Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On a day when a poll had the CON+LAB aggregate at its lowes

SystemSystem Posts: 12,638
edited January 2015 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On a day when a poll had the CON+LAB aggregate at its lowest level since 1981 – Marf gives her take

The latest Ashcroft national poll was a shocker – not just for the 11% GRN share but for the 57% aggregate total for CON and LAB – the lowest in any poll since 1981.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    Come on the Greens!
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    What election?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,325
    third.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Looks a bit like Angela Merkel.
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    AndyJS said:

    Looks a bit like Angela Merkel.

    Yes, I thought that too.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    O/T:

    Apparently anyone earning £20K a year is automatically a member of the global 1%.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    What an embarrassing attempt at journalism:

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/19/-sp-thousands-britons-claim-benefits-eu

    Twice as many EU migrants claim benefits here as Brits in the EU, and this is reported as "Thousands of Britons claiming benefits in the EU". It was the same with the study that showed immigration cost the UK £117bn, and they reported a subset where the numbers were favourable.

    God, the pro-EU types are a joke. Completely devoid of facts.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited January 2015
    SeanT said:

    fpt for Charles

    I read Beevor's Berlin on my first ever visit to Berlin. An amazing literary/personal experience. Highly recommended,

    As for the "being descended from William the Conqueror" or whatever crapola, of course we are all descended from him, or we can trace a cousinage thereto.

    We are all part of the great chain of being. I was physically linked to my mother by my umbilical cord, as was my sister (and my two daughters to their mothers). Those mothers were in turn physically linked to their mothers (and, thereby, their brothers, fathers, nephews, at a remove).

    Unless you believe in the (discredited) theory of multiple origins of humanity, we can, therefore, ALL physically trace a flesh-and-blood link to Julius Caesar, the Krankies, Moses, the main members of the Leeds United squad in 1975, Buddha, King David, Father Gapon, Mike Smithson, Jesus Christ, the emperor Montezuma, Gary Lineker's uncle, Genghis Khan, Lord Byron, Adam and Eve, the Prophet Mohammad, the principal musicians in Led Zeppelin, my mad great uncle David "froggy" Skewes, and Napoleon.

    Aristocracy is merely a byproduct of literacy: being able to TRACE one's lineage on paper, thus proving descent. But we are all DESCENDANTS.


    According to various plausible mathematical models, before around 700 AD, every single human is either ancestor of no one alive today, or ancestor of everyone alive today. Therefore, if someone from this period is a proven ancestor of someone alive today then they must be ancestor of everyone alive today.

    Documentation that X is an ancestor of you is almost certain proof that X is an ancestor of me also.

    Most people in this country are descended from Edward III, Charlemagne, Muhammed, Confucius, Nefertiti among others.

    The most recent common ancestor of all living humanity almost certainly lived in the Far East, possibly Kamchatka or Taiwan...
    http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    AndyJS said:

    O/T:

    Apparently anyone earning £20K a year is automatically a member of the global 1%.

    Should you hand yourself in to the local Oxfam ?

  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    Literacy and forgery, Sean?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Actually it's £25,400. £20K was what I saw on another website:

    http://www.globalrichlist.com/
    AndyJS said:

    O/T:

    Apparently anyone earning £20K a year is automatically a member of the global 1%.

  • EdwardianEdwardian Posts: 20
    I do not normally like to say I told you so, but I did post on this site that I expected the Greens to soon go into double figures in a poll after Cameron pulled the master stroke of saying he wouldn't do the debates without the Greens.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,842
    I have returned. Huzzah!

    Welcome (back) to pb.com, Mr. Edwardian.

    Caught a snippet of Sky News prior to coming back. The Ashcroft poll and both major parties being under 30% was top billing, but the bit I saw didn't mention the other poll.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Yemen — Rebels surround PM's house:

    http://news.sky.com/story/1410847/yemen-rebels-surround-prime-ministers-home
  • EdwardianEdwardian Posts: 20
    Thank you Morris Dancer for your greetings. I cannot explain how different pollsters can be so widely different, other than to say some are more wrong than others. I am over the pond and can't explain why all the pollsters apart from one show Obama has had a good poll boost in the last month.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Morris_Dancer said:

    I have returned. Huzzah!

    Welcome (back) to pb.com, Mr. Edwardian.

    Caught a snippet of Sky News prior to coming back. The Ashcroft poll and both major parties being under 30% was top billing, but the bit I saw didn't mention the other poll.

    Where is the 'story' in the other poll? Still - that's free speech and the power and proud independence of the press for you.
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    @SeanT

    Yeah, Berlin is a formidable book. I'm interested in the machinations and madness of the leading Nazis so their demise has made the book more intriguing than Stalingrad.

    I wasn't expecting to come away with such sympathy for the ordinary Germans and the Wermacht. The heroism and sacrifice (Wenck, Busse) is astonishing to read about. In stark contrast to the hateful cowardice of the likes of Himmler and the zealous inhumanity of the SS.

    A nice titbit too about the NKVD concerns when the Soviet soldiers kept discovering stocked larders in the Silesian German homes. Under communism they'd never seen a packed larder before, and the NKVD were worried they'd discover communism for the bone-headed ideology that it is.

    Harrowing book though. Makes you want to cwtch your kids that little bit tighter, and be thankful for the times we live in.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,791
    Hey, is that a rosette that Ratty is wearing? Surely he hasn't gone partisan?

    Nicely drawn toon. Have the impression Marf enjoyed doing it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,842
    Mr. Flightpath, the media has a duty of objectivity.

    Mr. Edwardian, you're very welcome. Are you an American, or just visiting?

    Sometimes polls change for no apparent reason. Ashcroft's do seem quite bouncy.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,963
    LOL Hattie upset at Obama for saying economy is improving
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,172
    Interesting debate on the previous thread. If the article referred to was even vaguely right about Cameron this woman is going to give him her vote.

    Personally I have a lot of sympathy for the views of antifrank. I really don't expect politicians to solve my problems for me and I suspect those determined to do so will generally make things worse rather than better. OTOH for as long as we have a government consuming 40%+ of our GDP they will dominate the performance of the economy in that they have the capacity to wreak it for all of us.

    There are certain areas, such as education, where I think politicians can make a real difference for good or ill. But there are not that many of them and it is a mistake to not appreciate how often they are flotsam on the tide.


    What I want from politicians is pragmatism, good sense and a minimum of nonsense. On these criteria I would give the Coalition something like 8/10 which is not much short of spectacular by modern standards. If I could vote for a continuation of the current Coalition at the next election I would.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,393
    edited January 2015
    Fenster said:

    @SeanT

    Yeah, Berlin is a formidable book. I'm interested in the machinations and madness of the leading Nazis so their demise has made the book more intriguing than Stalingrad.

    I wasn't expecting to come away with such sympathy for the ordinary Germans and the Wermacht. The heroism and sacrifice (Wenck, Busse) is astonishing to read about. In stark contrast to the hateful cowardice of the likes of Himmler and the zealous inhumanity of the SS.

    A nice titbit too about the NKVD concerns when the Soviet soldiers kept discovering stocked larders in the Silesian German homes. Under communism they'd never seen a packed larder before, and the NKVD were worried they'd discover communism for the bone-headed ideology that it is.

    Harrowing book though. Makes you want to cwtch your kids that little bit tighter, and be thankful for the times we live in.

    What I could never understand was the way that leading Nazis were jockeying for position, as the end drew closer, in the belief that the Allies would want to negotiate with them. Had I been a leading Nazi, I'd have spent the time planning my disappearance.

