politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Nighthawks is now open
If you’ve always been a lurker, why not take the final few Steps, and become a poster on PB, it would be a Tragedy if we missed your contributions, hopefully this will set off a Chain Reaction amongst you lurkers and at least 5,6,7,8 of you lurkers will delurk,
Comments
-
As straight unbiased journalism goes, this is pretty damn ropey
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-306801300 -
Re 6
Is it that the internet can unearth such things very quickly. Before hand, it would have appeared in Private Eye a couple of weeks afterwards when everyone has forgotten about it.
Now, rebuttal is near instantaneous.0 -
Apols if previously posted:
YouGov Poll -
"A methodology change in our 1st @YouGov poll of the year tonight - UKIP prompted in the initial list of main parties for the first time."0 -
No problem, here's what I posted at the tail of the old thread:peter_from_putney said:Apols if previously posted:
YouGov Poll -
"A methodology change in our 1st @YouGov poll of the year tonight - UKIP prompted in the initial list of main parties for the first time."
A bit more colour re prompting for UKIP. YouGov's Anthony Wells just wrote:
I’d forgotten I’d said [that it didn't make much difference in testing], but yes, that is now the case. I’ll post more later when the results come out, but that’s essentially my thinking.
Think of it this way. We know that for a small party (and I don’t want to define small here – I don’t necessarily mean low support, it could be about awareness, or media coverage, or simply public consciousness) prompting for a party risks overestimating their support. We’ve made that mistake before and learnt from it.
However, we also know from the 1980s that you can get it wrong in the opposite direction too. Above a certain level or support (or awareness, or coverage, or consciousness), if you don’t prompt for a party you end up underestimating their support. That used to happen to the SDP/Liberal Alliance in the 1980s.
Now, with these two known phenomenon, it struck me that there should come a point somewhere in the middle where they crossed over, and that whether a party is prompted or not shouldn’t make any difference… and that would probably be rather a good point to make the switch. If not, at least it wouldn’t do any harm and would be easier for respondents who don’t have to answer an extra question! It was only a hypothesis and might never have happened, but in our recent tests it’s been making hardly any difference, so it made a very difficult decision far easier.
We'll have something to talk about in a couple of hours...0 -
The glorious 5th0
-
On point 7 I have to say I don't think it's particularly helpful to talk in terms of right and left with Ukip. Personally I'm on the right of politics, but what's generated Ukip's support isn't really about a left or right ideology. It's more a rejection of a consensus that's developed in our politics that considers our membership of the EU to be sacrosanct and immigration to be a dirty word.
This might be a vast over simplification of the matter, but I'd have far more respect for a pro immigration party if they said why immigration really was a good thing. As far as I'm concerned it's only good for filling resource gaps and keeping wages down. Both of these are very right wing in my opinion and that's why the main parties are reluctant to talk about it.
What I think Ukip have come to represent - without explicitly stating it - is that you can't have an open door to immigration and a welfare state. Ultimately I think immigration will actually fall in the coming years, but only because I think we're heading for a mega recession.0 -
Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.0
-
The curse of the new thread, happens to the best of us!numbercruncher said:
No problem, here's what I posted at the tail of the old thread:peter_from_putney said:Apols if previously posted:
YouGov Poll -
"A methodology change in our 1st @YouGov poll of the year tonight - UKIP prompted in the initial list of main parties for the first time."
A bit more colour re prompting for UKIP. YouGov's Anthony Wells just wrote:
I’d forgotten I’d said [that it didn't make much difference in testing], but yes, that is now the case. I’ll post more later when the results come out, but that’s essentially my thinking.
Think of it this way. We know that for a small party (and I don’t want to define small here – I don’t necessarily mean low support, it could be about awareness, or media coverage, or simply public consciousness) prompting for a party risks overestimating their support. We’ve made that mistake before and learnt from it.
However, we also know from the 1980s that you can get it wrong in the opposite direction too. Above a certain level or support (or awareness, or coverage, or consciousness), if you don’t prompt for a party you end up underestimating their support. That used to happen to the SDP/Liberal Alliance in the 1980s.
Now, with these two known phenomenon, it struck me that there should come a point somewhere in the middle where they crossed over, and that whether a party is prompted or not shouldn’t make any difference… and that would probably be rather a good point to make the switch. If not, at least it wouldn’t do any harm and would be easier for respondents who don’t have to answer an extra question! It was only a hypothesis and might never have happened, but in our recent tests it’s been making hardly any difference, so it made a very difficult decision far easier.
We'll have something to talk about in a couple of hours...
