politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After the most intensive polling week of the year the one t
Comments
-
He's not the party leader, is he? Also, that link is a newspaper's editorial rather than a factual report. 'May', 'might' ... suddenly what was probably a speculative chat over coffee becomes SNP party policy.JohnLilburne said:I see that Eck has hinted that the SNP might drop its current principled position that it doesn't vote on England-only matters.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/steady-mr-salmond-responsibility-is-required-from-the-prospective-mp-9934695.html?origin=internalSearch
Reinforces my belief we should renege on the Pledge and throw the ball back in their court.
I also see he has a persistent repetitive strain injury in his right hand, I can't say I am surprised.
The actual article (I presume) is quite opaque on the context. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/alex-salmond-hints-at-scottish-votes-for-english-laws-9934542.html
The Vow was reneged on within two hours of the result, as I recall. A supposedly unconditional promise, remember? (I agree it was idiotic whichever way anyone with any sense looked at it, but if you fib to win a referendum ...).
It is worth bearing in mind that the parties most enthusiastic, in practice, about Scottish MPs voting on supposedly English only matters are the Unionists: Labour [edit to correct punctuation], and to some extent the LDs who are in the ruling coalition. If Labour are forming a new government, they are presumably the biggest democratically elected party, and if they decide to keep doing things that way, what else is one supposed to think?0 -
That reminds me of Denis Thatcher quip "I wear the trousers in our house, and iron them too"Financier said:
Believe that the Amazons and Boudica were quite formidable. BTW which male PBer can truthfully say that he is master in his own household?TheScreamingEagles said:I know we've got recruitment issues, but surely we're now scraping the barrel?
Women could be allowed to serve in British infantry units for the first time by 2016.
An Army review of the ban on women serving in close combat has concluded the change would not have an "adverse effect" on troop cohesion.
But further research is needed to assess the "physiological demands", the Ministry of Defence review said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30539111
That said, a Battallion of women soldiers would be able to defeat a Hannibal's army
(Probably because they had modern weapons and Hannibal had elephants and was crap)
(Oh and I'm being sarcastic, women in the infantry would be brilliant)0 -
That simply isn't knowable.SimonStClare said:No doubt the price of oil will rebound next year
0 -
Off-topic: I see the Mayor of London's approved the insane green bridge in London.
It will cost us now: Transport for London is committing £30 million, and the same amount is coming from the Treasury. And then there are the nightmarish long-term running costs. All for people too lazy to walk a few hundred yards to the other bridges.
BTW, this 'bridge' will not be open to the public at night, cyclists will be banned, and you will be limited to crossing it in small groups of less than eight people. It is London's first fascist bridge.0 -
Thank you - will look for that.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Financier, there's a very good (most recent) Lindy Beige video on that [he does mostly historical things], basically suggesting women in the past had power over internal/household matters and that men had external affairs (as it were), such as trade and war.
In my experience the conditions you describe are still prevalent is lots of Africa, Asia and even the Americas.0 -
The May-Cameron squabble (feud maybe overstates it) seems to be growing in intensity as Teresa positions herself to be the successor if Cameron is seen to have failed in May:
http://times-deck.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/projects/18997733ec258a9fcaf239cc55d53363.html
This seems quite smart - being the Cameron continuity candidate won't be a winning position if he's lost, and if he wins she's probably still strong enough to retain a serious post. And yet she would probably still get the Tory establishment vote over Boris.
0 -
Plato said:
That reminds me of Denis Thatcher quip "I wear the trousers in our house, and iron them too"
Financier said:
Believe that the Amazons and Boudica were quite formidable. BTW which male PBer can truthfully say that he is master in his own household?TheScreamingEagles said:I know we've got recruitment issues, but surely we're now scraping the barrel?
Women could be allowed to serve in British infantry units for the first time by 2016.
An Army review of the ban on women serving in close combat has concluded the change would not have an "adverse effect" on troop cohesion.
But further research is needed to assess the "physiological demands", the Ministry of Defence review said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30539111
That said, a Battallion of women soldiers would be able to defeat a Hannibal's army
(Probably because they had modern weapons and Hannibal had elephants and was crap)
(Oh and I'm being sarcastic, women in the infantry would be brilliant)
I have always ironed my trousers and shirts - partly due to being an only child but also I have never found a lady who could do it properly - perhaps I haven't looked hard enough!0 -
Mr. Jessop, that sounds immensely stupid (and costly).
Mr. Financier, here's the videos page [two latest are both on women]:
https://www.youtube.com/user/lindybeige/videos0 -
Free unicorns are terribly expensive.Morris_Dancer said:
King Cole, cheers for the info
Miss Plato, maybe, but only for pragmatists. Those who think Braveheart is a documentary or that it only rains in Scotland because of English clouds will not let economic reality trouble them. Plus, the oil price will (probably) rise again sooner or later, and if it goes up it'll return to being a source of limitless prosperity and free unicorns.0 -
0
-
It's a park rather than a bridge. Viewed in that light, those restrictions are pretty normal.JosiasJessop said:Off-topic: I see the Mayor of London's approved the insane green bridge in London.
It will cost us now: Transport for London is committing £30 million, and the same amount is coming from the Treasury. And then there are the nightmarish long-term running costs. All for people too lazy to walk a few hundred yards to the other bridges.
BTW, this 'bridge' will not be open to the public at night, cyclists will be banned, and you will be limited to crossing it in small groups of less than eight people. It is London's first fascist bridge.
I can't understand for the life of me why London would want to create a major new tourist attraction.0 -
A fascist bridge? You really must tweet that - the Outrage Bus will be packed.JosiasJessop said:
Off-topic: I see the Mayor of London's approved the insane green bridge in London.
It will cost us now: Transport for London is committing £30 million, and the same amount is coming from the Treasury. And then there are the nightmarish long-term running costs. All for people too lazy to walk a few hundred yards to the other bridges.
BTW, this 'bridge' will not be open to the public at night, cyclists will be banned, and you will be limited to crossing it in small groups of less than eight people. It is London's first fascist bridge.0 -
A friend came round the other day and I was transfixed by the crease in his jeans. I felt compelled to point it out and made disparaging remarks about fashion crimes - compounded by the fact that the crease was an inch off centre.
He blamed his Thai cleaning lady. And noted I was the only person rude enough to point it out!Financier said:Plato said:That reminds me of Denis Thatcher quip "I wear the trousers in our house, and iron them too"
Financier said:
Believe that the Amazons and Boudica were quite formidable. BTW which male PBer can truthfully say that he is master in his own household?TheScreamingEagles said:I know we've got recruitment issues, but surely we're now scraping the barrel?
Women could be allowed to serve in British infantry units for the first time by 2016.
An Army review of the ban on women serving in close combat has concluded the change would not have an "adverse effect" on troop cohesion.
But further research is needed to assess the "physiological demands", the Ministry of Defence review said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30539111
That said, a Battallion of women soldiers would be able to defeat a Hannibal's army
(Probably because they had modern weapons and Hannibal had elephants and was crap)
(Oh and I'm being sarcastic, women in the infantry would be brilliant)
I have always ironed my trousers and shirts - partly due to being an only child but also I have never found a lady who could do it properly - perhaps I haven't looked hard enough!0 -
The Paston Letters?Financier said:
Thank you - will look for that.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Financier, there's a very good (most recent) Lindy Beige video on that [he does mostly historical things], basically suggesting women in the past had power over internal/household matters and that men had external affairs (as it were), such as trade and war.
In my experience the conditions you describe are still prevalent is lots of Africa, Asia and even the Americas.0 -
Apparently we're not attracting enough Roma gypsies, and this park is expected to appeal to them.antifrank said:
It's a park rather than a bridge. Viewed in that light, those restrictions are pretty normal.JosiasJessop said:Off-topic: I see the Mayor of London's approved the insane green bridge in London.
It will cost us now: Transport for London is committing £30 million, and the same amount is coming from the Treasury. And then there are the nightmarish long-term running costs. All for people too lazy to walk a few hundred yards to the other bridges.
BTW, this 'bridge' will not be open to the public at night, cyclists will be banned, and you will be limited to crossing it in small groups of less than eight people. It is London's first fascist bridge.