    Some Nazis met pretty uncomfortable ends. Arthur Grieser, Gauleiter of West Prussia, ruthlessly executed deserters, before fleeing as the Russians approached. He was returned to Poland after the War, paraded round Poznan in a cage, and then hauled up on a rope's end, before a crowd of 15,000.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Interesting tidbit on the Lib Dems' low expectations:
    The Lib Dems currently have 56 seats (the 57th, Mike Hancock, had the whip withdrawn last year), and this election forecast suggests they’ll end up with 27. The sense in the party is that this will be just about OK, but go much lower than 25 and Clegg’s in real trouble.
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/why-is-nick-clegg-so-happy/

    It comes to something when losing more than half of your seats is "just about OK"...
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,809
    Con now favourites for most seats:

    Con 2.00/2.02
    Lab 2.02/2.04
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    You'd think going lower than 10% would cause problems for the leadership as well.
    Danny565 said:

    Interesting tidbit on the Lib Dems' low expectations:

    The Lib Dems currently have 56 seats (the 57th, Mike Hancock, had the whip withdrawn last year), and this election forecast suggests they’ll end up with 27. The sense in the party is that this will be just about OK, but go much lower than 25 and Clegg’s in real trouble.
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/why-is-nick-clegg-so-happy/

    It comes to something when losing more than half of your seats is "just about OK"...

  • EdwardianEdwardian Posts: 20
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Flightpath, the media has a duty of objectivity.

    Mr. Edwardian, you're very welcome. Are you an American, or just visiting?

    Sometimes polls change for no apparent reason. Ashcroft's do seem quite bouncy.

    I'm a Brit living in the States. One of the things about America that I find sickening:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11338985/Fox-News-terror-expert-says-everyone-in-Birmingham-is-a-Muslim.html

    This is more than just a bouncy poll. It's publicity that feeds on the perceived unfairness that the Greens are not included in the debates (not my view).

    The Greens have been steadily rising with minimal publicity from the ground up. Now we are entering a cycle of a Green polling boost that means it is considered more unfair by those who are sympathetic to the Greens, leading to more publicity, leading to more support, coinciding with the announcement that the Greens have more members than Lib Dems, leading to higher polling, leading to even more Green members, leading to over 300,000 signing the Green debate petition, leading to more Greens, leading to more pressure for the powers that be to accept the Greens in the debates, leading to a yes decision, leading to more publicity. Don't worry too much about the actual Green policies--it's all a perpetual cycle of publicity that will excite the grassroots level, that means the Greens have at least a few months or so to keep climbing in the polls, and possibly overtake UKIP.

    I believe that is David Cameron's strategy to see the Greens harm labor at least as much as UKIP harms Tories. It isn't a feasible strategy for him to avoid the debates, but it is masterful to boost the Greens in the way he has.


  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,364
    edited January 2015
    Alanbrooke said:

    LOL Hattie upset at Obama for saying economy is improving

    Thanks to George Osborne's wonderful stewardship of the economy :-)
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,963
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    LOL Hattie upset at Obama for saying economy is improving

    Thanks to George Osborne's wonderful stewardship of the economy :-)
    Such obvious trolling TSE , you could be Mark Reckless.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,364
    On topic we're going to see some truly bizarre results in May if both major parties poll less than 30%.

    Con gain Bootle and Lab gain Arundel and South Downs
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,791
    MikeL said:

    Con now favourites for most seats:

    Con 2.00/2.02
    Lab 2.02/2.04

    That's not surprising, Mike, following today's Ashcroft poll putting them ahead.

    There seems to be a steady pattern about the polls now. Most show Labour with a small lead, a few have it tied and every tenth or so poll puts the Tories ahead. Imagine what will happen to the price if they increase that to two every ten!

    Worth taking a gamble on?

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,364
    Alanbrooke said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    LOL Hattie upset at Obama for saying economy is improving

    Thanks to George Osborne's wonderful stewardship of the economy :-)
    Such obvious trolling TSE , you could be Mark Reckless.
    That's a low blow.

    Lower than dwarf felatio.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,292
    Danny565 said:

    Interesting tidbit on the Lib Dems' low expectations:

    The Lib Dems currently have 56 seats (the 57th, Mike Hancock, had the whip withdrawn last year), and this election forecast suggests they’ll end up with 27. The sense in the party is that this will be just about OK, but go much lower than 25 and Clegg’s in real trouble.
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/why-is-nick-clegg-so-happy/

    It comes to something when losing more than half of your seats is "just about OK"...

    Quite. I'd have thought losing half their seats is worse than they would have predicted even 18 months ago, and that in the range of low 30s was where they hoped to be, but their ability to soldier on, either resigned to their fate and showing plucky bravado or genuinely seeing a silver lining for the party, is impressive in a way.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,842
    Mr. Edwardian, I hope you saw the Twitter mockery of those Birmingham comments. Some were rather good.

    It'll be interesting to see if the Greens are invited. Bit double-edged for Cameron. Their leader is reportedly not often compared to Cicero, so an appearance might do more harm to them than good. But if they do not appear and Cameron does, that could diminish him.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    A bit harsh given that a lot of the rape victims would have been too young to have supported the Nazis in elections in the 1930s.
    SeanT said:

    Fenster said:

    @SeanT

    Yeah, Berlin is a formidable book. I'm interested in the machinations and madness of the leading Nazis so their demise has made the book more intriguing than Stalingrad.

    I wasn't expecting to come away with such sympathy for the ordinary Germans and the Wermacht. The heroism and sacrifice (Wenck, Busse) is astonishing to read about. In stark contrast to the hateful cowardice of the likes of Himmler and the zealous inhumanity of the SS.

    A nice titbit too about the NKVD concerns when the Soviet soldiers kept discovering stocked larders in the Silesian German homes. Under communism they'd never seen a packed larder before, and the NKVD were worried they'd discover communism for the bone-headed ideology that it is.

    Harrowing book though. Makes you want to cwtch your kids that little bit tighter, and be thankful for the times we live in.

    In contrast, I felt no sympathy for the Germans at the end of that book. They sowed a poisonous wind, and reaped a calamitous whirlwind.

    Heartless as it may seem, the gangrape of maybe a million German women by Red Army soldiers seemed like condign and justified retribution, given that the Nazis casually slaughtered 20 million Soviet citizens in the preceding years. I was practically cheering the Russians on, as they kicked their way through the cellar doors of Berlin.

  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,791
    Edwardian said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Flightpath, the media has a duty of objectivity.

    Mr. Edwardian, you're very welcome. Are you an American, or just visiting?

    Sometimes polls change for no apparent reason. Ashcroft's do seem quite bouncy.

    I'm a Brit living in the States. One of the things about America that I find sickening:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11338985/Fox-News-terror-expert-says-everyone-in-Birmingham-is-a-Muslim.html

    This is more than just a bouncy poll. It's publicity that feeds on the perceived unfairness that the Greens are not included in the debates (not my view).

    The Greens have been steadily rising with minimal publicity from the ground up. Now we are entering a cycle of a Green polling boost that means it is considered more unfair by those who are sympathetic to the Greens, leading to more publicity, leading to more support, coinciding with the announcement that the Greens have more members than Lib Dems, leading to higher polling, leading to even more Green members, leading to over 300,000 signing the Green debate petition, leading to more Greens, leading to more pressure for the powers that be to accept the Greens in the debates, leading to a yes decision, leading to more publicity. Don't worry too much about the actual Green policies--it's all a perpetual cycle of publicity that will excite the grassroots level, that means the Greens have at least a few months or so to keep climbing in the polls, and possibly overtake UKIP.