UKIP will surely be hoping for a rise, or to be at least static, with this change.0 -
Imagine what he's going to get up to with a decade in power.Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
0 -
I've talked about scrapping our nuclear deterrent, does that make me Anti-English?Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
0 -
Very sensible. About time it went -spend the money saved on conventional forces that actually CAN defend the country against threats.Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
0 -
It's not all about defense, it's about prestige and our place in the world. We'd almost certainly lose our position on the Security Council, for starters.Luckyguy1983 said:
Very sensible. About time it went -spend the money saved on conventional forces that actually CAN defend the country against threats.Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
0 -
You seriously think the money saved will be spent on defence?Luckyguy1983 said:
Very sensible. About time it went -spend the money saved on conventional forces that actually CAN defend the country against threats.Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
0 -
And it would just so mean the West would decline in international power relative to, say, Russia. How convenient for someone of your sympathies.Luckyguy1983 said:
Very sensible. About time it went -spend the money saved on conventional forces that actually CAN defend the country against threats.Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
0 -
16 is of course wrong. Harold Godwineson was succeeded briefly by Edgar the Ætheling (and Harold was at least half Danish, although England was fairly multicultural then so it didn't really matter).0
-
I would prefer our national prestige to be based on something other than a useless white elephant. I would like us to be prosperous, stable, democratic, independent, and able to defend ourselves -if we're that, we will be listened to by those worth speaking to. The lack of some bogus notion of 'prestige' doesn't bother me in the slightest.RobD said:
It's not all about defense, it's about prestige and our place in the world. We'd almost certainly lose our position on the Security Council, for starters.Luckyguy1983 said:
Very sensible. About time it went -spend the money saved on conventional forces that actually CAN defend the country against threats.Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
0 -
Terrible idea. We would have the French lord mayoring it over us.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've talked about scrapping our nuclear deterrent, does that make me Anti-English?Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
0 -
Ah but I have a get out clause on that.JohnLilburne said:16 is of course wrong. Harold Godwineson was succeeded briefly by Edgar the Ætheling (and Harold was at least half Danish, although England was fairly multicultural then so it didn't really matter).
Edgar the Ætheling was never crowned.0 -
I've been flicking through the Tory document, and they seem to be a bit cheeky in using the excuse that a policy won't generate any revenue in 2015/16, but will in future years!0
-
How odd yet rather transparent of someone who fiercely fights for British independence the way you do to suddenly revert to 'the West' when speaking of our national defences.Socrates said:
And it would just so mean the West would decline in international power relative to, say, Russia. How convenient for someone of your sympathies.Luckyguy1983 said:
Very sensible. About time it went -spend the money saved on conventional forces that actually CAN defend the country against threats.Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
Strange how our partners in 'the West' weren't quite so staunch when they decided to give Russia sensitive information about our 'independent' nuclear deterrent to get them to sign a treaty. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html
What was that about sympathies again?0 -
Except I've told you before that I would support having a nuclear deterrent independent of the Americans.Luckyguy1983 said:
How odd yet rather transparent of someone who fiercely fights for British independence the way you do to suddenly revert to 'the West' when speaking of our national defences.Socrates said:
And it would just so mean the West would decline in international power relative to, say, Russia. How convenient for someone of your sympathies.Luckyguy1983 said:
Very sensible. About time it went -spend the money saved on conventional forces that actually CAN defend the country against threats.Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
Strange how our partners in 'the West' weren't quite so staunch when they decided to give Russia sensitive information about our 'independent' nuclear deterrent to get them to sign a treaty. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html
What was that about sympathies again?0 -
I have no idea. I don't believe it's being spent on defence at the moment, so I can't see much difference. This always bears repeating:TheWatcher said:
You seriously think the money saved will be spent on defence?Luckyguy1983 said:
Very sensible. About time it went -spend the money saved on conventional forces that actually CAN defend the country against threats.Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/45658/nonsense-heart-britains-independent-nuclear-defence0 -
Sod the French.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
Terrible idea. We would have the French lord mayoring it over us.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've talked about scrapping our nuclear deterrent, does that make me Anti-English?Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
We would have an even more superior conventional army by using the Trident replacement money on our conventional forces.
A national of collaborators could never Lord it over us on the military front.
0 -
You really think Ed Miliband could not only win two elections, but maintain a stable majority for two full parliaments?TheWatcher said:
Imagine what he's going to get up to with a decade in power.Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
0 -
Entertaining, but riddled with untruths.Luckyguy1983 said:
I have no idea. I don't believe it's being spent on defence at the moment, so I can't see much difference. This always bears repeating:TheWatcher said:
You seriously think the money saved will be spent on defence?Luckyguy1983 said:
Very sensible. About time it went -spend the money saved on conventional forces that actually CAN defend the country against threats.Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/45658/nonsense-heart-britains-independent-nuclear-defence0 -
Is it worth the risk of finding out?Socrates said:
You really think Ed Miliband could not only win two elections, but maintain a stable majority for two full parliaments?TheWatcher said:
Imagine what he's going to get up to with a decade in power.Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
0 -
I don't remember that. I would support the same in an ideal world, but that option isn't on the table as far as I know. We don't even have independent nuclear power these days, let alone a bomb.Socrates said:
Except I've told you before that I would support having a nuclear deterrent independent of the Americans.Luckyguy1983 said:
How odd yet rather transparent of someone who fiercely fights for British independence the way you do to suddenly revert to 'the West' when speaking of our national defences.Socrates said:
And it would just so mean the West would decline in international power relative to, say, Russia. How convenient for someone of your sympathies.Luckyguy1983 said:
Very sensible. About time it went -spend the money saved on conventional forces that actually CAN defend the country against threats.Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
Strange how our partners in 'the West' weren't quite so staunch when they decided to give Russia sensitive information about our 'independent' nuclear deterrent to get them to sign a treaty. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html
What was that about sympathies again?
A defence force capable and armed to repel any foreign power from the UK and its territories will do me. Leave the grandstanding to others.