I can't understand for the life of me why London would want to create a major new tourist attraction.0 -
Public Sector Finances show the monthly deficit is down £1.6bn in Nov 2014 compared to last year.
YTD deficit is £75.8bn (last year £76.3bn)
By the time all the revisions (usually improvements) filter through the whole 2014/2015 deficit will be £80-90bn - a primary deficit of £30-40bn.
I'd guess that there are some civil servants being told to get their revisions through more quickly than they have done previously.
Osborne won't want the £10bn worth of improvements showing up a year late and after the election. He needs them now.0 -
Perhaps the 'Roma gypsies' will keep the badger watchers away... ; )rcs1000 said:
Apparently we're not attracting enough Roma gypsies, and this park is expected to appeal to them.antifrank said:
It's a park rather than a bridge. Viewed in that light, those restrictions are pretty normal.JosiasJessop said:Off-topic: I see the Mayor of London's approved the insane green bridge in London.
It will cost us now: Transport for London is committing £30 million, and the same amount is coming from the Treasury. And then there are the nightmarish long-term running costs. All for people too lazy to walk a few hundred yards to the other bridges.
BTW, this 'bridge' will not be open to the public at night, cyclists will be banned, and you will be limited to crossing it in small groups of less than eight people. It is London's first fascist bridge.
I can't understand for the life of me why London would want to create a major new tourist attraction.0 -
OT This is intriguing wired.com/2014/12/skype-used-ai-build-amazing-new-language-translator/?mbid=social_twitter
Very soon now, a select group of Skype beta testers will have a new Microsoft technology that seems borrowed from the world of Star Trek. It’s called the Skype Translator—a Skype add-on that listens to the English words you speak into Microsoft’s internet phone-calling software and translates them into Spanish, or vice versa.
As you can see from demos like the one below, it’s an amazing technology, and it’s based on work that’s been going on quietly inside Microsoft’s research and development labs for more than a decade.0 -
I though it might be interesting to compare previous general election outcomes to what happened in the immediately preceding local elections. You may recall, the tories were 2% behind Labour in the 2014's
2009 locals - Con 38 Lab 23
2010 Gen - Con 36 Lab 29
change +8
2004 local - Con 37 Lab 30
2005 Gen - Con 32 Lab 35
Change + 10
2000 local - Con 32 Lab 30
2001 Gen - Con 31 Lab 40
Change +11
1996 local - Con 29 Lab 43
1997 Gen - Con 30 Lab 43
Change +1
1991 local - Con 35 Lab 38
1992 Gen - Con 41 Lab 34
Change +10
So in each of the last 5 general elections, the incumbant government has performed better in the subsequent general election than they did in the preceding local elections, the average improvement is 8% which, if replicated in 2015 would give the tories a 6% win.
Add to that the UKIP vote which has been minimal before and which, if it reduces from here, is likely to improve the tory vote more than the Labour vote, and you may begin to understand why tories aren't losing any sleep at the moment.0 -
No, it's a bridge. The clue is in its name. In reality, it will function neither as a useful bridge or a meaningful park: the restrictions on its usage for both purposes will prevent that. And what reason do we have to believe it will be a 'major new tourist attraction'?antifrank said:
It's a park rather than a bridge. Viewed in that light, those restrictions are pretty normal.JosiasJessop said:Off-topic: I see the Mayor of London's approved the insane green bridge in London.
It will cost us now: Transport for London is committing £30 million, and the same amount is coming from the Treasury. And then there are the nightmarish long-term running costs. All for people too lazy to walk a few hundred yards to the other bridges.
BTW, this 'bridge' will not be open to the public at night, cyclists will be banned, and you will be limited to crossing it in small groups of less than eight people. It is London's first fascist bridge.
I can't understand for the life of me why London would want to create a major new tourist attraction.
It's a hideous waste of money, an archetypal boondoggle. Worse, there are so many other places in London that have much more of a need for a pedestrian/cycle crossing point.
I'd love to know what developments are allied to this farce...0 -
Vote SNP extract pork for Scotland. Vote Labour don't.Easterross said:Morning all and it will be interesting to see how YES voting Labour voters will feel now that Eck has said the SNP may vote on English only legislation to support Labour if a minority Labour government gets elected.
So now Scots know, vote SNP get Labour, vote Labour get Labour.
Utterly unsustainable of course, but understandable in the short term if you are Scottish.
0 -
And Income Tax receipts are starting to pick up a bit after some flatness over the first half of this year - up 4.1% in November.
Hopefully the pay rises are starting to appear.chestnut said:Public Sector Finances show the monthly deficit is down £1.6bn in Nov 2014 compared to last year.
YTD deficit is £75.8bn (last year £76.3bn)
By the time all the revisions (usually improvements) filter through the whole 2014/2015 deficit will be £80-90bn - a primary deficit of £30-40bn.
I'd guess that there are some civil servants being told to get their revisions through more quickly than they have done previously.
Osborne won't want the £10bn worth of improvements showing up a year late and after the election. He needs them now.0 -
Can we take it then, Mr Jessop, that you’re against the project?JosiasJessop said:
No, it's a bridge. The clue is in its name. In reality, it will function neither as a useful bridge or a meaningful park: the restrictions on its usage for both purposes will prevent that. And what reason do we have to believe it will be a 'major new tourist attraction'?antifrank said:
It's a park rather than a bridge. Viewed in that light, those restrictions are pretty normal.JosiasJessop said:Off-topic: I see the Mayor of London's approved the insane green bridge in London.
It will cost us now: Transport for London is committing £30 million, and the same amount is coming from the Treasury. And then there are the nightmarish long-term running costs. All for people too lazy to walk a few hundred yards to the other bridges.
BTW, this 'bridge' will not be open to the public at night, cyclists will be banned, and you will be limited to crossing it in small groups of less than eight people. It is London's first fascist bridge.
I can't understand for the life of me why London would want to create a major new tourist attraction.
It's a hideous waste of money, an archetypal boondoggle. Worse, there are so many other places in London that have much more of a need for a pedestrian/cycle crossing point.
I'd love to know what developments are allied to this farce...0 -
A week of intensive polling... Those were the days0
-
It was, perhaps, a little exaggerated. ;-)Plato said:A fascist bridge? You really must tweet that - the Outrage Bus will be packed.
JosiasJessop said:Off-topic: I see the Mayor of London's approved the insane green bridge in London.
It will cost us now: Transport for London is committing £30 million, and the same amount is coming from the Treasury. And then there are the nightmarish long-term running costs. All for people too lazy to walk a few hundred yards to the other bridges.
BTW, this 'bridge' will not be open to the public at night, cyclists will be banned, and you will be limited to crossing it in small groups of less than eight people. It is London's first fascist bridge.
I love the idea that a meaningful, useful bridge has been okayed by our cycling-mad London mayor that will actively disallow cycling. And the group restrictions are just farcical.0 -
How could you tell? ;-)OldKingCole said:
Can we take it then, Mr Jessop, that you’re against the project?JosiasJessop said:
No, it's a bridge. The clue is in its name. In reality, it will function neither as a useful bridge or a meaningful park: the restrictions on its usage for both purposes will prevent that. And what reason do we have to believe it will be a 'major new tourist attraction'?antifrank said:
It's a park rather than a bridge. Viewed in that light, those restrictions are pretty normal.JosiasJessop said:Off-topic: I see the Mayor of London's approved the insane green bridge in London.
It will cost us now: Transport for London is committing £30 million, and the same amount is coming from the Treasury. And then there are the nightmarish long-term running costs. All for people too lazy to walk a few hundred yards to the other bridges.
BTW, this 'bridge' will not be open to the public at night, cyclists will be banned, and you will be limited to crossing it in small groups of less than eight people. It is London's first fascist bridge.
I can't understand for the life of me why London would want to create a major new tourist attraction.
It's a hideous waste of money, an archetypal boondoggle. Worse, there are so many other places in London that have much more of a need for a pedestrian/cycle crossing point.