    I believe that is David Cameron's strategy to see the Greens harm labor at least as much as UKIP harms Tories. It isn't a feasible strategy for him to avoid the debates, but it is masterful to boost the Greens in the way he has.


    That's a delicious post, Edwardian, and it made me smile, but sadly the truth is far simpler.

    Dave doesn't want to debate. He hopes the strategy will get him out of it. It may work or not, but that's what he's trying to do.

    I have a more significant question for you. How the f*ck did the Packers manage to throw away last nite's game?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    AndyJS said:

    A bit harsh given that a lot of the rape victims would have been too young to have supported the Nazis in elections in the 1930s.

    Indeed. We're unfortunately hard-wired to think in terms of group guilt and retribution, but the higher part of our brains must always remember that we're all individuals, and guilty only for our own sins. Whatever we think of any group, we must always remember not to use those views to judge individual people before we get to know them.

  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 5,171
    kle4 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Interesting tidbit on the Lib Dems' low expectations:

    The Lib Dems currently have 56 seats (the 57th, Mike Hancock, had the whip withdrawn last year), and this election forecast suggests they’ll end up with 27. The sense in the party is that this will be just about OK, but go much lower than 25 and Clegg’s in real trouble.
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/why-is-nick-clegg-so-happy/

    It comes to something when losing more than half of your seats is "just about OK"...
    Quite. I'd have thought losing half their seats is worse than they would have predicted even 18 months ago, and that in the range of low 30s was where they hoped to be, but their ability to soldier on, either resigned to their fate and showing plucky bravado or genuinely seeing a silver lining for the party, is impressive in a way.

    I am quietly confident we (the LDs) will get more seats than we got in 1992, and the Tories will get fewer than in 1992.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,292
    Edwardian said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Flightpath, the media has a duty of objectivity.

    Mr. Edwardian, you're very welcome. Are you an American, or just visiting?

    Sometimes polls change for no apparent reason. Ashcroft's do seem quite bouncy.



    This is more than just a bouncy poll. It's publicity that feeds on the perceived unfairness that the Greens are not included in the debates (not my view).

    The Greens have been steadily rising with minimal publicity from the ground up. Now we are entering a cycle of a Green polling boost that means it is considered more unfair by those who are sympathetic to the Greens, leading to more publicity, leading to more support,...

    An interesting idea - I think you may be right. The noticeable rise of the Greens in polling in this past year has been pretty inexplicable to me, as all the reasons for people to support the Greens were in place in previous years to no effect, and as you say the rise has come with minimal publicity. Perhaps a flash in the pan sort of rise, but it prepares the ground in a way which means they could get lucky with events, as they are perhaps doing now. I very much hope they can sustain it for the GE; while it is not likely to earn them any additional MPs, presuming they hold onto their current one, it could provide the ground for a more substantial rise in the coming years like with UKIP (who a year ago looked unlikely to figure as much as they have), and have more mass appeal, which to be frank I'd never thought was a goal of theirs.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited January 2015
    you know that Farage tweet of 500 people but counted as 92.... doing my 'where's wally' on it, I think Mark Reckless is slap bang in the middle of them. not the wonky picture but the one with the empty background. Who else is sad enough to look to see if I'm right?

    If so, surely payroll doesn't count?

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    kle4 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Interesting tidbit on the Lib Dems' low expectations:

    The Lib Dems currently have 56 seats (the 57th, Mike Hancock, had the whip withdrawn last year), and this election forecast suggests they’ll end up with 27. The sense in the party is that this will be just about OK, but go much lower than 25 and Clegg’s in real trouble.
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/why-is-nick-clegg-so-happy/

    It comes to something when losing more than half of your seats is "just about OK"...
    Quite. I'd have thought losing half their seats is worse than they would have predicted even 18 months ago, and that in the range of low 30s was where they hoped to be, but their ability to soldier on, either resigned to their fate and showing plucky bravado or genuinely seeing a silver lining for the party, is impressive in a way.

    Does anybody believe Nick Clegg has a chance of lasting more than a few weeks after the election? The worry for the Lib Dems is that they all think Tim Farron will be the left-leaning guy to replace him, and will solve all their issues. But Tim Farron, despite being ideologically in a better place for their electoral strategies, is highly overrated. It could be Gordon Brown all over again.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,393
    SeanT said:

    Fenster said:

    @SeanT

    Yeah, Berlin is a formidable book. I'm interested in the machinations and madness of the leading Nazis so their demise has made the book more intriguing than Stalingrad.

    I wasn't expecting to come away with such sympathy for the ordinary Germans and the Wermacht. The heroism and sacrifice (Wenck, Busse) is astonishing to read about. In stark contrast to the hateful cowardice of the likes of Himmler and the zealous inhumanity of the SS.

    A nice titbit too about the NKVD concerns when the Soviet soldiers kept discovering stocked larders in the Silesian German homes. Under communism they'd never seen a packed larder before, and the NKVD were worried they'd discover communism for the bone-headed ideology that it is.

    Harrowing book though. Makes you want to cwtch your kids that little bit tighter, and be thankful for the times we live in.

    In contrast, I felt no sympathy for the Germans at the end of that book. They sowed a poisonous wind, and reaped a calamitous whirlwind.

    Heartless as it may seem, the gangrape of maybe a million German women by Red Army soldiers seemed like condign and justified retribution, given that the Nazis casually slaughtered 20 million Soviet citizens in the preceding years. I was practically cheering the Russians on, as they kicked their way through the cellar doors of Berlin.

    That is pretty much the view among Russians, who were not at all happy with Beevor's book.

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited January 2015
    Peter_the_Punter said:

    Hey, is that a rosette that Ratty is wearing? Surely he hasn't gone partisan?

    Nicely drawn toon. Have the impression Marf enjoyed doing it.

    Yes Peter, if you look hard you can just see that lovely shade of purple on the rosette.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    LOL Hattie upset at Obama for saying economy is improving

    Thanks to George Osborne's wonderful stewardship of the economy :-)
    Such obvious trolling TSE , you could be Mark Reckless.
    That's a low blow.

    Lower than dwarf felatio.
    Wow... that's harsh!
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,791
    MikeK said:

    Peter_the_Punter said:

    Hey, is that a rosette that Ratty is wearing? Surely he hasn't gone partisan?

    Nicely drawn toon. Have the impression Marf enjoyed doing it.

    Yes Peter, if you look hard you can just see that lovely shade of purple on the rosette.
    Hmmm....that's kind of strange, Mike. Somehow I've always associated rats with ships that were sinking.
  • Steven_WhaleySteven_Whaley Posts: 313
    Peter_the_Punter said:

    Hey, is that a rosette that Ratty is wearing? Surely he hasn't gone partisan?

    Nicely drawn toon. Have the impression Marf enjoyed doing it.

    I can't even find Ratty in the cartoon - let alone a rosette. Can someone give me a clue?

  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,791
    Steven_Whaley said:

    Peter_the_Punter said:

    Hey, is that a rosette that Ratty is wearing? Surely he hasn't gone partisan?

    Nicely drawn toon. Have the impression Marf enjoyed doing it.

    I can't even find Ratty in the cartoon - let alone a rosette. Can someone give me a clue?