0 -
Its also about strategic defence - which is really another way of repeating what you have just said. In 1914 that was battleships. Today it is ICBM armed nuclear submarines.RobD said:
It's not all about defense, it's about prestige and our place in the world. We'd almost certainly lose our position on the Security Council, for starters.Luckyguy1983 said:
Very sensible. About time it went -spend the money saved on conventional forces that actually CAN defend the country against threats.Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
Miliband suggests, one suspects in something of a sulk, that if he really has to have a nuclear deterrent ('doh') that there is a cheaper - different - way to provide this. This is a coded message, in very bad code, to his lefty peacenick friends in Scotland for saying, 'we will move the nuclear deterrent from Scotland... possibly. Vote for us pretty please.'
Objectively some other form of delivery of some other sort of nuclear weapon is worth looking at. The question is, just what? Without any sort of suggestion Miliband just looks even more fatuous.
In terms of replacing Trident there is an argument for say fewer tubes per (smaller - cheaper?) sub. Or fewer subs. And in view of the end of the cold war there is less urgency to fully fill in the transition period and we could extend the life of current subs. We can question the likely need for an immediate response from some rogue state. Replacing Trident need not be a time of crisis or a big deal. It is affordable over a long timeframe and provides relatively cheap strategic defence.0 -
anyone who thinks spending nuclear bomb money on more conventional forces makes a country safer is wrong imo. Japan would have fought a lot longer and probably got better terms if they had not had two nuclear devices dropped on them with no way of responding or crucially deterring such an attack.
Same logic with North Korea - The US attack only countries it knows cannot do it damage.it cannot be sure N Korea cannot so it does not attack.
I can understand a worldly view to get rid of nuclear weapons but from a purely country perspective I think the argument that conventional forces make you safer is rubbish0 -
But no 16 calls Harold the last Anglo-Saxon king, not the last Anglo-Saxon king to be crowned. Edgar was of course born in Hungary and probably half-German - and lived to the ripe old age of 75 making him one of the longest lived English kings.TheScreamingEagles said:
Ah but I have a get out clause on that.JohnLilburne said:16 is of course wrong. Harold Godwineson was succeeded briefly by Edgar the Ætheling (and Harold was at least half Danish, although England was fairly multicultural then so it didn't really matter).
Edgar the Ætheling was never crowned.
0 -
Won't be difficult for you to identify some of them then.TheWatcher said:
Entertaining, but riddled with untruths.Luckyguy1983 said:
I have no idea. I don't believe it's being spent on defence at the moment, so I can't see much difference. This always bears repeating:TheWatcher said:
You seriously think the money saved will be spent on defence?Luckyguy1983 said:
Very sensible. About time it went -spend the money saved on conventional forces that actually CAN defend the country against threats.Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/45658/nonsense-heart-britains-independent-nuclear-defence
0 -
Bugger bugger buggerJohnLilburne said:
But no 16 calls Harold the last Anglo-Saxon king, not the last Anglo-Saxon king to be crowned. Edgar was of course born in Hungary and probably half-German - and lived to the ripe old age of 75 making him one of the longest lived English kings.TheScreamingEagles said:
Ah but I have a get out clause on that.JohnLilburne said:16 is of course wrong. Harold Godwineson was succeeded briefly by Edgar the Ætheling (and Harold was at least half Danish, although England was fairly multicultural then so it didn't really matter).
Edgar the Ætheling was never crowned.
You know what I meant.0 -
And replacement also provides for (probably) several hundred highly skilled jobs.Flightpath said:
Its also about strategic defence - which is really another way of repeating what you have just said. In 1914 that was battleships. Today it is ICBM armed nuclear submarines.RobD said:
It's not all about defense, it's about prestige and our place in the world. We'd almost certainly lose our position on the Security Council, for starters.Luckyguy1983 said:
Very sensible. About time it went -spend the money saved on conventional forces that actually CAN defend the country against threats.Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
Miliband suggests, one suspects in something of a sulk, that if he really has to have a nuclear deterrent ('doh') that there is a cheaper - different - way to provide this. This is a coded message, in very bad code, to his lefty peacenick friends in Scotland for saying, 'we will move the nuclear deterrent from Scotland... possibly. Vote for us pretty please.'
Objectively some other form of delivery of some other sort of nuclear weapon is worth looking at. The question is, just what? Without any sort of suggestion Miliband just looks even more fatuous.
In terms of replacing Trident there is an argument for say fewer tubes per (smaller - cheaper?) sub. Or fewer subs. And in view of the end of the cold war there is less urgency to fully fill in the transition period and we could extend the life of current subs. We can question the likely need for an immediate response from some rogue state. Replacing Trident need not be a time of crisis or a big deal. It is affordable over a long timeframe and provides relatively cheap strategic defence.0 -
I think if he becomes PM in 2015, it will be at least 5 years before everyone else stops squabbling, and looks serious enough to take power.Socrates said:
You really think Ed Miliband could not only win two elections, but maintain a stable majority for two full parliaments?TheWatcher said:
Imagine what he's going to get up to with a decade in power.Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
0 -
No one is questioning the destructive power of nuclear weapons. We are questioning the efficacy of Britain's nuclear deterrent Trident.state_go_away said:anyone who thinks spending nuclear bomb money on more conventional forces makes a country safer is wrong imo. Japan would have fought a lot longer and probably got better terms if they had not had two nuclear devices dropped on them with no way of responding or crucially deterring such an attack.