I'd love to know what developments are allied to this farce...0 -
@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 35 (-1), Con 34 (=), LD 9 (-1), UKIP 13 (+1), Oth 8 (-1). Tables here: http://t.co/p3dwmMwONS0
-
Most males of my generation who were inducted into the armed services, learned two things; how to make a bed up and how to get that knife edge crease into your trousers.Financier said:Plato said:That reminds me of Denis Thatcher quip "I wear the trousers in our house, and iron them too"
Financier said:
Believe that the Amazons and Boudica were quite formidable. BTW which male PBer can truthfully say that he is master in his own household?TheScreamingEagles said:I know we've got recruitment issues, but surely we're now scraping the barrel?
Women could be allowed to serve in British infantry units for the first time by 2016.
An Army review of the ban on women serving in close combat has concluded the change would not have an "adverse effect" on troop cohesion.
But further research is needed to assess the "physiological demands", the Ministry of Defence review said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30539111
That said, a Battallion of women soldiers would be able to defeat a Hannibal's army
(Probably because they had modern weapons and Hannibal had elephants and was crap)
(Oh and I'm being sarcastic, women in the infantry would be brilliant)
I have always ironed my trousers and shirts - partly due to being an only child but also I have never found a lady who could do it properly - perhaps I haven't looked hard enough!0 -
So yet more information and still less clarity. Ho hum.0
-
I adore hyperbole - that one was worthy of @SeanT. And you're quite right.JosiasJessop said:
It was, perhaps, a little exaggerated. ;-)Plato said:A fascist bridge? You really must tweet that - the Outrage Bus will be packed.
JosiasJessop said:Off-topic: I see the Mayor of London's approved the insane green bridge in London.
It will cost us now: Transport for London is committing £30 million, and the same amount is coming from the Treasury. And then there are the nightmarish long-term running costs. All for people too lazy to walk a few hundred yards to the other bridges.
BTW, this 'bridge' will not be open to the public at night, cyclists will be banned, and you will be limited to crossing it in small groups of less than eight people. It is London's first fascist bridge.
I love the idea that a meaningful, useful bridge has been okayed by our cycling-mad London mayor that will actively disallow cycling. And the group restrictions are just farcical.0 -
If this pays off (and it is still an 'if') then I might owe SeanT a friendly drink, as I was one of the most vociferous telling him it would not happen for many a year.Plato said:OT This is intriguing wired.com/2014/12/skype-used-ai-build-amazing-new-language-translator/?mbid=social_twitter
Very soon now, a select group of Skype beta testers will have a new Microsoft technology that seems borrowed from the world of Star Trek. It’s called the Skype Translator—a Skype add-on that listens to the English words you speak into Microsoft’s internet phone-calling software and translates them into Spanish, or vice versa.
As you can see from demos like the one below, it’s an amazing technology, and it’s based on work that’s been going on quietly inside Microsoft’s research and development labs for more than a decade.
But caveats; such voice-to-text tech has to understand all accents, and also people with speech defects, to be useful. If a person can understand them, so should the machine.
The use of a GPU to do the processing is interesting ...0 -
Just a reminder that earlier in the year my SHAVE* predicted Lab 35 Con 35 LD 10 UKIP 10. Still looks likely, imho.
*Sandy's Hunch for Actual Votes in the Election0 -
Hey, this isn’t exactly the best place to say this, but I couldn’t find a contact email for you. I love your blog, read it every week, I always find it insightful and measured. I wasn’t such a fan of your Scottish Indy coverage, just because I don’t think it was sufficiently critical of the SNP assertions, but I always admired the points you made. I think it’s always important to reflect back on your vote to see if you would do the same now, particularly with something as important and game changing as the Scottish referendum.
I had a very sobering conversation with a mate about the falling price of oil and what would have happened if Scotland had become Independent this year. We were promised by Salmond and the SNP that the price of oil would remain at $113 per barrel, and that this would float us through to a massive budget surplus, and we’d have low taxes, better living, and more money. Those of us who pointed out that $113 per barrel wasn’t a stable or accurate reflection on the market were accused of scaremongering and being anti-Scottish.
Now that oil has crashed to around $60 per barrel just a few months later, we’d have lost billions of pounds overnight, have a huge budget shortfall, and be forced to rack up a massive deficit, with a much smaller population to pay it off. We’d be locked into an unrecognised sharing of the pound, so Scotland would be unable to devalue its currency or undertake quantative easing to minimise the damage. Prices would soar, wages would crash, and thousands more jobs in the oil sector (1,000 already, 35,000 over the next 5 years), and elsewhere would be lost, and swinging cuts would be made into the public sector, schools and the NHS, that would make the Conservatives and LibDems austerity policy look like a fond memory.
We’d have crippled ourselves coming out the gate as a new country, scaring off investors, and creating a massive recession in Scotland, all because of the assertions of one incredibly ill-informed party, the SNP.
I for one am glad that we remained part of the UK; as oil prices continue to fall, Scotland has lost a lot of money, and yet we won’t feel it, because the safety net of the UK will shore up our economy, and cover the shortfall this creates. This means that instead of dire news and our country going into meltdown, we can smile and talk about how cheap our petrol and heating bills are, and settle in for a Merry Christmas.0 -
(Part 2!!)
There may come a time for Scotland to be independent, but I hope we can all recognise that we narrowly avoided disaster this year, whether you voted Yes or No, and I hope that we can also take away from this that we can’t accept what the SNP say at face value. We have to think as critically about their assertions as we would Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat announcements, and hold them to the same level of account.
Scotland is in a dangerous position democratically because the SNP and Labour are now the only two viable parties for a majority or even minority Government (No support for Tories, LibDems about to collapse, and the Greens whilst they will grow in size will not be the force that SLab or SNP are). Whilst that works broadly in the UK as despite rightwing press, Labour are important enough to be reported on when they criticise the Tories, and hold them to account. However, Labour are constantly being attacked and their views and policies (rightly) scrutinised.
In Scotland no British paper attacks the SNP because they’re not important enough to give the same levels of scrutiny as the British parties, and no Scottish papers would dare to criticise them even if they had a mind to because the SNP would use bully tactics to ensure that they regretted it (for examples see every press Q&A Sturgeon and Salmond have done, and Salmond excluding journalists critical of Independence from press briefings etc).
It means that the SNP essentially can put out policies unopposed, and SLab are being tarred with the same brush in voters mind as the British Labour Party, meaning that it doesn’t get a boost from being in opposition, and so can’t effectively critique SNP policy, so the SNP end up in the circle of ongoing domination of Scotland. It’s dangerously undemocratic, and means that of course SNP are seeing membership surge; they sound like the only flawless party out there, because nobody actually points out their flaws. It’s a similar situation with UKIP where like the BNP they are experiencing a popularity surge, but unlike them, their policies and views are not being scrutinised fully.
We need the SNP to be held to the same accountability as their British peers, and papers, politicians and blogsters need to start pointing out that had we voted Yes this September, the SNP would have led us into economic disaster.
That’s what Scotland really needs to become a well-informed, affluent and successful country.0 -
Oh dear
Evening Standard @standardnews
Nigel Farage: Ukip candidate used offensive language because he grew up in a council house bit.ly/1sFwJXq pic.twitter.com/Cbmf6osMwa0 -
If this pays off (and it is still an 'if') then I might owe SeanT a friendly drink, as I was one of the most vociferous telling him it would not happen for many a year.JosiasJessop said:Plato said:OT This is intriguing wired.com/2014/12/skype-used-ai-build-amazing-new-language-translator/?mbid=social_twitter
Very soon now, a select group of Skype beta testers will have a new Microsoft technology that seems borrowed from the world of Star Trek. It’s called the Skype Translator—a Skype add-on that listens to the English words you speak into Microsoft’s internet phone-calling software and translates them into Spanish, or vice versa.
As you can see from demos like the one below, it’s an amazing technology, and it’s based on work that’s been going on quietly inside Microsoft’s research and development labs for more than a decade.
But caveats; such voice-to-text tech has to understand all accents, and also people with speech defects, to be useful. If a person can understand them, so should the machine.
The use of a GPU to do the processing is interesting ...