    On street lamp.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,292
    No_Offence_Alan said:

    kle4 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Interesting tidbit on the Lib Dems' low expectations:

    The Lib Dems currently have 56 seats (the 57th, Mike Hancock, had the whip withdrawn last year), and this election forecast suggests they’ll end up with 27. The sense in the party is that this will be just about OK, but go much lower than 25 and Clegg’s in real trouble.
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/why-is-nick-clegg-so-happy/

    It comes to something when losing more than half of your seats is "just about OK"...
    Quite. I'd have thought losing half their seats is worse than they would have predicted even 18 months ago, and that in the range of low 30s was where they hoped to be, but their ability to soldier on, either resigned to their fate and showing plucky bravado or genuinely seeing a silver lining for the party, is impressive in a way.
    I am quietly confident we (the LDs) will get more seats than we got in 1992, and the Tories will get fewer than in 1992.
    Sounds plausible, but excluding some rapid exit from toxicity for the LDs (possible depending on circumstance, although the Tories though favoured in many places are near universally still still seen as toxic in far too many areas for their ambitions), surely you had hoped they had only been set back 10-15 years, not 20-25. I'd have thought the percentage drop in the vote would not lead to too bad a situation for them, but it's gotten so low that even high estimates now will see some ghastly returns in places.

    Regrettable, as a strong third party seems useful to me, but with their regional ambitions I'm not sure how useful the SNP being that third party will be.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,842
    Mr. T, would he? I could be wrong, but I thought Hitler decided against using chemical weapons, even though they were stockpiled and could have been deployed.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4615185,00.html

    Kibbutzniks who fled Hitler welcome 100th great-grandchild
  • isamisam Posts: 42,333
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    you know that Farage tweet of 500 people but counted as 92.... doing my 'where's wally' on it, I think Mark Reckless is slap bang in the middle of them. not the wonky picture but the one with the empty background. Who else is sad enough to look to see if I'm right?

    If so, surely payroll doesn't count?

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage

    Seems to me that there are more than 92 but less than 500 there.. what do you think the significance will be if there are less than 500?

    We know the reason for the slightly poor turnout anyway.. Peak Kipper VIII was declared on Saturday Night, and there was a huge knees up to celebrate another end of an era.. many people were too hungover to attend

    (There are other Kippers other than Reckless in that photo btw...)
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Two figures that would be interesting to see each time a poll is published:

    (a) The percentage of white working-class men over 50 supporting UKIP.
    (b) The percentage of middle-class women under 40 supporting the Greens.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,021
    Peter_the_Punter said:

    Steven_Whaley said:

    Peter_the_Punter said:

    Hey, is that a rosette that Ratty is wearing? Surely he hasn't gone partisan?

    Nicely drawn toon. Have the impression Marf enjoyed doing it.

    I can't even find Ratty in the cartoon - let alone a rosette. Can someone give me a clue?

    On street lamp.
    That's a bird, surely?

  • Steven_WhaleySteven_Whaley Posts: 313
    Peter_the_Punter said:

    Steven_Whaley said:

    Peter_the_Punter said:

    Hey, is that a rosette that Ratty is wearing? Surely he hasn't gone partisan?

    Nicely drawn toon. Have the impression Marf enjoyed doing it.

    I can't even find Ratty in the cartoon - let alone a rosette. Can someone give me a clue?

    On street lamp.
    Oh, OK, thanks. I thought that was a bird?

  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited January 2015
    RIP Deirdre (Anne Kirkbride)

    Not watched for years but grew up with her on Corrie when my gran and mum always had it on...
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,791
    Steven_Whaley said:

    Peter_the_Punter said:

    Steven_Whaley said:

    Peter_the_Punter said:

    Hey, is that a rosette that Ratty is wearing? Surely he hasn't gone partisan?

    Nicely drawn toon. Have the impression Marf enjoyed doing it.

    I can't even find Ratty in the cartoon - let alone a rosette. Can someone give me a clue?

    On street lamp.
    Oh, OK, thanks. I thought that was a bird?

    Lol! It is.

    Looking at it on a small screen version earlier I took it to be ratty wearing a rosette. Now on a bigger screen I can see it is in fact a bird. My apologies to you, and of course Marf.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited January 2015
    isam said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    you know that Farage tweet of 500 people but counted as 92.... doing my 'where's wally' on it, I think Mark Reckless is slap bang in the middle of them. not the wonky picture but the one with the empty background. Who else is sad enough to look to see if I'm right?

    If so, surely payroll doesn't count?

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage

    Seems to me that there are more than 92 but less than 500 there.. what do you think the significance will be if there are less than 500?

    We know the reason for the slightly poor turnout anyway.. Peak Kipper VIII was declared on Saturday Night, and there was a huge knees up to celebrate another end of an era.. many people were too hungover to attend

    (There are other Kippers other than Reckless in that photo btw...)
    That's 2 of us who are sad enough! Suggests to me that he could be the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour/UKIP coalition nightmare Govt.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,333
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    isam said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    you know that Farage tweet of 500 people but counted as 92.... doing my 'where's wally' on it, I think Mark Reckless is slap bang in the middle of them. not the wonky picture but the one with the empty background. Who else is sad enough to look to see if I'm right?

    If so, surely payroll doesn't count?

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage

    Seems to me that there are more than 92 but less than 500 there.. what do you think the significance will be if there are less than 500?

    We know the reason for the slightly poor turnout anyway.. Peak Kipper VIII was declared on Saturday Night, and there was a huge knees up to celebrate another end of an era.. many people were too hungover to attend

    (There are other Kippers other than Reckless in that photo btw...)
    That's 2 of us who are sad enough!
    Oh yes! How could I claim otherwise with nearly12,000 posts?!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,842
    Mr. T, alas, it's one of those nuggets of information that's in my head and I have no idea from whence I mined it.

    Also, a better known example of restraint is when he had the pursuit of the Allies, busy fleeing to Dunkirk, halt for 24 hours.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,393
    SeanT said:

    Sean_F said:

    SeanT said:

    Fenster said:

    @SeanT

    Yeah, Berlin is a formidable book. I'm interested in the machinations and madness of the leading Nazis so their demise has made the book more intriguing than Stalingrad.

    I wasn't expecting to come away with such sympathy for the ordinary Germans and the Wermacht. The heroism and sacrifice (Wenck, Busse) is astonishing to read about. In stark contrast to the hateful cowardice of the likes of Himmler and the zealous inhumanity of the SS.

    A nice titbit too about the NKVD concerns when the Soviet soldiers kept discovering stocked larders in the Silesian German homes. Under communism they'd never seen a packed larder before, and the NKVD were worried they'd discover communism for the bone-headed ideology that it is.

    Harrowing book though. Makes you want to cwtch your kids that little bit tighter, and be thankful for the times we live in.

    In contrast, I felt no sympathy for the Germans at the end of that book. They sowed a poisonous wind, and reaped a calamitous whirlwind.

    Heartless as it may seem, the gangrape of maybe a million German women by Red Army soldiers seemed like condign and justified retribution, given that the Nazis casually slaughtered 20 million Soviet citizens in the preceding years. I was practically cheering the Russians on, as they kicked their way through the cellar doors of Berlin.

    That is pretty much the view among Russians, who were not at all happy with Beevor's book.

    I'm surprised at that. I didn't feel Beevor's book was pro-German at all. It was horrific, but pragmatic. It told you what the Red Army did, but it gave you plenty of reasons why they did it, and why they were so understandably angry.