Same logic with North Korea - The US attack only countries it knows cannot do it damage.it can not be sure N Korea cannot so it does not attack.
I can understand a worldly view to get rid of nuclear weapons but from a purely country perspective I think the argument that conventional forces make you safer is rubbish
0 -
14 . Why does the imagined image of David Cameron 'Dad dancing' not seem that horrific yet if told Ed Miliband did the same it would bring up horrific images
0 -
Remind me - who won the Vietnam war?state_go_away said:anyone who thinks spending nuclear bomb money on more conventional forces makes a country safer is wrong imo. Japan would have fought a lot longer and probably got better terms if they had not had two nuclear devices dropped on them with no way of responding or crucially deterring such an attack.
Same logic with North Korea - The US attack only countries it knows cannot do it damage.it cannot be sure N Korea cannot so it does not attack.
I can understand a worldly view to get rid of nuclear weapons but from a purely country perspective I think the argument that conventional forces make you safer is rubbish0 -
In the scheme of other wars not the most vital to win. Japan lost everything in 1945 because they could not deter the Americans dropping nuclear bombs on it. North Korea would also have done by now if it wasn't suspected they have themNo_Offence_Alan said:
Remind me - who won the Vietnam war?state_go_away said:anyone who thinks spending nuclear bomb money on more conventional forces makes a country safer is wrong imo. Japan would have fought a lot longer and probably got better terms if they had not had two nuclear devices dropped on them with no way of responding or crucially deterring such an attack.
Same logic with North Korea - The US attack only countries it knows cannot do it damage.it cannot be sure N Korea cannot so it does not attack.
I can understand a worldly view to get rid of nuclear weapons but from a purely country perspective I think the argument that conventional forces make you safer is rubbish
0 -
This is said quite often, but can someone please explain how it could actually be done given we are a permanent member with a veto? The only precedent is when they swapped one "China" for another.RobD said:
It's not all about defense, it's about prestige and our place in the world. We'd almost certainly lose our position on the Security Council, for starters.Luckyguy1983 said:
Very sensible. About time it went -spend the money saved on conventional forces that actually CAN defend the country against threats.Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
0 -
So would putting a thousand people in a factory and having them knit scarves. What an absurd argument for billions of pounds of spending.RobD said:
And replacement also provides for (probably) several hundred highly skilled jobs.Flightpath said:
Its also about strategic defence - which is really another way of repeating what you have just said. In 1914 that was battleships. Today it is ICBM armed nuclear submarines.RobD said:
It's not all about defense, it's about prestige and our place in the world. We'd almost certainly lose our position on the Security Council, for starters.Luckyguy1983 said:
Very sensible. About time it went -spend the money saved on conventional forces that actually CAN defend the country against threats.Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
Miliband suggests, one suspects in something of a sulk, that if he really has to have a nuclear deterrent ('doh') that there is a cheaper - different - way to provide this. This is a coded message, in very bad code, to his lefty peacenick friends in Scotland for saying, 'we will move the nuclear deterrent from Scotland... possibly. Vote for us pretty please.'
Objectively some other form of delivery of some other sort of nuclear weapon is worth looking at. The question is, just what? Without any sort of suggestion Miliband just looks even more fatuous.
In terms of replacing Trident there is an argument for say fewer tubes per (smaller - cheaper?) sub. Or fewer subs. And in view of the end of the cold war there is less urgency to fully fill in the transition period and we could extend the life of current subs. We can question the likely need for an immediate response from some rogue state. Replacing Trident need not be a time of crisis or a big deal. It is affordable over a long timeframe and provides relatively cheap strategic defence.
0 -
Except it wouldn't get spent on conventional forces. It will get frittered away on diversity coordinators or union modernisation funds etc.TheScreamingEagles said:
Sod the French.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
Terrible idea. We would have the French lord mayoring it over us.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've talked about scrapping our nuclear deterrent, does that make me Anti-English?Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
We would have an even more superior conventional army by using the Trident replacement money on our conventional forces.
A national of collaborators could never Lord it over us on the military front.
0 -
Not sure knitting is on the same level as replacing Trident, but okay. It isn't the argument for doing it, it is a benefit of doing so.Luckyguy1983 said:
So would putting a thousand people in a factory and having them knit scarves. What an absurd argument for billions of pounds of spending.RobD said:
And replacement also provides for (probably) several hundred highly skilled jobs.Flightpath said:
Its also about strategic defence - which is really another way of repeating what you have just said. In 1914 that was battleships. Today it is ICBM armed nuclear submarines.RobD said:
It's not all about defense, it's about prestige and our place in the world. We'd almost certainly lose our position on the Security Council, for starters.Luckyguy1983 said:
Very sensible. About time it went -spend the money saved on conventional forces that actually CAN defend the country against threats.Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
Miliband suggests, one suspects in something of a sulk, that if he really has to have a nuclear deterrent ('doh') that there is a cheaper - different - way to provide this. This is a coded message, in very bad code, to his lefty peacenick friends in Scotland for saying, 'we will move the nuclear deterrent from Scotland... possibly. Vote for us pretty please.'