Ars technica used it and said it was amazing0 -
Welcome to pb.com, Mr. Lad.0
-
Why oh dear?Plato said:Oh dear
Evening Standard @standardnews
Nigel Farage: Ukip candidate used offensive language because he grew up in a council house bit.ly/1sFwJXq pic.twitter.com/Cbmf6osMwa0 -
I don't watch much telly with adverts - but saw one for Google pushing their voice recognition app. And another from Microsoft - I think they're collectively getting there after lots and lots of fails.
I wouldn't trust it myself - I could do something hideous by mouthing off! Like having a parrot/small child repeating all the things you didn't think outloud to a human!
If this pays off (and it is still an 'if') then I might owe SeanT a friendly drink, as I was one of the most vociferous telling him it would not happen for many a year.JosiasJessop said:Plato said:OT This is intriguing wired.com/2014/12/skype-used-ai-build-amazing-new-language-translator/?mbid=social_twitter
Very soon now, a select group of Skype beta testers will have a new Microsoft technology that seems borrowed from the world of Star Trek. It’s called the Skype Translator—a Skype add-on that listens to the English words you speak into Microsoft’s internet phone-calling software and translates them into Spanish, or vice versa.
As you can see from demos like the one below, it’s an amazing technology, and it’s based on work that’s been going on quietly inside Microsoft’s research and development labs for more than a decade.
But caveats; such voice-to-text tech has to understand all accents, and also people with speech defects, to be useful. If a person can understand them, so should the machine.
The use of a GPU to do the processing is interesting ...
0 -
Still, it's a refreshing change to see Forage blaming something other than immigrants.Plato said:Oh dear
Evening Standard @standardnews
Nigel Farage: Ukip candidate used offensive language because he grew up in a council house bit.ly/1sFwJXq pic.twitter.com/Cbmf6osMwa0 -
Welcome to PB, Sir. Stick around.
Merry Union Christmas.Scotslad said:Hey, this isn’t exactly the best place to say this, but I couldn’t find a contact email for you. I love your blog, read it every week, I always find it insightful and measured. I wasn’t such a fan of your Scottish Indy coverage, just because I don’t think it was sufficiently critical of the SNP assertions, but I always admired the points you made. I think it’s always important to reflect back on your vote to see if you would do the same now, particularly with something as important and game changing as the Scottish referendum.
I had a very sobering conversation with a mate about the falling price of oil and what would have happened if Scotland had become Independent this year. We were promised by Salmond and the SNP that the price of oil would remain at $113 per barrel, and that this would float us through to a massive budget surplus, and we’d have low taxes, better living, and more money. Those of us who pointed out that $113 per barrel wasn’t a stable or accurate reflection on the market were accused of scaremongering and being anti-Scottish.
Now that oil has crashed to around $60 per barrel just a few months later, we’d have lost billions of pounds overnight, have a huge budget shortfall, and be forced to rack up a massive deficit, with a much smaller population to pay it off. We’d be locked into an unrecognised sharing of the pound, so Scotland would be unable to devalue its currency or undertake quantative easing to minimise the damage. Prices would soar, wages would crash, and thousands more jobs in the oil sector (1,000 already, 35,000 over the next 5 years), and elsewhere would be lost, and swinging cuts would be made into the public sector, schools and the NHS, that would make the Conservatives and LibDems austerity policy look like a fond memory.
We’d have crippled ourselves coming out the gate as a new country, scaring off investors, and creating a massive recession in Scotland, all because of the assertions of one incredibly ill-informed party, the SNP.
I for one am glad that we remained part of the UK; as oil prices continue to fall, Scotland has lost a lot of money, and yet we won’t feel it, because the safety net of the UK will shore up our economy, and cover the shortfall this creates. This means that instead of dire news and our country going into meltdown, we can smile and talk about how cheap our petrol and heating bills are, and settle in for a Merry Christmas.0 -
Still, it's a refreshing change to see Forage blaming something other than immigrants.TheWatcher said:Plato said:Oh dear
Evening Standard @standardnews
Nigel Farage: Ukip candidate used offensive language because he grew up in a council house bit.ly/1sFwJXq pic.twitter.com/Cbmf6osMwa
There were a lot of immigrants in the council estate !0 -
Any man that's witnessed childbirth will know what crap all this 'weaker sex' stuff is.TheScreamingEagles said:
An elephant would struggle against a woman with a MLRS truckMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, there is a physiological argument against it, namely that women are likelier than mine to suffer injuries due to bearing heavy loads and that sort of thing. Hopefully the review will be objective, and not driven by sentiment one way or the other.
And, I've got to be honest, I think an elephant would win in a fight with a woman.0 -
I would like to see a Scotland poll. I think the few Labour mid 30's again is probably becaus eof some recovery in Scotland.TheScreamingEagles said:@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 35 (-1), Con 34 (=), LD 9 (-1), UKIP 13 (+1), Oth 8 (-1). Tables here: http://t.co/p3dwmMwONS
0 -
Last night's YouGov was clearly a rouge poll.antifrank said:So yet more information and still less clarity. Ho hum.
Look at the marginal polling, we've found the point where the Tories stop losing seats to Labour.
Add into the mix Lab losing seats to UKIP and The SNP, Ed Miliband's toxic ratings and swingback I'm prepared to call the next election as Con most seats0 -
You can also make a case for saying that the figures show that a lot of the Labour vote doesn't often get involved in local elections but wakes up for General Elections. And that the softer UKIP vote which came over more recently is from Labour.Schards said:I though it might be interesting to compare previous general election outcomes to what happened in the immediately preceding local elections. You may recall, the tories were 2% behind Labour in the 2014's.
[lots of stats]
So in each of the last 5 general elections, the incumbent government has performed better in the subsequent general election than they did in the preceding local elections, the average improvement is 8% which, if replicated in 2015 would give the tories a 6% win.
Add to that the UKIP vote which has been minimal before and which, if it reduces from here, is likely to improve the tory vote more than the Labour vote, and you may begin to understand why tories aren't losing any sleep at the moment.
I don't know, nor do you: no party should be sleeping soundly at the moment. But the pretty widespread expectation of a minority Labour government looks plausible.0 -
Mr. Punter, there is a general difference in the composition of bodies, though (approximately, women have twice the fat and half the muscle of men, and female muscle is more prone to injury when bearing heavy loads).
Giving birth is not a required duty of the front line, so far as I know.0 -
ICM and last night's YouGov both rogue polls? I'm not that confident that is the case.TheScreamingEagles said:
Last night's YouGov was clearly a rouge poll.antifrank said:So yet more information and still less clarity. Ho hum.
Look at the marginal polling, we've found the point where the Tories stop losing seats to Labour.
Add into the mix Lab losing seats to UKIP and The SNP, Ed Miliband's toxic ratings and swingback I'm prepared to call the next election as Con most seats0 -
Government would be hell, having to consult with the SNP on every issue. English and Welsh voters would massively resent being subordinated to a party that's committed to breaking up the UK. Labour's vote share in opinion polls and local elections would go below 20%. And, the party would take an absolute hammering in the subsequent general election.TheWatcher said:
Why? There's nothing that the electorate could do about it. Nothing.Sean_F said:
I think a Labour party that finished behind the Conservative Party in England and Wales would be out of its mind if it thought it could form a stable government with SNP backing.tlg86 said:
But is this not code for "I'll happily go against any principles I might have claimed to have had in the past to ensure I get the best deal possible for Scotland?"Easterross said:Morning all and it will be interesting to see how YES voting Labour voters will feel now that Eck has said the SNP may vote on English only legislation to support Labour if a minority Labour government gets elected.
So now Scots know, vote SNP get Labour, vote Labour get Labour.
I doubt to many people in Scotland would worry about any bitterness in England towards a Labour Government being propped up by the SNP on the basis that Scotland gets more money.
0 -
@Scotslad – an impressive first effort – welcome to PB.0
-
Being a couple of hundred pounds better or worse off counts for little compared to being an independent nation, or preventing the break-up of the UK (depending on which side of the argument you're on).Alistair said:
As far as I remember from the polls the majority of people votingfor independence thought they would be the same or worse off financially in an independent ScotlandSean_F said:
I don't think that SNP support is primarily based on economics.chestnut said:Labour are most likely leading, but not by much.