    Post 1945 I believe there was a serious discussion, amongst Allied boffins, as to whether all German males should be sterilised, as they were terminally warlike. That gives a flavour of the inflamed feelings of the time. Not just in Russia.
    I didn't think it was pro-German either, but many Russians thought he placed far too much stress on atrocities committed by the Red Army.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,292
    I note on the front page of the BBC it declares 'PM Cameron defends letter to mosques' - is that the usual form of address they use for Cameron? Maybe it is, but for some reason I thought it weird it doesn't just say 'PM defends letter to mosques'. Being all lefties of course, perhaps they are mentally already acting as though Ed M is occupying Downing Street and needed to put Cameron's name in to remind themselves.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "More surprisingly, Adolf Hitler too refrained from the use of chemical weapons in war"

    http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21584397-how-whole-class-weaponry-came-be-seen-indecent-shadow-ypres
    SeanT said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. T, would he? I could be wrong, but I thought Hitler decided against using chemical weapons, even though they were stockpiled and could have been deployed.

    I'd welcome a link. The idea that Hitler exercised moral restraint is quite delicious. He was happy to kill anyone, anywhere, anyhow, if it furthered his cause, and - therefore - the cause of the German people.

    He may have preferred to slaughter subhumans (Jews, Slavs, Gypsies) over decadent Judaised Aryan cousins (English, French, most Americans) but he was still quite eager to slaughter all of them, if necessary. As far as I know.

  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    isam said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    isam said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    you know that Farage tweet of 500 people but counted as 92.... doing my 'where's wally' on it, I think Mark Reckless is slap bang in the middle of them. not the wonky picture but the one with the empty background. Who else is sad enough to look to see if I'm right?

    If so, surely payroll doesn't count?

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage

    Seems to me that there are more than 92 but less than 500 there.. what do you think the significance will be if there are less than 500?

    We know the reason for the slightly poor turnout anyway.. Peak Kipper VIII was declared on Saturday Night, and there was a huge knees up to celebrate another end of an era.. many people were too hungover to attend

    (There are other Kippers other than Reckless in that photo btw...)
    That's 2 of us who are sad enough!
    Oh yes! How could I claim otherwise with nearly12,000 posts?!
    and yet you've failed to mention latvian homophobes, fops and red faced toffs albeit you've picked up an unhealthy love of evens..... must try harder if you want to pick up the PB 'hairy hands syndrome'.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,842
    Mr. JS, thanks :)

    I do occasionally get even stuff I'm confident about wrong (I confused Flavius Phocas for the first Nicephorus Phocas, like an utter fool, the other day), so it's nice to have it confirmed.
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    SeanT said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. T, would he? I could be wrong, but I thought Hitler decided against using chemical weapons, even though they were stockpiled and could have been deployed.

    I'd welcome a link. The idea that Hitler exercised moral restraint is quite delicious. He was happy to kill anyone, anywhere, anyhow, if it furthered his cause, and - therefore - the cause of the German people.

    He may have preferred to slaughter subhumans (Jews, Slavs, Gypsies) over decadent Judaised Aryan cousins (English, French, most Americans) but he was still quite eager to slaughter all of them, if necessary. As far as I know.

    ISTVR on one of the many WW2 docs on the telly that getting gassed himself in WW1 put AH off using them.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    SeanT said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. T, would he? I could be wrong, but I thought Hitler decided against using chemical weapons, even though they were stockpiled and could have been deployed.

    I'd welcome a link. The idea that Hitler exercised moral restraint is quite delicious. He was happy to kill anyone, anywhere, anyhow, if it furthered his cause, and - therefore - the cause of the German people.

    He may have preferred to slaughter subhumans (Jews, Slavs, Gypsies) over decadent Judaised Aryan cousins (English, French, most Americans) but he was still quite eager to slaughter all of them, if necessary. As far as I know.

    There is some evidence that the Nazis used poison gas against the Soviets in the Crimea in 1942 at Sevastapol and Kherson.

    I suspect that Hitler (and other psychos) avoided gas is that gas does not work well in war of movement, as the equipment for protection and decontamination prevents mobility. The main reason Gas has not been used much is that it is a pretty poor weapon.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Socrates said:

    What an embarrassing attempt at journalism:

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/19/-sp-thousands-britons-claim-benefits-eu

    Twice as many EU migrants claim benefits here as Brits in the EU, and this is reported as "Thousands of Britons claiming benefits in the EU". It was the same with the study that showed immigration cost the UK £117bn, and they reported a subset where the numbers were favourable.

    God, the pro-EU types are a joke. Completely devoid of facts.

    It seems to say that 2.5% of Britons living abroad claim unemployment benefits and about 2.5% of immigrants do the same here.
    Pointedly the article says how much more difficult it is to claim benefits in Germany compared to here - a lesson for all of us.
    None of this has anything to do with so called 'benefits tourism' - if it exists - which is wrong.

    The FT says
    ''The number of European migrants in the UK is almost exactly balanced by the number of Britons living elsewhere in the EU, according to official figures.''

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16643677

    Scott Blinder of Oxford University's Migration Observatory says ... ''the report itself clearly identifies that migrants are substantially less likely to claim benefits that the UK-born population. ... the report lumps together all 'migrants' including British citizens who were born abroad - and who clearly have the same rights to benefits as all other British citizens - and migrants who have no legal claim to be in the UK at all'.

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited January 2015
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. T, alas, it's one of those nuggets of information that's in my head and I have no idea from whence I mined it.

    Also, a better known example of restraint is when he had the pursuit of the Allies, busy fleeing to Dunkirk, halt for 24 hours.

    Hitler did indeed use chemical weapons, only he used it in the concentration and extermination camps in the form of Zyklon B, to gas the Jews and other sundry untermenschen.
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    @SeanT & Sean F

    Beevor makes the point (I think in the notes) that the Russians were a bit pissed off at such attention being brought to their raping and torturing, but that the book should almost be seen as a to Stalingrad, in which Beevor is equally as unforgiving in his account of Nazi atrocities.

    Regarding the jockeying for power, yep, quite bizarre. The chancellery is literally being bombed to smithereens and Bormann, Himmler and Goring are more interested in petty jealousies than they are the death of their country. Sean must be right about the drugs. They must've been on some good shit.

    Himmler comes out as a peculiarly alien entity. Driving past emaciated, injured soldiers in his open backed Mercedes without even acknowledging them. Having just organised a meeting with a Jew (a Jew! The irony) to broker a peace deal with the Americans which would put him in power. Bananas.

    I want whatever he was jacking.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    The Greens are good fun until they become a pain in the neck ! It would be good to check out where their support is coming from in GE2010.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,842
    Mr. K, indeed, I meant (although didn't specify) on the battlefield.

    It really wasn't so very long ago. And not dissimilar things are occurring right now in North Korea.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,333
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    isam said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    isam said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    you know that Farage tweet of 500 people but counted as 92.... doing my 'where's wally' on it, I think Mark Reckless is slap bang in the middle of them. not the wonky picture but the one with the empty background. Who else is sad enough to look to see if I'm right?

    If so, surely payroll doesn't count?

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage

    Seems to me that there are more than 92 but less than 500 there.. what do you think the significance will be if there are less than 500?

    We know the reason for the slightly poor turnout anyway.. Peak Kipper VIII was declared on Saturday Night, and there was a huge knees up to celebrate another end of an era.. many people were too hungover to attend

    (There are other Kippers other than Reckless in that photo btw...)
    That's 2 of us who are sad enough!
    Oh yes! How could I claim otherwise with nearly12,000 posts?!
    and yet you've failed to mention latvian homophobes, fops and red faced toffs albeit you've picked up an unhealthy love of evens..... must try harder if you want to pick up the PB 'hairy hands syndrome'.
    I also don't say "LibLabCon" or "PB Tory".. and as a betting trader it is almost instinct to challenge any bullshit with a bet, even in real life!
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,325
    edited January 2015
    Fenster said:

    @SeanT & Sean F

    I want whatever he was jacking.