Objectively some other form of delivery of some other sort of nuclear weapon is worth looking at. The question is, just what? Without any sort of suggestion Miliband just looks even more fatuous.
In terms of replacing Trident there is an argument for say fewer tubes per (smaller - cheaper?) sub. Or fewer subs. And in view of the end of the cold war there is less urgency to fully fill in the transition period and we could extend the life of current subs. We can question the likely need for an immediate response from some rogue state. Replacing Trident need not be a time of crisis or a big deal. It is affordable over a long timeframe and provides relatively cheap strategic defence.0 -
Having the most feared weapon has always been the way of protecting yourself since time began. Not sure why Miliband thinks he can change this age old strategy (if indeed he does want to get rid of Trident)0
-
Not if I were PM/Directly Elected Dictator.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
Except it wouldn't get spent on conventional forces. It will get frittered away on diversity coordinators or union modernisation funds etc.TheScreamingEagles said:
Sod the French.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
Terrible idea. We would have the French lord mayoring it over us.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've talked about scrapping our nuclear deterrent, does that make me Anti-English?Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
We would have an even more superior conventional army by using the Trident replacement money on our conventional forces.
A national of collaborators could never Lord it over us on the military front.0 -
What is the point of conventional forces if we refuse to use them? Its misspending on our conventional forces that is our problem. We were stuffed by Labour not just with the carriers contract but also their inadequate design. And by Labour's hopeless defence budgeting. We are therefore spending our money on conventional forces in the wrong way.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
Except it wouldn't get spent on conventional forces. It will get frittered away on diversity coordinators or union modernisation funds etc.TheScreamingEagles said:
Sod the French.Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
Terrible idea. We would have the French lord mayoring it over us.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've talked about scrapping our nuclear deterrent, does that make me Anti-English?Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
We would have an even more superior conventional army by using the Trident replacement money on our conventional forces.
A national of collaborators could never Lord it over us on the military front.0 -
So more dirty tricks by the Tories according to Nick Robinson. I think this election is going to be interesting. I like the way Labour are moving.....Government for a few rich people at the top....the Tory legacy is food banks......five more years and there wont be an NHS......
It looks like Ed's got it together and won the first round by a distance.0 -
Two things..
1) Did Norman Smith stick one on ED to prove he was unbiased.. Answers on a postcard
2) Before everyone gets wrapped up in the GE, lets have a sense of proportion in what matters whilst getting stuck into point scoring (I am not immune to this), notwithstanding that I will turn out the light as the last man to leave the UK if Ed gets the keys to No 10.
I lost my wife two yrs + ago and today it was the turn of a neighbour to lose her partner in life. One minute he was there, the next not.. Its a sobering thought and one everyone would do well to ponder on irrespective of your age. Only when you have suffered a disaster such as this can you have a true perspective on life.
0 -
Phew, I can sleepy easily tonight.Roger said:So more dirty tricks by the Tories according to Nick Robinson. I think this election is going to be interesting. I like the way Labour are moving.....Government for a few rich people at the top....the Tory legacy is food banks......five more years and there wont be an NHS......
It looks like Ed's got it together and won the first round by a distance.
Rogerdamus calls it for Labour and Ed.0 -
No one fears our nuclear deterrent! On the contrary, anyone serious knows we would never and could never use it.state_go_away said:Having the most feared weapon has always been the way of protecting yourself since time began. Not sure why Miliband thinks he can change this age old strategy (if indeed he does want to get rid of Trident)
0 -
2. Plenty of what Ed M says is on the face of it pretty appealing. His opponents may say a lot of it is dangerous nonsense. Whether that is correct or not, the fact people are not supposed to pay much attention until the campaigns means it is possible people will think Ed M is crap as that is the accepted narrative, hear him for the first time and think what he says is pretty good, and then not have time to consider it much as the election is then upon them.
4. Funny line "As several journalists noted during the Q&A, the document falsely equates criticism of cuts with a commitment to reverse them.". I suppose that is kind of a trap, in that Labour are supposed to confirm they won't reverse cuts despite whinging about them, but for the Tories sake I don't see that helping. It should, but Labour are going to cut a lot and, given the options are limited, in many of the same areas and similar ways, and yet they still get the majority of the anti-austerity vote I would bet - despite leaking some to the Greens no doubt - as the alternative is letting the Tories back in, and more people would prefer Labour cuts to Tory cuts, even if realistically it will feel no different. The mere feeling that the Labour front bench are not unlike the Tories not ideologically enjoying the cutting will, for some reason, make it better to them.
10. I hope Clegg succeeds. It would be hilarious.0 -
Roger , do you hear voices in your boxers.. Worry not , its just the usual.... talking bollocks.Roger said:So more dirty tricks by the Tories according to Nick Robinson. I think this election is going to be interesting. I like the way Labour are moving.....Government for a few rich people at the top....the Tory legacy is food banks......five more years and there wont be an NHS......
It looks like Ed's got it together and won the first round by a distance.0 -
I haven't heard the precise wording, but doesn't the argument that the NHS could just slip away without anyone noticing rather belie the importance of maintaining it in its current form?Roger said:So more dirty tricks by the Tories according to Nick Robinson. I think this election is going to be interesting. I like the way Labour are moving.....Government for a few rich people at the top....the Tory legacy is food banks......five more years and there wont be an NHS......