I do wonder if the collapse in oil prices may save Labour's bacon, at least in part, up in Scotland. It makes a mockery of the SNP's " this time next year we'll all be millionaires, Rodney" economic plan.
In fact, I think the impact of economic interests on voting intentions generally is overstated.0 -
Wishful thinking.Sean_F said:
Government would be hell, having to consult with the SNP on every issue. English and Welsh voters would massively resent being subordinated to a party that's committed to breaking up the UK. Labour's vote share in opinion polls and local elections would go below 20%. And, the party would take an absolute hammering in the subsequent general election.TheWatcher said:
Why? There's nothing that the electorate could do about it. Nothing.Sean_F said:
I think a Labour party that finished behind the Conservative Party in England and Wales would be out of its mind if it thought it could form a stable government with SNP backing.tlg86 said:
But is this not code for "I'll happily go against any principles I might have claimed to have had in the past to ensure I get the best deal possible for Scotland?"Easterross said:Morning all and it will be interesting to see how YES voting Labour voters will feel now that Eck has said the SNP may vote on English only legislation to support Labour if a minority Labour government gets elected.
So now Scots know, vote SNP get Labour, vote Labour get Labour.
I doubt to many people in Scotland would worry about any bitterness in England towards a Labour Government being propped up by the SNP on the basis that Scotland gets more money.
Deals can de done to keep the Scots onside. Add in a bit of gerrymandering, and a few million Labour friendly voters welcomed to the UK from overseas, and Ed's problems go away. He's not going to the let the precious slip from his grasp.
0 -
True, Morris, though on balance I think I'd sooner fight on the front line than give birth.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Punter, there is a general difference in the composition of bodies, though (approximately, women have twice the fat and half the muscle of men, and female muscle is more prone to injury when bearing heavy loads).
Giving birth is not a required duty of the front line, so far as I know.0 -
Nice post Scotslad. I doubt even the stupidest SNPer can't see where they would now be had the vote gone the other way. It's hardly as though those on the NO side are holding back from telling them. That the SNP have cowed the opposition is largely the fault of the opposition being so pathetic. Hopefully Murphy will change that. The signs are good0
-
I expect in those circumstances that Labour would look to have both the SNP and the Lib Dems broadly onside as a belt-and-braces approach to forming majorities. If so, a minority government would make more sense than a formal coalition, because the need to shift between the two as needs must would be far more awkward in a formal coalition.Sean_F said:
Government would be hell, having to consult with the SNP on every issue. English and Welsh voters would massively resent being subordinated to a party that's committed to breaking up the UK. Labour's vote share in opinion polls and local elections would go below 20%. And, the party would take an absolute hammering in the subsequent general election.TheWatcher said:
Why? There's nothing that the electorate could do about it. Nothing.Sean_F said:
I think a Labour party that finished behind the Conservative Party in England and Wales would be out of its mind if it thought it could form a stable government with SNP backing.tlg86 said:
But is this not code for "I'll happily go against any principles I might have claimed to have had in the past to ensure I get the best deal possible for Scotland?"Easterross said:Morning all and it will be interesting to see how YES voting Labour voters will feel now that Eck has said the SNP may vote on English only legislation to support Labour if a minority Labour government gets elected.
So now Scots know, vote SNP get Labour, vote Labour get Labour.
I doubt to many people in Scotland would worry about any bitterness in England towards a Labour Government being propped up by the SNP on the basis that Scotland gets more money.0 -
Yes, that why every daily national paper and all but one Sunday paper strongly and unequivocally backed Independence because of the total dominance of the media by the SNP.Scotslad said:
In Scotland no British paper attacks the SNP because they’re not important enough to give the same levels of scrutiny as the British parties, and no Scottish papers would dare to criticise them even if they had a mind to because the SNP would use bully tactics to ensure that they regretted it (for examples see every press Q&A Sturgeon and Salmond have done, and Salmond excluding journalists critical of Independence from press briefings etc).
Oh... wait.0 -
@CCHQPress: .@Nigel_Farage on #lbc this morning once again confirms he would prop up an @Ed_Miliband govt http://t.co/SjPIo0IfMI
Eck says he would prop up Ed Miliband
Nobody thinks Ed can do it on his own...0 -
Women in the RUC and RIR were effectively on the front line in the fight against the IRA. Indeed, women are on the front line in any counter-insurgency action.kle4 said:
Er, no. If a woman passes the physical and mental requirements to serve as a soldier - even if on average women are less likely to do both than the average man, accepting that for the sake of argument, that doesn't mean some women are not capable of meeting those requirements just as some men aren't - why shouldn't they serve? The only part left is undermining unit cohesion, and the Army just said there would not be an adverse affect, and I would hope the Army would know enough about unit cohesion.FalseFlag said:Women in combat.
A bizarre combination of cultural Marxism and nerdy fantasies of butt kicking babes.
Edit: I'm not going to be demanding women in combat roles purely on the strength of some equality mantra, and modern, actual combat is not good fodder for nerd sexy fantasies either, sadly, but if the Army thinks, pending some further reviews, there would be no adverse effect, I think they can be trusted to be defending their own institution and its makeup.
The issue that counts is, I think, unit cohesion. The vast majority of soldiers are always going to be men. Would their morale be adversely affected by female casualties?
0 -
Well quite. I may be entirely unrepresentative, but I think it's a terrible idea to have females in infantry roles. I'm hard-boiled and think like a chap. Darwinism beats PC every day of the week for me. Make us snipers or IED specialists or anything but infantry.
We just aren't made the same and for very good evolutionary reasons.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Punter, there is a general difference in the composition of bodies, though (approximately, women have twice the fat and half the muscle of men, and female muscle is more prone to injury when bearing heavy loads).
Giving birth is not a required duty of the front line, so far as I know.0 -
I think one out of every 20 polls is a rogue poll, we just happened to see two pollsters achieve the feat in less than 36 hours (three if you count Ipsos-Mori)antifrank said:
ICM and last night's YouGov both rogue polls? I'm not that confident that is the case.TheScreamingEagles said:
Last night's YouGov was clearly a rouge poll.antifrank said:So yet more information and still less clarity. Ho hum.
Look at the marginal polling, we've found the point where the Tories stop losing seats to Labour.
Add into the mix Lab losing seats to UKIP and The SNP, Ed Miliband's toxic ratings and swingback I'm prepared to call the next election as Con most seats
I think the current polling position is Labour ahead by about 2 points, and what we've seen is consistent with that.
The big uncertainty is the Green share of the vote, if I were a Tory donor, I'd defect to the Greens, and offer to fund a green candidate in every seat.
One of the things I've learnt from Mike and Sir Bob Worcestor is not to focus upon the lead, but the share of the vote, at best Labour are on 35%, oppositions seldom go up in the last months of a parliament, and generally go down, and the the Tory share of the vote around 30% isn't ideal but the marginals polling indicated that the Tories are on course to win the popular vote.
0 -
What does childbirth have to do with physical strength or endurance?Peter_the_Punter said:
Any man that's witnessed childbirth will know what crap all this 'weaker sex' stuff is.TheScreamingEagles said:
An elephant would struggle against a woman with a MLRS truckMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, there is a physiological argument against it, namely that women are likelier than mine to suffer injuries due to bearing heavy loads and that sort of thing. Hopefully the review will be objective, and not driven by sentiment one way or the other.
And, I've got to be honest, I think an elephant would win in a fight with a woman.
Anyway actual scientific research shows women also have a lower threshold for pain.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=511600 -
antifrank said:
ICM and last night's YouGov both rogue polls? I'm not that confident that is the case.TheScreamingEagles said:
Last night's YouGov was clearly a rouge poll.antifrank said:So yet more information and still less clarity. Ho hum.
Look at the marginal polling, we've found the point where the Tories stop losing seats to Labour.
Add into the mix Lab losing seats to UKIP and The SNP, Ed Miliband's toxic ratings and swingback I'm prepared to call the next election as Con most seats
The internal numbers for Yougov's poll had the Conservative retention rate well below average (for Yougov) at 69%. That may be the start of a trend, but I doubt it.antifrank said:
ICM and last night's YouGov both rogue polls? I'm not that confident that is the case.TheScreamingEagles said:
Last night's YouGov was clearly a rouge poll.antifrank said:So yet more information and still less clarity. Ho hum.