    Dr Morrell was on hand to deliver plenty of interesting drugs.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401242/Hitler-drug-addict-Fuhrer-used-cocktail-drugs-make-Nazi-superman.html


  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    kle4 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Interesting tidbit on the Lib Dems' low expectations:

    The Lib Dems currently have 56 seats (the 57th, Mike Hancock, had the whip withdrawn last year), and this election forecast suggests they’ll end up with 27. The sense in the party is that this will be just about OK, but go much lower than 25 and Clegg’s in real trouble.
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/why-is-nick-clegg-so-happy/

    It comes to something when losing more than half of your seats is "just about OK"...
    Quite. I'd have thought losing half their seats is worse than they would have predicted even 18 months ago, and that in the range of low 30s was where they hoped to be, but their ability to soldier on, either resigned to their fate and showing plucky bravado or genuinely seeing a silver lining for the party, is impressive in a way.

    Barely six months back many LDs were confidently predicting that whatever the polls said their resilience will get them 40 seats. My arse ! Numbers are numbers. I am also saying they will get about 27 but really statistically they are currently looking at about 22.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    foxinsoxuk said:

    SeanT said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. T, would he? I could be wrong, but I thought Hitler decided against using chemical weapons, even though they were stockpiled and could have been deployed.

    I'd welcome a link. The idea that Hitler exercised moral restraint is quite delicious. He was happy to kill anyone, anywhere, anyhow, if it furthered his cause, and - therefore - the cause of the German people.

    He may have preferred to slaughter subhumans (Jews, Slavs, Gypsies) over decadent Judaised Aryan cousins (English, French, most Americans) but he was still quite eager to slaughter all of them, if necessary. As far as I know.

    There is some evidence that the Nazis used poison gas against the Soviets in the Crimea in 1942 at Sevastapol and Kherson.

    I suspect that Hitler (and other psychos) avoided gas is that gas does not work well in war of movement, as the equipment for protection and decontamination prevents mobility. The main reason Gas has not been used much is that it is a pretty poor weapon.
    I think you hit the nail on the head. Even in WW1 it had its limitations. We found it useful to suppress artillery batteries once we could hit them by map reference. But once movement returned in the last 100 days then it was less useful.
    German (Waffen SS) restraint did not stop them murdering British prisoners even in May 1940.
    Hitlers only restraint was in not putting his signature to any of it all.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,842
    Mr. Surbiton, if the Lib Dems lose about 30 seats, will that mostly benefit the Conservatives and SNP?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,966
    Anne Kirkbride ‏@AnneKirkbrideUK 4m4 minutes ago
    RIP Anne Kirkbride. 1955-2015
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Fenster said:

    @SeanT & Sean F

    Beevor makes the point (I think in the notes) that the Russians were a bit pissed off at such attention being brought to their raping and torturing, but that the book should almost be seen as a to Stalingrad, in which Beevor is equally as unforgiving in his account of Nazi atrocities.

    Regarding the jockeying for power, yep, quite bizarre. The chancellery is literally being bombed to smithereens and Bormann, Himmler and Goring are more interested in petty jealousies than they are the death of their country. Sean must be right about the drugs. They must've been on some good shit.

    Himmler comes out as a peculiarly alien entity. Driving past emaciated, injured soldiers in his open backed Mercedes without even acknowledging them. Having just organised a meeting with a Jew (a Jew! The irony) to broker a peace deal with the Americans which would put him in power. Bananas.

    I want whatever he was jacking.

    Is it Beevor who has the mind-boggling story that the Germans decided to leave stocks of drink intact as they retreated before the Russians because it would make them more mellow and peaceable?

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,996
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Surbiton, if the Lib Dems lose about 30 seats, will that mostly benefit the Conservatives and SNP?

    Labour, SNP and Cons could all take a broadly similiar number of Lib Dem seats.

    Labour 12, Cons 11, SNP 10 by my reckoning or some such.
  • EdwardianEdwardian Posts: 20
    Peter_the_Punter said:

    Edwardian said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Flightpath, the media has a duty of objectivity.

    Mr. Edwardian, you're very welcome. Are you an American, or just visiting?

    Sometimes polls change for no apparent reason. Ashcroft's do seem quite bouncy.

    I'm a Brit living in the States. One of the things about America that I find sickening:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11338985/Fox-News-terror-expert-says-everyone-in-Birmingham-is-a-Muslim.html

    This is more than just a bouncy poll. It's publicity that feeds on the perceived unfairness that the Greens are not included in the debates (not my view).

    The Greens have been steadily rising with minimal publicity from the ground up. Now we are entering a cycle of a Green polling boost that means it is considered more unfair by those who are sympathetic to the Greens, leading to more publicity, leading to more support, coinciding with the announcement that the Greens have more members than Lib Dems, leading to higher polling, leading to even more Green members, leading to over 300,000 signing the Green debate petition, leading to more Greens, leading to more pressure for the powers that be to accept the Greens in the debates, leading to a yes decision, leading to more publicity. Don't worry too much about the actual Green policies--it's all a perpetual cycle of publicity that will excite the grassroots level, that means the Greens have at least a few months or so to keep climbing in the polls, and possibly overtake UKIP.

    I believe that is David Cameron's strategy to see the Greens harm labor at least as much as UKIP harms Tories. It isn't a feasible strategy for him to avoid the debates, but it is masterful to boost the Greens in the way he has.


    That's a delicious post, Edwardian, and it made me smile, but sadly the truth is far simpler.

    Dave doesn't want to debate. He hopes the strategy will get him out of it. It may work or not, but that's what he's trying to do.

    I have a more significant question for you. How the f*ck did the Packers manage to throw away last nite's game?
    I think the idea that Cameron could simply sit out the debates without serious damage is fantastical. It may be his desire to avoid the debates. I am sure he has a far lower opinion of UKIP than Labor and would hate to debate with Farage gurning at him, but I don't see how that was ever his intention. The argument that he has more to lose by underperforming at the debates is far outweighed by leaving UKIP and Labor to make their attacks on the Tories without any defence at all, and to be accused of cowardice.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    @Tom_Fowdy pic.twitter.com/UCf4l2mnBf

    — Thomas Evans (@ThomasEvansUKIP) January 19, 2015
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    edited January 2015
    Peter the Punter says -- ''Dave doesn't want to debate. He hopes the strategy will get him out of it. It may work or not, but that's what he's trying to do.''

    Maybe but you clearly don't know. The fact is it would be daft to let himself be set up against 1 set of minority extremists (without a fight) when the other lefty set of minority extremists would be after the votes of both Labour and LDs.
    The Greens - who strike me as a classic protest party, barmy policies but safe because they will never get elected - are as big a danger to the LDs as Labour since any former LDs thinking of 're-defecting' back from Labour may well streak past and go straight to Greens. In response the LDs are in every way trying to show that really the idea of actually governing and trying to do something was a big mistake - but why should that work and indeed it pulls the rug from under their other flank.

    PS
    I don't want 'Dave' to debate either - even though there are another 2 debates not included in this particular controversy. I do not want any debates full stop. They are a total distorting alien concept to our elections. I do not care who why when or where they benefit.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,393
    SeanT said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Fenster said:

    @SeanT & Sean F

    Beevor makes the point (I think in the notes) that the Russians were a bit pissed off at such attention being brought to their raping and torturing, but that the book should almost be seen as a to Stalingrad, in which Beevor is equally as unforgiving in his account of Nazi atrocities.