It looks like Ed's got it together and won the first round by a distance.
0 -
Yup. Day 1 of the campaign. labour's big launch. Ed's speech. What is everyone talking about?TheScreamingEagles said:Phew, I can sleepy easily tonight.
Rogerdamus calls it for Labour and Ed.
Tory dossier...0 -
1. Then why do people react so poorly to any hint of compromise inherent in coalition politics that a lack of absolute majority could well cause to come into being?
3. I'm sure he does want to win the big argument. Fortunately for him he can still just go very negative and rely on Labour's current advantages and win the election even if he doesn't win that big argument.
12. Unsurprising stuff. More worrying is the majority seem to like that sort of thing, so it won't end any time soon.0 -
It's workingkle4 said:"As several journalists noted during the Q&A, the document falsely equates criticism of cuts with a commitment to reverse them.". I suppose that is kind of a trap, in that Labour are supposed to confirm they won't reverse cuts despite whinging about them
Labour would not reverse billions of pounds of spending cuts to the police, hospitals, armed forces and local councils, Ed Balls has confirmed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11326446/Ed-Balls-forced-to-admit-Labour-could-cut-5billion-in-first-year-of-Government.html
The savings include cutting £3.3billion from councils’ budgets, making £700million worth of cuts to the pay of members of the armed forces and shaving £400million off the NHS pay bill.0 -
Hospitals.Scott_P said:
Yup. Day 1 of the campaign. labour's big launch. Ed's speech. What is everyone talking about?TheScreamingEagles said:Phew, I can sleepy easily tonight.
Rogerdamus calls it for Labour and Ed.
Tory dossier...
0 -
YesTheScreamingEagles said:
I've talked about scrapping our nuclear deterrent, does that make me Anti-English?Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
0 -
@JamesWThurston: Labour refuses to commit to ending squeeze on public sector pay http://t.co/onc4SwruKb<--Is Balls trying to piss off potential Lab voters??0
-
Well the front page of the guardian
"Labour signals squeeze on pay"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6noLO5CcAAgCoq.jpg0 -
@lewgreenparty: Public sector worker? Labour don't want your vote >> Labour refuses to commit to ending squeeze on public sector pay http://t.co/r9Pcky5tu20
-
Why?AlbionTilIDie said:
YesTheScreamingEagles said:
I've talked about scrapping our nuclear deterrent, does that make me Anti-English?Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
0 -
Just the front page Ed George was looking for...TheScreamingEagles said:Well the front page of the guardian
"Labour signals squeeze on pay"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6noLO5CcAAgCoq.jpg0 -
Nonsense. Do your homework: http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/45658/nonsense-heart-britains-independent-nuclear-defenceAlbionTilIDie said:
YesTheScreamingEagles said:
I've talked about scrapping our nuclear deterrent, does that make me Anti-English?Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
0 -
LOL you really believe that?Roger said:So more dirty tricks by the Tories according to Nick Robinson. I think this election is going to be interesting. I like the way Labour are moving.....Government for a few rich people at the top....the Tory legacy is food banks......five more years and there wont be an NHS......
It looks like Ed's got it together and won the first round by a distance.0 -
I haven't seen the Left so spooked in a while. Of course, everyone remembers 1992 and that Labour's economic credibility is built on matchwood - a single puff can blow it to smithereens. Hence the BBC etc. leaping in to save Labour. They are grimly aware that this could prove terminal.Scott_P said:
Yup. Day 1 of the campaign. labour's big launch. Ed's speech. What is everyone talking about?TheScreamingEagles said:Phew, I can sleepy easily tonight.
Rogerdamus calls it for Labour and Ed.
Tory dossier...0 -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11326446/Ed-Balls-forced-to-admit-Labour-could-cut-5billion-in-first-year-of-Government.htmlScott_P said:
It's workingkle4 said:"As several journalists noted during the Q&A, the document falsely equates criticism of cuts with a commitment to reverse them.". I suppose that is kind of a trap, in that Labour are supposed to confirm they won't reverse cuts despite whinging about them
Labour would not reverse billions of pounds of spending cuts to the police, hospitals, armed forces and local councils, Ed Balls has confirmed.
The savings include cutting £3.3billion from councils’ budgets, making £700million worth of cuts to the pay of members of the armed forces and shaving £400million off the NHS pay bill.
Oh, it gets Labour to state that, and it will cost them a few Green votes. I just don't think it will undermine Labour enough - people genuinely seem to think ending Tory cuts has to be achieved even if to be replaced by Labour cuts which are essentially identical, so getting them to admit to that will not finish Labour off.0 -
Can I go and listen to the Chelsea game again or is it worth waiting 5 mins for a first ugov?
0 -
@tnewtondunn: YouGov/Sun poll tonight: 1st in 2015 and also with UKIP prompted - LAB 34%, CON 31%, UKIP 14%, GRN 8%, LD 7%. Gives Ed Mili majority of 16.0
-
I've still got it!!!Scrapheap_as_was said:Can I go and listen to the Chelsea game again or is it worth waiting 5 mins for a first ugov?