Look at the marginal polling, we've found the point where the Tories stop losing seats to Labour.
Add into the mix Lab losing seats to UKIP and The SNP, Ed Miliband's toxic ratings and swingback I'm prepared to call the next election as Con most seats
0 -
Well said.Roger said:
Nice post Scotslad. I doubt even the stupidest SNPer can't see where they would now be had the vote gone the other way. It's hardly as though those on the NO side are holding back from telling them. That the SNP have cowed the opposition is largely the fault of the opposition being so pathetic. Hopefully Murphy will change that. The signs are good
0 -
Mr. Eagles, if true, by chance (or not) that'd mean a p value of 0.95, which is the same minimum aspired to by psychometric tests.0
-
Kle4
"Er, no. If a woman passes the physical and mental requirements to serve as a soldier - ........... why shouldn't they serve? "
They're letting them drive double decker busses in London. Far more dangerous in my opinion than letting them fire bazookas in Afghanistan.0 -
'SNP accused' >Google> 393,000 results (0.27 seconds).Alistair said:
Yes, that why every daily national paper and all but one Sunday paper strongly and unequivocally backed Independence because of the total dominance of the media by the SNP.Scotslad said:
In Scotland no British paper attacks the SNP because they’re not important enough to give the same levels of scrutiny as the British parties, and no Scottish papers would dare to criticise them even if they had a mind to because the SNP would use bully tactics to ensure that they regretted it (for examples see every press Q&A Sturgeon and Salmond have done, and Salmond excluding journalists critical of Independence from press briefings etc).
Oh... wait.
First 5 results from the Daily Record, Scotsman, Tele, Times, Guardian.
Presumably the SNP must have been handsomely and repeatedly acquitted in the court of the supine MSM.
0 -
Whenever I imagine women fighting for the British Army, my mind takes me to Carry on up the Khyber.
The Devils in Skirts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-3dqb1izAo0 -
Scotslad - super debut. Please stay around.
FWIW I think the Unionist parties should now simply call the SNP's bluff. We should harmonise spending levels across the UK. For Scotland that means significantly deeper cuts than average. BFD. Let them wail. Let them have another referendum reasonably soon if they wish. The practical choice they would then face is equality or armageddon. The currency issue remains unsolvable. The oil money tree is bare of fruit. They are a recipient region of the UK that enjoys unwarranted advantages (such as free uni) thanks only to the continued safety net and largesse and uncomplaining goodwill of the rest of the country. That may not last the way the Nats are going.0 -
As I understand it, men generally find it easier than women to overcome the taboo against killing. But women who've crossed that threshold, and made up their minds to kill, are generally better at it than men.Plato said:Well quite. I may be entirely unrepresentative, but I think it's a terrible idea to have females in infantry roles. I'm hard-boiled and think like a chap. Darwinism beats PC every day of the week for me. Make us snipers or IED specialists or anything but infantry.
We just aren't made the same and for very good evolutionary reasons.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Punter, there is a general difference in the composition of bodies, though (approximately, women have twice the fat and half the muscle of men, and female muscle is more prone to injury when bearing heavy loads).
Giving birth is not a required duty of the front line, so far as I know.
0 -
You lost. And now your Free Unicorns Bought With Oil are dead on the beach.
I'm not entirely sure where your bravado is coming from. The SNP is now a three-legged stool with two legs.Theuniondivvie said:
'SNP accused' >Google> 393,000 results (0.27 seconds).Alistair said:
Yes, that why every daily national paper and all but one Sunday paper strongly and unequivocally backed Independence because of the total dominance of the media by the SNP.Scotslad said:
In Scotland no British paper attacks the SNP because they’re not important enough to give the same levels of scrutiny as the British parties, and no Scottish papers would dare to criticise them even if they had a mind to because the SNP would use bully tactics to ensure that they regretted it (for examples see every press Q&A Sturgeon and Salmond have done, and Salmond excluding journalists critical of Independence from press briefings etc).
Oh... wait.
First 5 results from the Daily Record, Scotsman, Tele, Times, Guardian.
Presumably the SNP must have been handsomely and repeatedly acquitted in the court of the supine MSM.0 -
Only if they view their female squadmates as delicate flowers to be protected. After being hoofed in the nuts a couple of times for that attitude, I suspect the team will gel perfectly well, and the necessary trust and inter-dependency will develop.Sean_F said:
Women in the RUC and RIR were effectively on the front line in the fight against the IRA. Indeed, women are on the front line in any counter-insurgency action.kle4 said:
Er, no. If a woman passes the physical and mental requirements to serve as a soldier - even if on average women are less likely to do both than the average man, accepting that for the sake of argument, that doesn't mean some women are not capable of meeting those requirements just as some men aren't - why shouldn't they serve? The only part left is undermining unit cohesion, and the Army just said there would not be an adverse affect, and I would hope the Army would know enough about unit cohesion.FalseFlag said:Women in combat.
A bizarre combination of cultural Marxism and nerdy fantasies of butt kicking babes.
Edit: I'm not going to be demanding women in combat roles purely on the strength of some equality mantra, and modern, actual combat is not good fodder for nerd sexy fantasies either, sadly, but if the Army thinks, pending some further reviews, there would be no adverse effect, I think they can be trusted to be defending their own institution and its makeup.
The issue that counts is, I think, unit cohesion. The vast majority of soldiers are always going to be men. Would their morale be adversely affected by female casualties?
[anyway, morale is hit whenever you lose a soldier, irrespective of gender]0 -
Having seen women playing hockey, I have no doubt that they would acquit themselves commendably on the frontline of any warzone.0
-
I'm not entirely sure why you think your opinion is of any note.Plato said:You lost. And now your Free Unicorns Bought With Oil are dead on the beach.
I'm not entirely sure where your bravado is coming from. The SNP is now a three-legged stool with two legs.Theuniondivvie said:
'SNP accused' >Google> 393,000 results (0.27 seconds).Alistair said:
Yes, that why every daily national paper and all but one Sunday paper strongly and unequivocally backed Independence because of the total dominance of the media by the SNP.Scotslad said:
In Scotland no British paper attacks the SNP because they’re not important enough to give the same levels of scrutiny as the British parties, and no Scottish papers would dare to criticise them even if they had a mind to because the SNP would use bully tactics to ensure that they regretted it (for examples see every press Q&A Sturgeon and Salmond have done, and Salmond excluding journalists critical of Independence from press briefings etc).
Oh... wait.
First 5 results from the Daily Record, Scotsman, Tele, Times, Guardian.
Presumably the SNP must have been handsomely and repeatedly acquitted in the court of the supine MSM.
0 -
They want the WWC vote.Scott_P said:@CCHQPress: .@Nigel_Farage on #lbc this morning once again confirms he would prop up an @Ed_Miliband govt http://t.co/SjPIo0IfMI
Eck says he would prop up Ed Miliband
Nobody thinks Ed can do it on his own...0 -
Surely you need to be careful with such figures? They are averages, and AIUI strength follows bell curves: you get most people bunched up into the middle, and fewer at either end (i.e. very weak or strong) (*). There will be many untrained women who are strong enough to perform the roles; but the percentage of women capable of doing it will be less than for men.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Punter, there is a general difference in the composition of bodies, though (approximately, women have twice the fat and half the muscle of men, and female muscle is more prone to injury when bearing heavy loads).
Giving birth is not a required duty of the front line, so far as I know.
Add in strength training, and more women will be able to pass. We had the same argument over women firefighters a few years back: I say let them do the job as long as they pass all the same tests as men, and those tests are role-oriented.
KLE4's / SeanF's argument below about unit cohesiveness seems much more valid IMHO; research would be needed.
As an aside, I sometimes feel as though I am the last of the heavyweight backpackers: I carry a lot of stuff and have eschewed the lightweight trend. However I know a few women who can carry heavier loads than myself further whilst hiking. In this, I think my height is to my detriment.