    Regarding the jockeying for power, yep, quite bizarre. The chancellery is literally being bombed to smithereens and Bormann, Himmler and Goring are more interested in petty jealousies than they are the death of their country. Sean must be right about the drugs. They must've been on some good shit.

    Himmler comes out as a peculiarly alien entity. Driving past emaciated, injured soldiers in his open backed Mercedes without even acknowledging them. Having just organised a meeting with a Jew (a Jew! The irony) to broker a peace deal with the Americans which would put him in power. Bananas.

    I want whatever he was jacking.

    Is it Beevor who has the mind-boggling story that the Germans decided to leave stocks of drink intact as they retreated before the Russians because it would make them more mellow and peaceable?

    In my quite extensive experience, a Russian with access to vodka is a happier person than a Russian without.

    My GF is the same with cannabis. It medicates.

    And I confess I am probably the same with red wine.

    *pops cork*
    In the Peninsular war, it was common for French units in retreat to leave tempting canteens of wine and brandy on the road, well knowing the British soldiers would find them irresistible.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited January 2015
    LOL

    I still recall the infamous Shelter report that told many of us we were homeless as children. And @Morris_Dancer‌ doesn't have a bedroom now. And we never noticed.

    I love this absurd stuff.
    TGOHF said:

    AndyJS said:

    O/T:

    Apparently anyone earning £20K a year is automatically a member of the global 1%.

    Should you hand yourself in to the local Oxfam ?

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,514
    SeanT said:

    AndyJS said:

    "More surprisingly, Adolf Hitler too refrained from the use of chemical weapons in war"

    http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21584397-how-whole-class-weaponry-came-be-seen-indecent-shadow-ypres

    SeanT said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. T, would he? I could be wrong, but I thought Hitler decided against using chemical weapons, even though they were stockpiled and could have been deployed.

    I'd welcome a link. The idea that Hitler exercised moral restraint is quite delicious. He was happy to kill anyone, anywhere, anyhow, if it furthered his cause, and - therefore - the cause of the German people.

    He may have preferred to slaughter subhumans (Jews, Slavs, Gypsies) over decadent Judaised Aryan cousins (English, French, most Americans) but he was still quite eager to slaughter all of them, if necessary. As far as I know.

    Hmm. I'm still unconvinced (though thanks for the link!). I am pretty sure Hitler would have happily used chem weapons against anyone if he believed it assisted his war aims (i.e. win the war). He was quite keen, for instance, to send new and unprecedented secret weapons, like the V2, hurtling into civilian London. Why baulk at a bit of mustard on top?

    More likely, he felt he could win the war, at first, without using them (and risking nasty retaliation), and then, when he was losing, the weapons were irrelevant (because they weren't that effective in total war).
    I wonder if this is just one of those decisions based upon personal experience rather than some sort of logic. I assume that having fought in WW1 he had been exposed first hand to the effects of chemical weapons and perhaps he differentiated between them and other non conventional weapons. Mind you, worth remembering that whilst he may have baulked at using them on enemy troops or civilians he had no such qualms about their use in concentration camps.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    The Times does excellent opinion pieces. Apart from Tim Monty who uses his editorial position to bully pulpit his. Shame as otherwise he's pretty good in that job.
    SeanT said:

    Socrates said:

    What an embarrassing attempt at journalism:

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/19/-sp-thousands-britons-claim-benefits-eu

    Twice as many EU migrants claim benefits here as Brits in the EU, and this is reported as "Thousands of Britons claiming benefits in the EU". It was the same with the study that showed immigration cost the UK £117bn, and they reported a subset where the numbers were favourable.

    God, the pro-EU types are a joke. Completely devoid of facts.

    Reading that dreck was a revelation for me. It felt like the desperate, warped flailing of a dying newspaper hoping to titillate its remaining readers with some ludicrously perverted dribble, clearly bearing no relation to the facts. In other words, it felt like reading the Daily Express.

    It was the first time I've ever felt sorry for Guardian.

    I can see why editor Rusbridger is leaving next year, I can also see the stats:

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/oct/10/abc-figures-show-papers-efforts-to-stem-circulation-decline

    The Guardian isn't just in decline, it is dying. Its readership has halved in six years (and the decline has accelerated since Oct 2014), and the paper will essentially be gone by 2020, when it will become an online phenomenon, and just a more annoying version of Huffpo, about which no one cares.

    Oh, poor Polly.

    Even more annoyingly for the Groaniad, in the last few months the Times has added readers and seems to be making a success of its paywall. That's gotta hurt.

    Murdoch!

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,364
    YouGov/Sun poll tonight: Tories and Labour tied - CON 32%, LAB 32%, LD 8%, UKIP 15%, GRN 7%
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,259
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    SeanT said:

    AndyJS said:

    "More surprisingly, Adolf Hitler too refrained from the use of chemical weapons in war"

    http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21584397-how-whole-class-weaponry-came-be-seen-indecent-shadow-ypres

    SeanT said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. T, would he? I could be wrong, but I thought Hitler decided against using chemical weapons, even though they were stockpiled and could have been deployed.

    I'd welcome a link. The idea that Hitler exercised moral restraint is quite delicious. He was happy to kill anyone, anywhere, anyhow, if it furthered his cause, and - therefore - the cause of the German people.

    He may have preferred to slaughter subhumans (Jews, Slavs, Gypsies) over decadent Judaised Aryan cousins (English, French, most Americans) but he was still quite eager to slaughter all of them, if necessary. As far as I know.

    Hmm. I'm still unconvinced (though thanks for the link!). I am pretty sure Hitler would have happily used chem weapons against anyone if he believed it assisted his war aims (i.e. win the war). He was quite keen, for instance, to send new and unprecedented secret weapons, like the V2, hurtling into civilian London. Why baulk at a bit of mustard on top?

    More likely, he felt he could win the war, at first, without using them (and risking nasty retaliation), and then, when he was losing, the weapons were irrelevant (because they weren't that effective in total war).
    I wonder if this is just one of those decisions based upon personal experience rather than some sort of logic. I assume that having fought in WW1 he had been exposed first hand to the effects of chemical weapons and perhaps he differentiated between them and other non conventional weapons. Mind you, worth remembering that whilst he may have baulked at using them on enemy troops or civilians he had no such qualms about their use in concentration camps.
    Adolf was himself gassed in WWI.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Excuse me. I'm obviously descended from Helen of Troy and Apollo. And Athena and Diana just for genetic predisposition purposes. Nothing so plebian as Ghengis..
    SeanT said:

    fpt for Charles

    I read Beevor's Berlin on my first ever visit to Berlin. An amazing literary/personal experience. Highly recommended,

    As for the "being descended from William the Conqueror" or whatever crapola, of course we are all descended from him, or we can trace a cousinage thereto.

    We are all part of the great chain of being. I was physically linked to my mother by my umbilical cord, as was my sister (and my two daughters to their mothers). Those mothers were in turn physically linked to their mothers (and, thereby, their brothers, fathers, nephews, at a remove).

    Unless you believe in the (discredited) theory of multiple origins of humanity, we can, therefore, ALL physically trace a flesh-and-blood link to Julius Caesar, the Krankies, Moses, the main members of the Leeds United squad in 1975, Buddha, King David, Father Gapon, Mike Smithson, Jesus Christ, the emperor Montezuma, Gary Lineker's uncle, Genghis Khan, Lord Byron, Adam and Eve, the Prophet Mohammad, the principal musicians in Led Zeppelin, my mad great uncle David "froggy" Skewes, and Napoleon.