Gnight.0 -
Taking it for granted has worked so far. Where else is it going to go in significant numbers?Scott_P said:@lewgreenparty: Public sector worker? Labour don't want your vote
0 -
Because an Englishman's home is his castle, to be defended at all costs, even using nuclear weapons. To not understand that is to not understand the English.TheScreamingEagles said:
Why?AlbionTilIDie said:
YesTheScreamingEagles said:
I've talked about scrapping our nuclear deterrent, does that make me Anti-English?Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
0 -
Tonights YG EICIPM
Overall Maj 160 -
Are you tapestry in disguise?Luckyguy1983 said:
Nonsense. Do your homework: http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/45658/nonsense-heart-britains-independent-nuclear-defenceAlbionTilIDie said:
YesTheScreamingEagles said:
I've talked about scrapping our nuclear deterrent, does that make me Anti-English?Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
0 -
It's OK; Labour have issued a rebuttal dossier. It's not dodgy at all...Stark_Dawning said:I haven't seen the Left so spooked in a while. Of course, everyone remembers 1992 and that Labour's economic credibility is built on matchwood - a single puff can blow it to smithereens. Hence the BBC etc. leaping in to save Labour. They are grimly aware that this could prove terminal.
@CCHQPress: Oh dear.@edballsmp rebuttal doc riddled with massive spending miscalculations on OWN proposals -who knew their Senate of Nations costs £85BN
@CCHQPress: Hi @TristramHuntMP , doc just put out by @edballsmp talks about spending on UnionLearn at £15.3 BILLION - can you confirm this is your plan?
@CCHQPress: @marycreagh_mp @edballsmp What was your landfill policy Mary? – an untruth or an error?0 -
UKIP prompted - yet they are lower than they were in all the final three YouGovs of 2014.TheScreamingEagles said:@tnewtondunn: YouGov/Sun poll tonight: 1st in 2015 and also with UKIP prompted - LAB 34%, CON 31%, UKIP 14%, GRN 8%, LD 7%. Gives Ed Mili majority of 16.
Disappointing poll for Con.0 -
So prompting for UKIP sees them down 2%0
-
Todays Populus EICIPM0
-
TSE Not if Labour loses 20+ seats to the SNP0
-
The Commander of the RN Vanguard boat moving at walking pace somewhere in the Atlantic tonight could launch missiles should he wish, assuming he had the full cooperation of his crew. That's the point. Relying on ballistics, with optical star sighting for in flight navigational correction there's not much that would stop a D5 once it's left its tube.Luckyguy1983 said:
No one fears our nuclear deterrent! On the contrary, anyone serious knows we would never and could never use it.state_go_away said:Having the most feared weapon has always been the way of protecting yourself since time began. Not sure why Miliband thinks he can change this age old strategy (if indeed he does want to get rid of Trident)
0 -
I still think The UK will be better defended and have more influence in the world with a full Armoured Division and Air Assault Division funded by not having a replacement for Trident.AlbionTilIDie said:
Because an Englishman's home is his castle, to be defended at all costs, even using nuclear weapons. To not understand that is to not understand the English.TheScreamingEagles said:
Why?AlbionTilIDie said:
YesTheScreamingEagles said:
I've talked about scrapping our nuclear deterrent, does that make me Anti-English?Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
0 -
Earth to swingback.....come in swingback!
The Tories will be pulling away in the polls after the budget.....err in August....err after the Autumn Statement....err in November.....err in January.....err...
TIC TOC TIC TOC! - 121 days and counting.
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?day=7&month=5&msg=UK+General+Election&p0=0&year=2015
0 -
Considering you said there would be no crossover between Jan 2014 and the election.....compouter2 said:Earth to swingback.....come in swingback!
The Tories will be pulling away in the polls after the budget.....err in August....err after the Autumn Statement....err in November.....err in January.....err...
TIC TOC TIC TOC! - 121 days and counting.
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?day=7&month=5&msg=UK+General+Election&p0=0&year=20150 -
TheScreamingEagles said:
I still think The UK will be better defended and have more influence in the world with a full Armoured Division and Air Assault Division funded by not having a replacement for Trident.AlbionTilIDie said:
Because an Englishman's home is his castle, to be defended at all costs, even using nuclear weapons. To not understand that is to not understand the English.TheScreamingEagles said:
Why?AlbionTilIDie said:
YesTheScreamingEagles said:
I've talked about scrapping our nuclear deterrent, does that make me Anti-English?Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
Good for you, nothing wrong in having an opinion no matter how wrong it is.TheScreamingEagles said:
I still think The UK will be better defended and have more influence in the world with a full Armoured Division and Air Assault Division funded by not having a replacement for Trident.AlbionTilIDie said:
Because an Englishman's home is his castle, to be defended at all costs, even using nuclear weapons. To not understand that is to not understand the English.TheScreamingEagles said:
Why?AlbionTilIDie said:
YesTheScreamingEagles said:
I've talked about scrapping our nuclear deterrent, does that make me Anti-English?Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
0 -
It's a mainstream publication, the author is respected (certainly he knows a damn sight more about the issues than you do), and I see no reason to doubt his assertions.AlbionTilIDie said:
Are you tapestry in disguise?Luckyguy1983 said:
Nonsense. Do your homework: http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/45658/nonsense-heart-britains-independent-nuclear-defenceAlbionTilIDie said:
YesTheScreamingEagles said:
I've talked about scrapping our nuclear deterrent, does that make me Anti-English?Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
You're unfamiliar to me, and there's a rather peculiar slant to your posts in this thread -you'll forgive me if I don't engage further, ta.