(*) Although some claim it is a power curve rather than a bell curve.0 -
Apparently the Army feel any affect on unit cohesion would not be adverse, so I suppose the answer is no.Sean_F said:
Women in the RUC and RIR were effectively on the front line in the fight against the IRA. Indeed, women are on the front line in any counter-insurgency action.kle4 said:
Er, no. If a woman passes the physical and mental requirements to serve as a soldier - even if on average women are less likely to do both than the average man, accepting that for the sake of argument, that doesn't mean some women are not capable of meeting those requirements just as some men aren't - why shouldn't they serve? The only part left is undermining unit cohesion, and the Army just said there would not be an adverse affect, and I would hope the Army would know enough about unit cohesion.FalseFlag said:Women in combat.
A bizarre combination of cultural Marxism and nerdy fantasies of butt kicking babes.
Edit: I'm not going to be demanding women in combat roles purely on the strength of some equality mantra, and modern, actual combat is not good fodder for nerd sexy fantasies either, sadly, but if the Army thinks, pending some further reviews, there would be no adverse effect, I think they can be trusted to be defending their own institution and its makeup.
The issue that counts is, I think, unit cohesion. The vast majority of soldiers are always going to be men. Would their morale be adversely affected by female casualties?
0 -
It is a rogue poll if PBTories don't like it.antifrank said:
ICM and last night's YouGov both rogue polls? I'm not that confident that is the case.TheScreamingEagles said:
Last night's YouGov was clearly a rouge poll.antifrank said:So yet more information and still less clarity. Ho hum.
Look at the marginal polling, we've found the point where the Tories stop losing seats to Labour.
Add into the mix Lab losing seats to UKIP and The SNP, Ed Miliband's toxic ratings and swingback I'm prepared to call the next election as Con most seats0 -
There were plenty of women in Afghanistan more than capable of killing, torturing and maiming enemy soldiers during the Soviet occupation.Sean_F said:
As I understand it, men generally find it easier than women to overcome the taboo against killing. But women who've crossed that threshold, and made up their minds to kill, are generally better at it than men.Plato said:Well quite. I may be entirely unrepresentative, but I think it's a terrible idea to have females in infantry roles. I'm hard-boiled and think like a chap. Darwinism beats PC every day of the week for me. Make us snipers or IED specialists or anything but infantry.
We just aren't made the same and for very good evolutionary reasons.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Punter, there is a general difference in the composition of bodies, though (approximately, women have twice the fat and half the muscle of men, and female muscle is more prone to injury when bearing heavy loads).
Giving birth is not a required duty of the front line, so far as I know.0 -
I get that.
I've a very black and white attitude to almost everything. So I'd be ripe for such stuff. I don't think I'm terribly representative of females generally - so shrink from parading as one. But if there are others out there like me - well, not to be messed with.Sean_F said:
As I understand it, men generally find it easier than women to overcome the taboo against killing. But women who've crossed that threshold, and made up their minds to kill, are generally better at it than men.Plato said:Well quite. I may be entirely unrepresentative, but I think it's a terrible idea to have females in infantry roles. I'm hard-boiled and think like a chap. Darwinism beats PC every day of the week for me. Make us snipers or IED specialists or anything but infantry.
We just aren't made the same and for very good evolutionary reasons.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Punter, there is a general difference in the composition of bodies, though (approximately, women have twice the fat and half the muscle of men, and female muscle is more prone to injury when bearing heavy loads).
Giving birth is not a required duty of the front line, so far as I know.0 -
@georgeeaton: New TNS poll: Lab 35% (+4), Con 28% (-2), Ukip 19% (N/C), Greens 7% (+1), Lib Dems 5% (-1).0
-
Aww. Your slip is showing, tough guy.Theuniondivvie said:
I'm not entirely sure why you think your opinion is of any note.Plato said:You lost. And now your Free Unicorns Bought With Oil are dead on the beach.
I'm not entirely sure where your bravado is coming from. The SNP is now a three-legged stool with two legs.Theuniondivvie said:
'SNP accused' >Google> 393,000 results (0.27 seconds).Alistair said:
Yes, that why every daily national paper and all but one Sunday paper strongly and unequivocally backed Independence because of the total dominance of the media by the SNP.Scotslad said:
In Scotland no British paper attacks the SNP because they’re not important enough to give the same levels of scrutiny as the British parties, and no Scottish papers would dare to criticise them even if they had a mind to because the SNP would use bully tactics to ensure that they regretted it (for examples see every press Q&A Sturgeon and Salmond have done, and Salmond excluding journalists critical of Independence from press briefings etc).
Oh... wait.
First 5 results from the Daily Record, Scotsman, Tele, Times, Guardian.
Presumably the SNP must have been handsomely and repeatedly acquitted in the court of the supine MSM.0 -
It's a cultural thing. In some societies, handing captured enemies over to the women to be tortured to death is a special form of punishment.TheWatcher said:
There were plenty of women in Afghanistan more than capable of killing, torturing and maiming enemy soldiers during the Soviet occupation.Sean_F said:
As I understand it, men generally find it easier than women to overcome the taboo against killing. But women who've crossed that threshold, and made up their minds to kill, are generally better at it than men.Plato said:Well quite. I may be entirely unrepresentative, but I think it's a terrible idea to have females in infantry roles. I'm hard-boiled and think like a chap. Darwinism beats PC every day of the week for me. Make us snipers or IED specialists or anything but infantry.
We just aren't made the same and for very good evolutionary reasons.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Punter, there is a general difference in the composition of bodies, though (approximately, women have twice the fat and half the muscle of men, and female muscle is more prone to injury when bearing heavy loads).
Giving birth is not a required duty of the front line, so far as I know.
0 -
Another rogue, no doubt.Scott_P said:@georgeeaton: New TNS poll: Lab 35% (+4), Con 28% (-2), Ukip 19% (N/C), Greens 7% (+1), Lib Dems 5% (-1).
0 -
They were indeed on the front line in NI, are indispensable in general in COIN ops, and perform magnificently and bravely.Sean_F said:
Women in the RUC and RIR were effectively on the front line in the fight against the IRA. Indeed, women are on the front line in any counter-insurgency action.kle4 said:
Er, no. If a woman passes the physical and mental requirements to serve as a soldier - even if on average women are less likely to do both than the average man, accepting that for the sake of argument, that doesn't mean some women are not capable of meeting those requirements just as some men aren't - why shouldn't they serve? The only part left is undermining unit cohesion, and the Army just said there would not be an adverse affect, and I would hope the Army would know enough about unit cohesion.FalseFlag said:Women in combat.
A bizarre combination of cultural Marxism and nerdy fantasies of butt kicking babes.
Edit: I'm not going to be demanding women in combat roles purely on the strength of some equality mantra, and modern, actual combat is not good fodder for nerd sexy fantasies either, sadly, but if the Army thinks, pending some further reviews, there would be no adverse effect, I think they can be trusted to be defending their own institution and its makeup.
The issue that counts is, I think, unit cohesion. The vast majority of soldiers are always going to be men. Would their morale be adversely affected by female casualties?
However, that is different from war fighting.
I am not 100% convinced a war fighting unit would want to have women out on patrol where they knew they were going to be contacted (as has been the case in Afghan and Iraq) with all that that entails.
Not for lack of guts or determination but simple physical strength.
(Edit: but I am waay out of date - perhaps someone can comment with recent experience as to whether this view is different to current thinking/experience)0 -
I also said the Ipsos-Mori poll was a rogue.surbiton said:
It is a rogue poll if PBTories don't like it.antifrank said:
ICM and last night's YouGov both rogue polls? I'm not that confident that is the case.TheScreamingEagles said:
Last night's YouGov was clearly a rouge poll.antifrank said:So yet more information and still less clarity. Ho hum.
Look at the marginal polling, we've found the point where the Tories stop losing seats to Labour.
Add into the mix Lab losing seats to UKIP and The SNP, Ed Miliband's toxic ratings and swingback I'm prepared to call the next election as Con most seats0 -
I'm perplexed - what is fuelling this Labour surge? It's not EdM or coverage of his wibble speech.Scott_P said:
@georgeeaton: New TNS poll: Lab 35% (+4), Con 28% (-2), Ukip 19% (N/C), Greens 7% (+1), Lib Dems 5% (-1).
