voting-age/

    Even a large majority of Lib Dem and Labour voters oppose it.

    That'll be because it's a stupid idea.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @Sun_Politics: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Tories have a one-point lead, Lib Dems and Greens in joint fourth: CON 34%, LAB 33%, LD 6%, UKIP 15%, GRN 6%
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,243
    Socrates said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    On topic, there's a case to do this in March once all big government business is out of the way, but that's require careful timing and planning. It's high risk.

    It also supposes that Cameron's a credible Conservative. There's a risk it's just be seen as a meaningless PR gimmick.

    There's also a question about whether Cameron could go to the Queen and say "the current government no longer has the support of parliament, and I'd like to have a go with a new one"

    And she might say "Really, Mr Cameron. And what makes you think that you'd pass a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, when you've just gotten rid of 55 Lib Dems? And you've managed to jettison Carswell and Reckless."
    I'm pretty sure the Queen's discretion from all of this was removed in the run up to the 2010 election. If Cameron can't form a majority coalition, Miliband gets his chance. If Miliband doesn't, then the largest party gets to form a minority administration.
    Doesn't the government have to pass a confidence motion?
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    The Stamp Duty Bounce
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,490
    Fourth YouGov poll in a row to have the Lib Dems not outpolling the Greens.

    I call TREND
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Casino_Royale said:

    Flightpath said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    MikeSmithson said:


    There was a later move that qualifies for the dumbest decision of modern times. Hitler's decision to declare war on the US a week or so after Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't have done that the US would have stated out of the European war.

    I may well be being dumb myself here, but wouldn't that just have thrown the Nazis' most important ally under a bus, destroying the Japanese threat to Britain in India and ultimately to the Russians? Germany would then have faced Russia and Britain without them fighting the Japanese at the same time and with at least de facto support from the US.

    I know that all Nazi strategic decisions in the war are questionable with hindsight because they lost and, by definition, should've made different choices. But this doesn't immediately seem an absurd decision on its face, albeit it was based on an erroneous assessment of US naval strength post-Pearl Harbour.
    Germany was by far the more dangerous enemy. Defeating Germany first was the correct strategy.

    The Japanese had become a strategic irrelevance by late 1942 anyway.
    A 1925 book foretold the Japanese attack and the island hopping campaign to defeat them.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Pacific_War

    Those were the days when the Telegraph had correspondents with brains.
    Japan had no oil and was entirely reliant on its navy to protect its supply lines. Without carriers and anti-submarine capability, they were totally at the mercy of the U.S. Navy.

    Germany on the other hand, managed to develop jet fighters, missiles, very powerful tanks and came fairly close to developing nuclear weapons. Even with all their overstretched ambition and resources they came pretty close to taking Moscow and Cairo, within 18 months of each other, and could have credibly 'won' the Battle of the Atlantic. Of course, they did manage to murder millions of innocent people.

    One shudders to think where they could have got to had they left Russia unmolested and not declared war on the U.S.
    Germany was running out of oil too though. They needed to either take it from the Caucasus or the Middle East.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025