0 -
Another brilliant front page for Labour
@thetimes: Tomorrow's front page: Mansion tax to fund nursing in Scotland http://t.co/3HgvnrbY2g
Lucy Powell is incomparable in her field...0 -
And again...
@politicshome: Tuesday's Telegraph front page - Labour tax on 'wealthy English' to fund Scots nurses http://t.co/RDMke2GhA50 -
No, you see, when people actually see Ed M in the final 4 weeks, suddenly Labour's lead will evaporate even further and the Tories will surge (both are required for a Tory win, let us not forget) because...because...because he's crap. Yeah, that's it. Enough to hang all the hopes of a campaign on, right?compouter2 said:Earth to swingback.....come in swingback!
The Tories will be pulling away in the polls after the budget.....err in August....err after the Autumn Statement....err in November.....err in January.....err...
TIC TOC TIC TOC! - 121 days and counting.
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?day=7&month=5&msg=UK+General+Election&p0=0&year=20150 -
No problem, everyone is entitled to their opinion.Luckyguy1983 said:
It's a mainstream publication, the author is respected (certainly he knows a damn sight more about the issues than you do), and I see no reason to doubt his assertions.AlbionTilIDie said:
Are you tapestry in disguise?Luckyguy1983 said:
Nonsense. Do your homework: http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/45658/nonsense-heart-britains-independent-nuclear-defenceAlbionTilIDie said:
YesTheScreamingEagles said:
I've talked about scrapping our nuclear deterrent, does that make me Anti-English?Socrates said:Anti-English Ed Miliband is now talking about scrapping our nuclear deterrent. He really is trying to screw this country.
You're unfamiliar to me, and there's a rather peculiar slant to your posts in this thread -you'll forgive me if I don't engage further, ta.0 -
compouter2 said:
Earth to swingback.....come in swingback!
The Tories will be pulling away in the polls after the budget.....err in August....err after the Autumn Statement....err in November.....err in January.....err...
TIC TOC TIC TOC! - 121 days and counting.
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?day=7&month=5&msg=UK+General+Election&p0=0&year=20150 -
OK, that one actually will probably work if it can really sink in.Scott_P said:And again...
@politicshome: Tuesday's Telegraph front page - Labour tax on 'wealthy English' to fund Scots nurses http://t.co/RDMke2GhA5
0 -
I have now tweaked my Lambert and Butler (30,000 Brokeback Mountain derivitives) Election Predictor to give it a more accurate result.TheScreamingEagles said:
Considering you said there would be no crossover between Jan 2014 and the election.....compouter2 said:Earth to swingback.....come in swingback!
The Tories will be pulling away in the polls after the budget.....err in August....err after the Autumn Statement....err in November.....err in January.....err...
TIC TOC TIC TOC! - 121 days and counting.
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?day=7&month=5&msg=UK+General+Election&p0=0&year=20150 -
Peter Hain 'Labour needs to learn to love spending again...Democratic socialism, not neoliberalism, should remain the calling of our age'
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/05/smaller-state-trouble-deficit-labour-spending0 -
Incredible. News of the England Tax has actually gone mainstream. And a few hours ago we speculating on here that it was just an implausible SNP spoof. Ed needs to stamp on this pronto or he'll lose England as well as Scotland.Scott_P said:And again...
@politicshome: Tuesday's Telegraph front page - Labour tax on 'wealthy English' to fund Scots nurses http://t.co/RDMke2GhA5
0 -
I see the irrelevant tory papers along with CCHQ PB tory cannon fodder like Scott P have already begun their synchronised lie campaigns in earnest. Not that it will make the slightest bit of difference
0 -
Germany dominates Europe to extent not even reached in 1942 or 1917 , all without nuclear weapons. Indeed all the nukes in France, Russia and Britain have been unable to prevent this. Nukes inherently target civilians, morally they are indefensible.
Money better given back to me and spent by myself on things I want.0 -
Tomorrows BJESUS
5.1.15 LAB 322 (320) CON 259(263) LD 32(31) UKIP 1(1) Others 36(35) (Ed is crap is PM)
Last BJESUS in brackets Last weeks BJESUS in brackets
BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing) BJESUS (Big John Election Service Uniform Swing)
Using current polling adjusted for 121 days left to go factor and using UKPR standard swingometer
0 -
True kle4,that would be Ed the Crap who's party has been in front for most of the polling that has taken place since he has been leader of the party who is going against two of the biggest political master genius in UK history, Dave and Gideon who have been ...err.....behind Ed the Crap for most of the polling that has taken place since Ed the Crap has been leader.....strange world, eh.kle4 said:
No, you see, when people actually see Ed M in the final 4 weeks, suddenly Labour's lead will evaporate even further and the Tories will surge (both are required for a Tory win, let us not forget) because...because...because he's crap. Yeah, that's it. Enough to hang all the hopes of a campaign on, right?compouter2 said:Earth to swingback.....come in swingback!
The Tories will be pulling away in the polls after the budget.....err in August....err after the Autumn Statement....err in November.....err in January.....err...
TIC TOC TIC TOC! - 121 days and counting.
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?day=7&month=5&msg=UK+General+Election&p0=0&year=20150