0 -
Overall, their response seems to be a bit ambiguous. Some armies (like the Soviets who did field women in large numbers) have concluded that casualties inflicted on women have an adverse impact on morale, over and above what one would expect.kle4 said:
Apparently the Army feel any affect on unit cohesion would not be adverse, so I suppose the answer is no.Sean_F said:
Women in the RUC and RIR were effectively on the front line in the fight against the IRA. Indeed, women are on the front line in any counter-insurgency action.kle4 said:
Er, no. If a woman passes the physical and mental requirements to serve as a soldier - even if on average women are less likely to do both than the average man, accepting that for the sake of argument, that doesn't mean some women are not capable of meeting those requirements just as some men aren't - why shouldn't they serve? The only part left is undermining unit cohesion, and the Army just said there would not be an adverse affect, and I would hope the Army would know enough about unit cohesion.FalseFlag said:Women in combat.
A bizarre combination of cultural Marxism and nerdy fantasies of butt kicking babes.
Edit: I'm not going to be demanding women in combat roles purely on the strength of some equality mantra, and modern, actual combat is not good fodder for nerd sexy fantasies either, sadly, but if the Army thinks, pending some further reviews, there would be no adverse effect, I think they can be trusted to be defending their own institution and its makeup.
The issue that counts is, I think, unit cohesion. The vast majority of soldiers are always going to be men. Would their morale be adversely affected by female casualties?
If the army really does conclude there is no problem (and isn't just bowing to political pressure) that's fine.
One area where Hollywood gets it totally wrong is to portray fighting women as warrior princesses. A woman who fights on the front line will need the same sort of physique as a man who does so.
0 -
As an aside, a girl in my year at school became a bomb disposal officer, and we lost one such (Lisa Head) in Afghanistan a few years ago.
If women can do bomb disposal, they can be infantry.0 -
From what little experience I have working with the infantry; I suspect the retention rate from pregnancies amongst serving female ‘infantrypersons’ will rival that of the navy.0
-
They would look like Fatima Whitbread. Or Kelly Holmes.Sean_F said:
Overall, their response seems to be a bit ambiguous. Some armies (like the Soviets who did field women in large numbers) have concluded that casualties inflicted on women have an adverse impact on morale, over and above what one would expect.kle4 said:
Apparently the Army feel any affect on unit cohesion would not be adverse, so I suppose the answer is no.Sean_F said:
Women in the RUC and RIR were effectively on the front line in the fight against the IRA. Indeed, women are on the front line in any counter-insurgency action.kle4 said:
Er, no. If a woman passes the physical and mental requirements to serve as a soldier - even if on average women are less likely to do both than the average man, accepting that for the sake of argument, that doesn't mean some women are not capable of meeting those requirements just as some men aren't - why shouldn't they serve? The only part left is undermining unit cohesion, and the Army just said there would not be an adverse affect, and I would hope the Army would know enough about unit cohesion.FalseFlag said:Women in combat.
A bizarre combination of cultural Marxism and nerdy fantasies of butt kicking babes.
Edit: I'm not going to be demanding women in combat roles purely on the strength of some equality mantra, and modern, actual combat is not good fodder for nerd sexy fantasies either, sadly, but if the Army thinks, pending some further reviews, there would be no adverse effect, I think they can be trusted to be defending their own institution and its makeup.
The issue that counts is, I think, unit cohesion. The vast majority of soldiers are always going to be men. Would their morale be adversely affected by female casualties?
If the army really does conclude there is no problem (and isn't just bowing to political pressure) that's fine.
One area where Hollywood gets it totally wrong is to portray fighting women as warrior princesses. A woman who fights on the front line will need the same sort of physique as a man who does so.0 -
Just taken £20 of Ed Miliband next PM next PM at 2.34 on Betfair - If we regard Lab most seats as Evens (I think the true price is 1.9 perhaps) and add in the fact that the SNP are alot warmer to Labour than the Conservatives (And Lab may be denied most seats by an SNP surgethen this is a proxy and a "bit extra" to Lab most seats - add in the risk for Ed Miliband going before the next GE which must be at least 10-1 and the true odds I make at 2.15 or so thus making 2.32 value.0
-
That's an epic non sequitur from you.JosiasJessop said:
As an aside, a girl in my year at school became a bomb disposal officer, and we lost one such (Lisa Head) in Afghanistan a few years ago.
If women can do bomb disposal, they can be infantry.0 -
Specialist ones are called out to incidents and are therefore on the ground.Plato said:That's an epic non sequitur from you.
JosiasJessop said:As an aside, a girl in my year at school became a bomb disposal officer, and we lost one such (Lisa Head) in Afghanistan a few years ago.
If women can do bomb disposal, they can be infantry.
If they are on the ground they need to be infantry-trained although the infantry would usually be expected to provide a cordon/cover.0 -
The odds of 3 rogue polls (Surely 4 if you count today's TNS-BRMB) are 1 in 8,000 or 1 in 160,000... whereas the odds of 1 rogue poll out of 4 are ~ in 1 in 6 or so.TheScreamingEagles said:
I think one out of every 20 polls is a rogue poll, we just happened to see two pollsters achieve the feat in less than 36 hours (three if you count Ipsos-Mori)antifrank said:
ICM and last night's YouGov both rogue polls? I'm not that confident that is the case.TheScreamingEagles said:
Last night's YouGov was clearly a rouge poll.antifrank said:So yet more information and still less clarity. Ho hum.
Look at the marginal polling, we've found the point where the Tories stop losing seats to Labour.
Add into the mix Lab losing seats to UKIP and The SNP, Ed Miliband's toxic ratings and swingback I'm prepared to call the next election as Con most seats
I think the current polling position is Labour ahead by about 2 points, and what we've seen is consistent with that.
The big uncertainty is the Green share of the vote, if I were a Tory donor, I'd defect to the Greens, and offer to fund a green candidate in every seat.
One of the things I've learnt from Mike and Sir Bob Worcestor is not to focus upon the lead, but the share of the vote, at best Labour are on 35%, oppositions seldom go up in the last months of a parliament, and generally go down, and the the Tory share of the vote around 30% isn't ideal but the marginals polling indicated that the Tories are on course to win the popular vote.0 -
TNS tend to give very big votes for UKIP, which reduces the Conservative score.Plato said:I'm perplexed - what is fuelling this Labour surge? It's not EdM or coverage of his wibble speech.
Scott_P said:@georgeeaton: New TNS poll: Lab 35% (+4), Con 28% (-2), Ukip 19% (N/C), Greens 7% (+1), Lib Dems 5% (-1).
0 -
Spot on. labour-uncut.co.uk/2014/12/19/how-a-business-backlash-could-cost-miliband-the-election/#more-19116
One of the reasons Labour won in 1997 was the prawn cocktail offensive.
Labour ministers launched a three year schmoozathon with the City and business leaders.
It worked. When the Tories brought out their New Labour, New Danger fear campaign it had no bite.
Business leaders had listened to New Labour and would give them a chance.
The Tories couldn’t build a coalition of business leaders to make dire warnings about Labour as they had done in past elections.
Ed Miliband’s Labour party has undergone no sustained prawn cocktail offensive.
Instead it is at open war with business promising a waterfall of new taxes and regulations with no upside. It’s all stick and no carrot.0 -
''having seen women playing hockey, I have no doubt that they would acquit themselves commendably on the frontline of any warzone.''
What do you reckon would be the result of England men's rugby vs women's rugby?
200 to nil? 300 to nil?
0 -
Girls & Hockey make St Trinians look tame...antifrank said:Having seen women playing hockey, I have no doubt that they would acquit themselves commendably on the frontline of any warzone.
My mother (a nurse) had story from her hockey playing days: When the opposition had a particularly dirty player, my mother ordered a someone to take her out. Which they did. After the game my mother was in the operating theatre having to help pin & plate the resulting broken leg.
And I have firsthand experience from a mixed hockey match one games lesson. The boys were basically treating the game (then a novel experience) as football with sticks and were not being too careful about clipping ankles or outright taking peoples legs from under them. One girl took offence to being whacked clumsily on the ankles and swatted the offender around the head with her stick & laid him out cold...
0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