    Aristocracy is merely a byproduct of literacy: being able to TRACE one's lineage on paper, thus proving descent. But we are all DESCENDANTS.

  • PBModeratorPBModerator Posts: 666
    Rod, you've been told by Mike Smithson not to discuss the holocaust.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    A good day for the Tories in today's polls - perhaps they are set to edge ahead at last, or are they once again flattering to deceive?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight: Tories and Labour tied - CON 32%, LAB 32%, LD 8%, UKIP 15%, GRN 7%

    The grisly embrace continues.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I apparently exceed the national average of Belarus - most amusing. Find out yours.

    I'm not embarrassed by it - be it, own it, love it is my motto.

    bbc.co.uk/news/health-30500372
    SeanT said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Fenster said:

    @SeanT & Sean F

    Beevor makes the point (I think in the notes) that the Russians were a bit pissed off at such attention being brought to their raping and torturing, but that the book should almost be seen as a to Stalingrad, in which Beevor is equally as unforgiving in his account of Nazi atrocities.

    Regarding the jockeying for power, yep, quite bizarre. The chancellery is literally being bombed to smithereens and Bormann, Himmler and Goring are more interested in petty jealousies than they are the death of their country. Sean must be right about the drugs. They must've been on some good shit.

    Himmler comes out as a peculiarly alien entity. Driving past emaciated, injured soldiers in his open backed Mercedes without even acknowledging them. Having just organised a meeting with a Jew (a Jew! The irony) to broker a peace deal with the Americans which would put him in power. Bananas.

    I want whatever he was jacking.

    Is it Beevor who has the mind-boggling story that the Germans decided to leave stocks of drink intact as they retreated before the Russians because it would make them more mellow and peaceable?

    In my quite extensive experience, a Russian with access to vodka is a happier person than a Russian without.

    My GF is the same with cannabis. It medicates.

    And I confess I am probably the same with red wine.

    *pops cork*
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,638
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight: Tories and Labour tied - CON 32%, LAB 32%, LD 8%, UKIP 15%, GRN 7%

    Outlier! Greens in single digits :)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,172
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight: Tories and Labour tied - CON 32%, LAB 32%, LD 8%, UKIP 15%, GRN 7%

    Does anyone believe that so many random samples can really produce as many ties as we have had recently? Even if the parties are really tied there just should be more random variation.

    The adjustments made by the pollsters have taken all the fun out of this (Lord A excepted of course).
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,638
    SeanT said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Fenster said:

    @SeanT & Sean F

    Beevor makes the point (I think in the notes) that the Russians were a bit pissed off at such attention being brought to their raping and torturing, but that the book should almost be seen as a to Stalingrad, in which Beevor is equally as unforgiving in his account of Nazi atrocities.

    Regarding the jockeying for power, yep, quite bizarre. The chancellery is literally being bombed to smithereens and Bormann, Himmler and Goring are more interested in petty jealousies than they are the death of their country. Sean must be right about the drugs. They must've been on some good shit.

    Himmler comes out as a peculiarly alien entity. Driving past emaciated, injured soldiers in his open backed Mercedes without even acknowledging them. Having just organised a meeting with a Jew (a Jew! The irony) to broker a peace deal with the Americans which would put him in power. Bananas.

    I want whatever he was jacking.

    Is it Beevor who has the mind-boggling story that the Germans decided to leave stocks of drink intact as they retreated before the Russians because it would make them more mellow and peaceable?

    In my quite extensive experience, a Russian with access to vodka is a happier person than a Russian without.

    My GF is the same with cannabis. It medicates.

    And I confess I am probably the same with red wine.

    *pops cork*
    Hmmmm.... I just make do with opinion polls :)
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Everyone in the West ought to be exceedingly happy to know that an income of £25k puts you in the global top 1%, but somehow I don't think demand for anti-depression pills is going to suddenly cease tomorrow even if people were informed of this fact.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,638
    Flightpath said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    SeanT said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. T, would he? I could be wrong, but I thought Hitler decided against using chemical weapons, even though they were stockpiled and could have been deployed.

    I'd welcome a link. The idea that Hitler exercised moral restraint is quite delicious. He was happy to kill anyone, anywhere, anyhow, if it furthered his cause, and - therefore - the cause of the German people.

    He may have preferred to slaughter subhumans (Jews, Slavs, Gypsies) over decadent Judaised Aryan cousins (English, French, most Americans) but he was still quite eager to slaughter all of them, if necessary. As far as I know.

    There is some evidence that the Nazis used poison gas against the Soviets in the Crimea in 1942 at Sevastapol and Kherson.

    I suspect that Hitler (and other psychos) avoided gas is that gas does not work well in war of movement, as the equipment for protection and decontamination prevents mobility. The main reason Gas has not been used much is that it is a pretty poor weapon.
    I think you hit the nail on the head. Even in WW1 it had its limitations. We found it useful to suppress artillery batteries once we could hit them by map reference. But once movement returned in the last 100 days then it was less useful.
    German (Waffen SS) restraint did not stop them murdering British prisoners even in May 1940.
    Hitlers only restraint was in not putting his signature to any of it all.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_John_Harvey
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,364
    DavidL said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight: Tories and Labour tied - CON 32%, LAB 32%, LD 8%, UKIP 15%, GRN 7%

    Does anyone believe that so many random samples can really produce as many ties as we have had recently? Even if the parties are really tied there just should be more random variation.

    The adjustments made by the pollsters have taken all the fun out of this (Lord A excepted of course).
    I've suggested to a few pollsters they start publishing their headline figures to one decimal place.

    They've said that would imply a level of precision that doesn't exist.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,172
    Plato said:

    I apparently exceed the national average of Belarus - most amusing. Find out yours.

    I'm not embarrassed by it - be it, own it, love it is my motto.

    bbc.co.uk/news/health-30500372

    SeanT said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Fenster said:

    @SeanT & Sean F

    Beevor makes the point (I think in the notes) that the Russians were a bit pissed off at such attention being brought to their raping and torturing, but that the book should almost be seen as a to Stalingrad, in which Beevor is equally as unforgiving in his account of Nazi atrocities.

    Regarding the jockeying for power, yep, quite bizarre. The chancellery is literally being bombed to smithereens and Bormann, Himmler and Goring are more interested in petty jealousies than they are the death of their country. Sean must be right about the drugs. They must've been on some good shit.

    Himmler comes out as a peculiarly alien entity. Driving past emaciated, injured soldiers in his open backed Mercedes without even acknowledging them. Having just organised a meeting with a Jew (a Jew! The irony) to broker a peace deal with the Americans which would put him in power. Bananas.

    I want whatever he was jacking.

    Is it Beevor who has the mind-boggling story that the Germans decided to leave stocks of drink intact as they retreated before the Russians because it would make them more mellow and peaceable?

    In my quite extensive experience, a Russian with access to vodka is a happier person than a Russian without.

    My GF is the same with cannabis. It medicates.

    And I confess I am probably the same with red wine.

    *pops cork*
    I can claim to be a Kuwaiti at the moment (without the money of course) having been dry since 1st January.

    I am sorry to report absolutely no benefits from my abstinence whatsoever. It has certainly made eating duller and quite possibly me as well.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Rather odd Newsnight piece at the moment...
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025